The Club

Say what you will about Michael Brodkorb (and when I say “say what you will”, I don’t actually mean in the comment section of this post; I realize many of you really really don’t like the guy, and I get it, but that’s also not the subject of this thread; I have heard your objections and noted them)

But like Brodkorb or hate him, there’s little way around the conclusion that he was instrumental in breaking open the Grazzini-Rucki parental kidnapping case, for which Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was sentenced yesterday.   He did, in fact, the sort of thing that “journalists” used to see as their goal; telling stories – the whole stories – and comforting the afflicted by righting the wrongs against them.

Which is, of course, not what modern “journalism” is about.   Yeah, they have a political outcome in mind, naturally, at least at an institutional level – but for an awful lot of “journalists”, the biggest goal seems to be keeping their status as society’s “high priests of information” intact against the interlopers.

One of the lower high priests for the past thirty years has been Brian Lambert.  And he breaks down the “journalists’ conundrum; to hail someone who may have done one of the few notable works of actual journalism in Minnesota in recent years, or to admit that someone who “journos” regard as politically unclean (not so much for his present activities  as for his previous life as a no-holds-barred GOP operator, for which there is no statute of limitations) is not only one of them, but better at it than most of them?

Brian Lambert at the MinnPost is like most journalists, only moreso; while most Twin Cities “journalists” merely don’t have any conservatives in their daily social circles, Lambert has had an actual toe in DFL politics (he was hired to be then-Senator Mark Dayton’s press guy right in time for Dayton to leave office).

And Lambert runs down the real conundrum that Brodkorb presents the media:

The circus aspect of the [Grazzini-Rucki] case aside, the episode highlights a question asked more and more frequently as the business of news gathering fragments away from just a few major institutions and into the hands of activist citizens, people with more time and interest in a given story than traditional news organizations.

And that question is (with emphasis added by me)…:

Specifically, if Michael Brodkorb was practicing journalism by reporting steadily on the Grazzini-Rucki matter, is he then in effect a journalist entitled to First Amendment protections and collegial support afforded normal reporters?

In other words, can he go from not just a mere citizen, but a formerly very trayf one, to joining The Club?

And if so, why haven’t more journalists come to his defense in the wake of the restraining order, which among other things, he says, has left him confined to Dakota County this past week and taking calls from police for things he’s written since the order went out?

My guess – and let’s be honest, it’s more than just a guess – is because Brodkorb worked for “the bad guys”, and ate “the good guys'” lunch.

In fact, we get it in almost as many words:

Speaking for himself, Joe Spear, managing editor of the Mankato Free Press and the [Society of Professional Journalists’] current secretary, has some sympathy for Brodkorb’s predicament but agrees with the SPJ’s official decision to wait until after Thursday’s hearing before making a statement on the matter.

“It does appear [Brodkorb] was acting as a journalist, at least in some capacity. Although not in the same capacity as if he was working for the Star Tribune or another organization.

The hypocrisy is thick enough to cut with an axe.  Not only is the First Amendment not a toy reserved for people who get a check from a newspaper – it’s a right “of the people”, not “of people who work for the right organization”…

…but this is the same “Society of Professional Journalists” that gave an award to Karl Bremer, an irascible crank whose only real “journalistic” accomplishment was stalking Michele Bachman.  The award, by the way, was for…stalking Michele Bachmann.

No, I’m not exaggerating; here’s Lambo’s long-time colleague David Brauer:

Bremer uncovered stories about Bachmann that the mainstream media missed and later got around to reporting, Brauer said.

“You can argue that his pursuit of Michele Bachmann was at times obsessive and excessive, but, really, I think … we need approaches like Karl’s,” Brauer said. “We need people to remind us that journalists can be hellraisers and rabble rousers and opinionated. He added facts to the debate.”

In other words, Karl Bremer did exactly what Michael Brodkorb did – covered something the mainstream media didn’t (or, in the case of stalking Michele Bachmann, couldn’t do while maintaining an illusion of decorum).

But Bremer covered the right people, while Brodkorb largely bedeviled the “journalists’s” drinking buddies and in many cases, let’s be honest, future employers.

We wouldn’t be having this discussion if Brodkorb hadn’t switched his sights to Keith Downey.

Oh, and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.

21 thoughts on “The Club

  1. It would be interesting to know the backstory and what motivated Brodkorb to cover this case.

  2. . . . is he then in effect a journalist entitled to First Amendment protections and collegial support afforded normal reporters?

    So you have to be a professional journalist to have the right to practice your religion, peaceably assemble, and petition the government?
    How much ‘collegial’ support does Lambert offer to Ann Coulter and Michael Savage?

  3. Maybe Brodkorp isn’t respectable in mainstream journalists’ eyes because he hasn’t paid his dues?

    No, I mean literally, hasn’t paid his dues. Union members HATE scabs.

  4. Not only is the First Amendment not a toy reserved for people who get a check from a newspaper – it’s a right “of the people”, not “of people who work for the right organization”…

    The last 50 years of leftist indoctrination via the education industry is definitely paying off. This is the same ideological battle we have engaged over the 2nd Amendment. Is the right a “collective right” or an “individual right”? If its a collective right then acting without the proper “sponsorship” should not only not afford you the 1st Amendment protections, it should open you to crushing liability issues.

  5. I wonder if Brodkorb is big in this area because of the reason he was shown the door at the MNGOP. I can’t tell whether he was able to save his marriage or not, but if not, he might have a very personal reason for standing up for the rights of fathers, to put it mildly.

    But that said, well done, and may the offenders suffer some for what they’ve done.

  6. Brad; thanks, and wonderful. And all the more respect to Michael for standing up for a guy who was being shafted.

  7. The first amendment does not mention the word ‘journalists’ or ‘collegium.’
    It specifically mentions speech in the sense of words spoken. The word ‘press’ in the first amendment means a physical printing press, not some group of people. “Press” as a noun meaning a group of people who write or distribute information only goes back as far as the Civil War.

  8. Emery is right. With Brodkorb, there is always a backstory.

    His little bleg hasn’t been updated for months, which is no surprise since no politician of either party would get close to him without a hazmat suit and a lawyer. He obviously has chucked any possibility to cash in as a “political insider”. No, I think his motivation comes from something else he’s been inside lately.

    My money is on Michelle MacDonald. His story of how MacDonald just called him out of the blue to talk about an application for a seat on the SCOMN, and it evolved into discussions about Grazzini-Rucki, whom MacDonald was representing, stinks as bad as Hillary’s depends.

    Like I said earlier, he is guaranteed to fuck up sooner or later, hopefully in an alcohol related incident, and we’ll find out what he’s really been up to.

    As to his restraining order…well, who really gives a shit?

  9. As to his restraining order…well, who really gives a shit?

    Everyone who is interested in freedom should. Restricting someone from reporting on and viewing public proceedings should always be viewed with extreme suspecion and held to the highest standard of proof.

  10. Funny. Wikipedia still labels Brodkorb as a Republican activist.

    I read that interview that he gave the moron Lambo from April 2015.

    Jesus Christ! Could Mikey have kissed left wing ass any more?!

  11. Given that each courtroom has a gallery open (to a degree) to the public, this is probably not as much a 1st Amendment media issue as it is a restraining order issue; under what circumstances ought they be given? Now you don’t want to wait on “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” to issue them, but at the same time, if someone hides pertinent facts in a request for a restraining order like MacDonald and her client have, perjury charges ought to be filed.

    And it looks like MacDonald may get a chance to turn in her law license for what she’s done. Sounds good to me–and her client should get a couple more felony convictions to boot. It’s going to come closer to the hell the dad went through in this one.

    I haven’t always liked Brodkorb’s style, but the world does indeed need some “bulldogs” out there who will grab onto the truth and not let it go. Good job in this case.

  12. It ain’t his style that’s the problem, Bubba. The man is a snake.

    Rather than crediting him, we shoukd be questioning why the cops screwed up so badly

  13. The conundrum with Brodkorb is that he showed a flash of journalistic integrity on this one and only story. At the same time he started this story (blog post for the Strib actually) he was also reporting rumor and gossip from anonymous sources about the MNGOP and GOP candidates around the state.

    If being a journalist no longer requires working for a major media outlet, then the definition of journalist has to fall to the standards they use for reporting news. Standards such as requiring multiple sources, allowing people to respond to accusations, and having an editor or some level of approval before printing are all things Brodkorb routinely ignores.

  14. Dave Thul on September 22, 2016 at 7:25 pm said:
    . . .
    If being a journalist no longer requires working for a major media outlet, then the definition of journalist has to fall to the standards they use for reporting news. Standards such as requiring multiple sources, allowing people to respond to accusations, and having an editor or some level of approval before printing are all things Brodkorb routinely ignores.

    The problem with definition is that it wouldn’t cover opinion writing, and a good deal of political writing is opinion writing.

  15. Opinion writers aren’t journalists, Bento. Brodkorb is a gossip columnist. That’s all he ever was.

  16. Well, how many families has Brodkorb broken up? Last I knew, Amy Koch and Michael Brodkorb have done huge damage to their family lives, but they’re both still with their first spouses. Huge damage to two families, destroyed families zero, no?

    Now we might posit that his gossip (and that’s fair) was damaging, but it strikes me that for Brodkorb to uncover some juicy gossip that destroys a marriage, there must be underlying behavior that ought to result in divorce. In other words, it wasn’t Brodkorb that destroyed some marriages, but rather the participants–in the same way that it wasn’t the Inquirer that destroyed John Edwards’ marriage, but rather John Edwards.

    And really, I’m not totally willing to diss “gossip” journalists for a simple reason; sometimes you break big stories by listening to what people say quietly. Again, Edwards.

  17. I thought the whole point of this thread was to highlight how some people believe First Amendment rights only apply to the elite journos. Now, I have no idea who Brodkorb is, what he did or who he did. What does it matter? Does his behavior somehow disqualifies him from exercising his First Amendment right under equal protection? If it was somebody else who broke this story, I am sure comments would be considerably different. While I do not object to YOUR First Amendment rights to trash Brodkorb, you should be ashamed of yourselves for dismissing the premise of the post and focusing on the individual and putting forth excuses that you believe justify unequal protection for citizen journalists vs elite journos.

  18. JPA: yes, but it does illustrate how fragile those protections are, no? I remember posting a satirical picture of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno as if they had personally abducted Elian Gonzales from his home in Miami, and the interesting feedback I got from one coworker was that Cuban emigrees did not deserve 4th Amendment protections because they were “jerks”, or worse.

    Scariest thing was this coworker was the son of a lawyer.

    To me, the scariest thing here is that people are blindly acting as if the big deal here is whether or not Brodkorb qualifies as a media worker, ignoring both the reality of the public gallery in most courtrooms and the apparent fact of multiple instances of perjury in the affidavit requesting a protective order.

    I’ve got hope that it will end well, though, with both MacDonald and the convicted getting some more penalties for this. It’s quite striking that they thought they could get away with this with someone as tenacious and inquisitive as Brodkorb. Arschloch he may be, but a dangerous one to those who cross him.

  19. JPA,

    I thought the whole point of this thread was to highlight how some people believe First Amendment rights only apply to the elite journos.

    Right. Where “some people” = “elite” journos like MinnPost writers.

    Now, I have no idea who Brodkorb is, what he did or who he did. What does it matter? Does his behavior somehow disqualifies him from exercising his First Amendment right under equal protection?

    It should not.

    Since you don’t know Michael, I’ll give you a quick background. Michael ran a pseundonymous blog called “Minnesota Democrats Exposed” for several years. It was mostly oppo research against DFLers – and he drew a lot of blood. Eventually he was “outed” as part of a defamation suit against him (which was dismissed, but not before he had to cough up his name); he actually announced his actual identity on my show.

    I actually recruited him to be on the Northern Alliance after that; he co-hosted one our our Saturday shows for a couple years, until he took over comms in the Senate. He did some great radio. Seriously.

    While on the Senate GOP Caucus staff, he got into an affair with Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, got fired, sued the Senate GOP, got into a car accident while driving drunk…

    …and came out of the experience, depending on who you asked, either a very changed man or a mercenary with crosshairs on Keith Downey and a willingness to take a paycheck from DFL fronts (including the Strib and, now, the MinnPost).

    He also broke open a lead, himself, personally, that led law enforcement to the Grazzini-Rucki kids, who’d been kidnapped by their mom (the non-custodial parent in their exceptionally messed-up divorce) and hidden on a ranch up north for almost three years. For that, I wouldn’t care if the rest of his life he had been Charles Manson; there is no circle in hell cold enough for parental kidnappers. Kudos to Mike.

    But for purposes of this article – as I tried to establish up front – it could have been anyone, Brodkorb or me or anyone, who delivered great journalism, but is still getting sniffed at for not having that “elite” J-school degree (as PJ O’Rourke put it, for people who weren’t bright enough for the Education degree) and a history of afflicting the wrong comfortable people.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.