| You're a news reporter for a daily newspaper. So what do you do when allegations surface regarding a political candidate's past drug use and that leader's "evolution" on drug-related issues?
Post it on a blog and wait for an opposition research dump, of course. That way you can write the story both ways and try to appease everyone. Balance before truth, right fellas?
In the current story about Senate candidates Norm Coleman and Al Franken, Star-Tribune reporter Jake Sherman filed a story that ran with the headline "Senate candidates' past use of illegal substances surfaces." This is misleading for each candidate, since Norm Coleman's past as a radical campus activist is already well-known, and Sherman's piece quotes an LA Times article about Franken's past drug use -- written in 1994, fully thirteen years ago.
But for reality's sake, let's take a quick look at how the story was written. Sherman posted a quickie on The Big Question on June 27th at 3:34 PM. At 5:10 PM on the same day, Michael Brodkorb, a former Republican Party opposition researcher and recent campaign consultant for Mark Kennedy and Michele Bachmann, posted a comment identifying the LA Times quotes from 1994. At 11:06 PM, D.J Tice posted a link to Sherman's full report, which was last updated at 11:49 PM the same night.
It seems difficult to come to any other conclusion but that the Strib's political department is attempting to bounce stories into the blogosphere through The Big Question, wait for an oppo dump from the Republican Party apparatus, and write a story designed to be "balanced" instead of focusing on the original intent of Norm Kent's letter: calling Coleman out for once supporting the legalization of marijuana and now opposing it.
That does not have to be a campaign issue, but the Star-Tribune, willfully or otherwise, has let it become one. Which is more important, Stribbers? Balance and letting partisan opposition researchers make their money? Or covering the relevant facts and events as they occur thoughtfully, truthfully, and analytically?
Based on recent events, we have to wonder. |
