Shattered Glass

I watched "Shattered Glass" last night, the movie about The New Republic's version of Jayson Blair. I learned a thing or two about the behavior of journalists, such as how they immediately begin taking notes when a source tells them what they are about to say is "off the record." My legal training led me to believe that "off the record" means that no written record can be made of the conversation. Silly me.

Anyway, here's Andrew Sullivan's review of "Shattered Glass." I highly recommend watching the movie.

Argus Leader shows institutional bias

Ethanol is a hugely important issue in this year's Senate race in South Dakota. Since ethanol is so important, it is illuminating to observe the coverage of the issue in the Argus Leader, the state's newspaper of record. Last fall, when the energy bill with its ethanol provisions was poised to pass in the Senate, and which the President was prepared to sign into law, the AL had a front page, above the fold, horizontally placed story with the headline "Daschle lends clout to energy bill" (Nov. 20, 2003). That is a laudatory, cheerleading headline, which goes far beyond reporting the fact that Daschle supported the energy bill, and into the realm of pamphleteering. Worse, the headline was misleading. The fact is, Daschle didn't "lend clout" to the energy bill. The National Journal quoted Democratic sources to that effect:

But Democratic senators and aides close to leadership today said Daschle feels he has done enough in announcing his support for the bill and will respect the fact that a majority of Senate Democrats strongly oppose it. "He doesn't owe [Senate Majority Leader Frist] anything," one Democratic source said today.

The energy bill ultimately failed due to a Democratic-led filibuster.

Today, when Tom Daschle's efforts to tack the ethanol amendment onto the internet tax bill failed miserably, the story about it in the Argus Leader did not make the front page, above the fold. It was relegated to a different section of the paper. There was no headline like "Daschle fails to deliver on ethanol." It seems that when Daschle succeeds, or is even on the brink of success on an important priority, it's front page news, but when Daschle fails, it's kept off the front page.

Clearly, the bias at the Argus Leader is institutional. The people making the decisions about story placement and headline writing know that what they do has a major impact on public opinion in South Dakota. Somehow, their decisions almost always cut in favor of Tom Daschle. Who makes these decisions? The editors. Who are the editors? The executive editor is Randell Beck, but the executive editor is more involved with the long-range visions and goals of the newspaper, and has less to do with the day-to-day decision-making. The managing editor and the assistant editor are involved in the day-to-day decisionmaking on things like story placement and headline writing. Interestingly, the assistant editor of the Argus Leader is a fellow by the name of Patrick Lalley, who in the early 1990's was the editor of the now defunct Sioux Falls Tempest, a free alternative weekly. I believe Lalley may have even founded the Tempest. The Tempest was known as the Sioux Falls version of the Village Voice, and advocated issues from a far-left perspective. There's certainly nothing wrong with advocating left-wing views, but there is something wrong with advocating left-wing views under the cloak of "objectivity." I'll be looking up old copies of the Tempest in the coming weeks to investigate whether Lalley has left a paper trail that might explain what's behind the institutional bias at the Argus Leader.

Sibby on a roll

Sibby is on a roll with his efforts to expose the misleading Daschle ad in the Mitchell Daily Republic that appeared recently (Daschle was taking credit for something he voted against). The MDR has now responded with an editorial. You can find more background info HERE.

Grassley didn't support Daschle ethanol amendment

Mike Madden has a report in today's edition of the Argus Leader about Tom Daschle's desperate ploy yesterday to salvage his reputation as a champion of ethanol: "Ethanol measure discarded." Excerpt:

South Dakota politics loomed large over the Senate floor Thursday. Since last summer, Daschle has featured his support for ethanol in his television ad campaign. Republicans blasted him last fall, when the energy bill failed to pass, saying the Democratic leader hadn't done enough to bring members of his caucus on board.

The Washington Post has a similar report headlined "Bid to Revive Energy Legislation Via Unrelated Bill Fails in Senate." Excerpt:

Daschle has championed ethanol both in the Senate and in his close election battle against former House member John Thune (R) in corn-producing South Dakota. Although he lost the vote on his proposal, it enabled him to blame Republicans for its failure. And he was quick to do so, accusing GOP senators of squandering an opportunity to boost the rural American economy and "send a powerful message to the Persian Gulf oil producers who are intent on driving up American gasoline prices."

No, Tom Daschle squandered an opportunity last fall, when the energy bill with the ethanol provisions only needed Senate passage to become law. (If the energy bill had passed the Senate today, it would not have passed in the House because the bill lacks a provision giving MTBE manufacturers immunity from lawsuits.) Instead of gathering two more votes from the caucus he leads, Dashle went out and signed copies of his book.

At the time, Senator Chuck Grassley, also a champion of ethanol, took Tom Daschle to the woodshed for not wielding his purported clout to pass the energy bill. It is interesting to note that Chuck Grassley did not support Tom Daschle's ethanol amendment yesterday, voting to reject the motion for cloture.

It is also interesting to note that Tom Daschle wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal last October, confidently predicting that the ethanol provision would pass on its own. That certainly didn't happen yesterday. It wasn't even close. It leads one to believe that Tom Daschle is better at empty political posturing than delivering for South Dakota.

Daschle fails to deliver on ethanol--again

DVT points to this Investor's Business Daily report headlined "Efforts to revive Senate energy legislation fall short." Excerpt:

In an odd twist earlier this week, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., sought to add an amendment to an unrelated Internet tax moratorium bill that would enact popular ethanol provisions of the energy bill that stalled out in the Senate last fall.

(Emphasis added.) As DVT notes, Daschle missed the one opportunity to get these ethanol provisions passed last fall, and instead of rounding up the last couple of votes needed, he went out to sign copies of his book.

The above photo was taken during a book signing in New York on November 10, 2003. By the way, Daschle is at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York tonight receiving an award for blocking tort reform.

It's worthwhile to flash back to a letter Tom Daschle wrote to the Wall Street Journal last October regarding ethanol. Excerpt from the letter:

You also suggest that I would abandon my opposition to drilling in the wildlife refuge in order to advance the energy bill's ethanol provision, which is supported by more than two-thirds of the Senate and President Bush. I never will make that trade, and I am confident that the ethanol provision will become law this Congress, either in the energy bill or on its own merit."

(Emphasis added.) So far, Daschle's confidence seems to have been misplaced. Perhaps it is because of this misplaced confidence that Daschle didn't bother to get the number of votes when the energy bill came within an eyelash of passing last fall, and instead went out and signed some books.

Isn't it interesting, too, that even though the ANWR provision was dropped from the energy bill, Daschle still didn't wholeheartedly lobby for its passage? Now, Tom Daschle is blaming the failure of the bill on the MBTE provisions, and those provisions have been taken out too. Still, we can't seem to get these ethanol provisions into law. It leads one to ask what kind of clout Tom Daschle supposedly has, when he can't or won't get ethanol passed into law.

Daschle selling access to lobbyists for $25,000

The Hill has a report set to appear in tomorrow's edition headlined "Meet the leader, only $25K; Senate Dems sell lobbyists access for the maximum." Excerpt:

Senate Democrats are offering lobbyists new access to Senate Democratic leaders and lawmakers in exchange for personal contributions of $25,000, the maximum amount allowed to national party fundraising committees.

Also, as DVT has noted, Daschle will be going to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City tomorrow to receive the "Law Day 2004 Award" for his efforts to block tort reform. The award is given by the New York State Trial Lawyers Association. Trial lawyers are Tom Daschle's biggest contributors. Hopefully, the Argus Leader will inform the voters of South Dakota about this event. As DVT states, tort reform is an issue ripe for debate in South Dakota, and there is a stark contrast in views between the two candidates. The story would practically write itself.

Argus Leader meets standard on Daschle story

Yesterday, I set down the standard for the Argus Leader's coverage of Tom Daschle's illegal attack phone calls. I'm happy to report that, in my estimation, Mike Madden's story headlined "Daschle telephone campaign broke law" has met the standard. The standard to compare the story to was a February 11 negative story on John Thune alleging that Thune had violated campaign laws. That story ran on the front page (1A) of the Argus Leader, contained 922 words, and used variations of the phrase "Thune broke the law" three times.

Madden's story today was published on page 1A of the AL. - Check
Madden's story today had much fewer than 922 words, but it didn't take many words to explain the Daschle violation, so it's understandable why there were fewer words. - Check
Madden's story today contained three variations of the phrase "Daschle broke the law." - Check

Madden's story meets the standard, and that's all that should be expected from the Argus Leader. I advocate hard-nosed coverage of both campaigns in this year's Senate race. Today's story by Madden is an encouraging sign that the AL is attempting to do so. Kudos to Mike Madden and the Argus Leader.

Breaking: Daschle admits his calls broke the law

KELO 1320 AM radio is reporting that the Daschle campaign is admitting that it violated campaign laws (namely the new Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) with its attack phone calls last Friday and yesterday made to practically everybody in the state. The phone calls did not have the disclaimer at the end saying "I'm Tom Daschle, and I approve of this message." All political communications are required to have this disclaimer. You can read more HERE. I'm not buying the argument that this was an "inadvertent oversight" as the Daschle camp is claiming. That they didn't tack on the disclaimer to the phone call helped the Daschle camp immensely. If people were told that Tom Daschle had approved this phone call, the whole purpose of the call would have backfired. People's ire would be directed at Tom Daschle instead of John Thune. It's unsurprising that this "oversight" cut in favor of the Daschle campaign.

The disclaimer provision is not some extremely technical and complicated part of BCRA, as the Daschle campaign is disingenuously trying to argue. The Daschle campaign has run millions of dollars of radio and television ads that have the disclaimer on them. Obviously, the campaign is very familiar with the disclaimer reqirements. Also, Tom Daschle was a huge proponent of BCRA. BCRA was one of his priorities when he was the majority leader of the Senate, and Daschle was the major force behind the passage of BCRA in the spring of 2002. It's ridiculous to argue that he would have "overlooked" the disclaimer. The disclaimer provision was a big deal when BCRA was being debated. The bottom line is that the Daschle campaign has engaged in a strategy of breaking the law in order to benefit politically.

Now it remains to be seen whether the Argus Leader will report this story in tomorrow's edition. Greg Belfrage is reporting that they will be.

On February 11th of this year, almost three months ago, the Argus Leader ran a 922-word front page story (1A) headlined "Thune spending questioned" written by Mike Madden and David Kranz. (I've discussed this story HERE.) The story was about MERE ALLEGATIONS that John Thune had broken campaign laws. In the story, variations of the phrase "Thune broke the law" were used three times. Now that Tom Daschle has ADMITTED that he broke campaign laws, will the Argus Leader use multiple variations of the phrase "Daschle broke the law" at all? Will the story be on the front page (1A) of the AL? Will it be nearly 1000 words? I think this February 11th negative story on John Thune will be a good standard to compare what the AL reports on Daschle breaking the campaign laws tomorrow.

Kudos to Greg Belfrage for doing the legwork on this story.

UPDATE: DVT has more.

DVT's analysis on Kranz

Be sure to read DVT's latest analysis of the biased reportage of David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters: "The Double Standard of Dave Kranz." The fundamental point is that Kranz can be a hard-nosed investigative journalist when it comes to covering conservatives, but he is never a hard-nosed investigative journalist when it comes to covering liberals. He should be equally hard-nosed in covering both liberal and conservative politicians.

Charlie Cook: Daschle's clout argument "moot"

Political analyst Charlie Cook has an analysis of the Daschle v. Thune race under the headline "Serious Senate Races." Excerpt:

Daschle has spent $6.4 million, and the average South Dakotan has seen about 140 Daschle ads over the last year. Yet Daschle's lead over Thune is less than 10 points. This race will be very close. It is ironic that one of the most powerful members of the Senate is the only elected incumbent now facing a really tough race.

Bombshell: Two more Kranz memos unearthed

The image to the left (click image to enlarge) is that of an ad in the Argus Leader yesterday touting David Kranz's "insights and analysis" as "a must-read for anyone." David Kranz, of course, is the dean of South Dakota political reporters. Early in his 30-year career in journalism, he seemed to have spent a lot of time with the Democrats as managing editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic in the late 1970's. SDP readers first discovered this when I unearthed the First Bombshell Memo and the Second Bombshell Memo. Last week, on Greg Belfrage's radio show, Randell Beck, executive editor of the Argus Leader, called these memos "crap." Now, my research of the Abourezk papers held here at the University of South Dakota has yielded two more memos that mention Kranz. These memos acknowledge almost in passing that Kranz is "a good Democrat" and that friendly (biased) coverage of Democrats can be expected.

You can access the first of my latest discoveries, titled "Sioux Falls Weekly Report" and dated November 13, 1976 HERE (pdf). It can be found in Box 1061 of the archive. Key excerpt:

I learned that Craig [Steensland, Abourezk's staffer in Mitchell, SD] is in better company than I thought with the Mitchell Daily Republic. In addition to Dave Kranz, the City Editor is Sheryl Crase who is another good Democrat.

(Emphasis added.) The second of my most recent discoveries was written by the above-mentioned Craig Steensland, and details a more humorous side to Kranz's involvement with the Democrats. This is a document titled "Weekly Report" and dated October 22, 1976. It can be found in Box 1022 of the archive. You can access a pdf copy of the document HERE. Key excerpt:

Spoke with Gene Oliver (Chair), young guy from Burke and appears pretty good. Kranz (Mitchell paper) Oliver, and I then went over to the Winner demo dinner. (Oliver likes to watch the go-goes in the Peacock Bar in Winner.)

(Emphasis added.) The evidence of David Kranz's long term friendly relationship with the Democrats in the state explains the complaints of his biased reportage over the ensuing years, right up to the present day.

In 1983, when Kranz left the Mitchell Daily Republic to work for the Argus Leader, he stated the following in his farewell column in the 11/3/1983 edition of the Mitchell Daily Republic:

Provoking thought is a must in a community that is searching for ways to grow. In those provacative[SIC] terms, I have heard the disatisfaction[SIC] and the allegations of bias.
Yet I do not apologize for any one position I have stood for.

In 1986, lieutenant governor Lowell Hansen wrote a piece published on the editorial page of the January 15, 1986 edition of the Argus Leader, stating the following:

Everybody has biases -- even writers -- and I understand and accept that. But Kranz goes too far.

When Kranz was the editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic, he was an unapologetic promoter of Democratic candidates for political office. During the golden years of the Democratic party in South Dakota, folks like Kneip, Jimmy Carter, and George McGovern beat a path to Kranz's door. In Mitchell, they used to have a saying: "When George McGovern sneezes, it's Dave Kranz who catches the cold."

And that's fine. Everybody is entitled to have a preference. But, when that someone has access to thousands of readers, the public deserves to know where he's coming from.

When Kranz was the city editor for the AL from 1986 to 1989, his assistant city editor was Steve Erpenbach, who in 1990 became a spokesman for the Democratic Senate candidate that year. Erpenbach is now Senator Tom Daschle's state director.

In 1990, when Kranz was managing editor of the Argus Leader, the New York Times even took note of the AL's "vituperative" coverage of Senator Larry Pressler during that year's Senate race, stating that the Democratic candidate "seemed to take his campaign script from the Argus Leader." A July 30, 1990 report in Roll Call identified Kranz as being the one responsible for the AL's treatment of Pressler:

Schieffer believes the guiding hand behind the AL's treatment of Pressler is Kranz, the managing editor, and this claim was backed up by two South Dakota reporters very familiar with the paper's operation.

In a 1997 piece for Campaigns & Elections magazine, Karl Struble, Tom Daschle's media consultant, detailed how he worked in tandem with friendly reporters in South Dakota to generate "damaging articles" on Larry Pressler during the 1996 Senate race. This pattern of cooperation was observed as recently as a few weeks ago when a pro-Daschle piece written by Kranz was sent out in a mass fund-raising e-mail by the Daschle campaign.

During a 2002 campaign event, the Johnson Senate campaign was observed handing out stickers which said "We love Dave Kranz."

In the summer of 2003, Jeff Gannon wrote a series of articles on Argus Leader bias.

As anyone can readily observe, Kranz has a rich history of bias that one can easily sort through. As the historic 2004 Senate race here in South Dakota heats up, everyone should be aware of that fact when they read anything Dave Kranz writes.