Thune's lobbying

I want to begin by saying that South Dakotans deserve to know about John Thune's lobbying activities on behalf of companies that create jobs for South Dakota, and decide if they have a problem with that. Today, the editors and reporters of the Argus Leader nimbly follow up a story about John Thune reported in yesterday's edition of Roll Call. The AL story appears on the front page, above the fold, under the headline "Candidate Thune plans to continue lobbyist job; Work helps state, he says." The story stems from a report in Roll Call yesterday headlined "Thune Will Keep Lobbying." You can find excerpts from the Roll Call story, along with analysis, at the Daschle v. Thune blog.

Isn't it interesting how quickly the turnaround time is at the Argus Leader when there's a story in a DC publication that reflects negatively on a conservative political figure in South Dakota? By the same token, a story that appears in today's edition of The Hill reflecting negatively on Tom Daschle is unlikely to be followed up by the AL tomorrow, or ever. The story in The Hill today includes a quote from a Democratic colleague to the effect that Senator Daschle doesn't let his responsibilities to South Dakota get in the way of his leadership responsibilities, as well as an indication that the Democrats are likely to pick new leaders after the election this fall. But naturally, the AL would rather not follow up a story in a DC publication that places Tom Daschle in an unfavorable light.

One can see the bias of the AL article by observing how it ends:

Hildebrand also points out that Thune is not running against Linda Daschle.

"It is certainly fair and expected that John Thune will attack Tom Daschle regularly. What will have to be asked is whether it is fair for John Thune and his friends to attack Tom Daschle's family if his family is not on the ballot."

Bob Kohn, in his book Journalistic Fraud, discusses the technique of slanting a story by giving the final word to the newspaper's political allies, under the heading "At the End of the Article--The Last Word" (pg 227):

Another common technique of slanting a story by the strategic placement of important elements is giving the final word to someone who or some fact which puts the paper's editorial views in the most favorable light. It also provides the reader with the slant that the paper would like the reader to take away after reading the story. The best place to provide the take-away is in the last word, or kicker, the last few lines of the article.

Thus, the lay reader of the AL's article comes away with the impression that criticism of Linda Daschle's lobbying is an "attack on Tom Daschle's family" by "John Thune and his friends." Even though the article is about John Thune's lobbying, John Thune's comments are not the last word. Instead, the last word is given to John Thune's opponents. And not surprisingly, we discover that David Kranz, the dean of South Dakota political reporters, "contributed" to the story.

Finally, when Steve Hildebrand talks about attacks on Linda Daschle by John Thune and his friends, is Hildebrand saying that liberal reporter Stephanie Mencimer is a friend of John Thune, in light of the fact that she wrote an article critical of Linda Daschle for the liberal Washington Monthly? Or that Slate's Timothy Noah is a friend of John Thune in light of the fact that he wrote an article critical of Linda Daschle? Or that liberal columnist and longtime Nation contributor Doug Ireland is a friend of John Thune because he wrote an article critical of Linda Daschle? Give me a break. If even liberal columnists smell something fishy, it's certainly legitimate for the Thune campaign to point it out.

South Dakotans deserve to know about Thune's lobbying activities on behalf of companies that create jobs for South Dakota, and decide if they have a problem with that. South Dakotans also deserve to know about Linda Daschle's lobbying activities on behalf of the airline industry, particularly in light of the fact that Tom Daschle pushed the airline bailout last spring (according to ABC and the LA Times), giving billions of dollars to the airline industry, and decide whether they have a problem with that.

I'm surprised that Tom Daschle's campaign wants to talk about lobbying so early in the race. But it's a good thing, because it's obvious who comes out smelling like a rose in that debate, and who doesn't.