Institutional bias at the Argus Leader

As promised, I have tracked down many of the past writings of Patrick Lalley, currently the assistant managing editor at the Argus Leader. Lalley was promoted to that post last fall, according to a report in the November 7, 2003 edition of the AL headlined "Argus Leader's state, city editors promoted." "[T]he opportunity to move Patrick into a senior editor role...was one I just couldn't pass up," said Randell Beck, executive editor at the AL, according to the report. Previously, Lalley had served as state editor for the AL. Today, in his capacity as assistant managing editor, Lalley generally has the final say in the day-to-day operations of the AL newsroom. He decides what goes in and what stays out. In many ways, it's not news in South Dakota until Patrick Lalley says it's news.

From 1990 to 1994, Lalley served as editor of the now defunct Sioux Falls Tempest, an alternative bi-weekly publication that could be picked up for free in the lobbies of various establishments in Sioux Falls and the surrounding vicinity. What I have discovered in many of these writings lends some insight into the split-second, day-to-day decisions that are made in the chaotic atmosphere of the newsroom, and explains why these split-second decisions almost always cut in favor of liberal interests.

I am certain that Patrick Lalley is a good person, and this post I have written is intended to shed light on what sort of institution the Argus Leader is. This post is offered in the spirit of the people's right to know, because I believe that the people's right to know does not stop at the newsroom door. Unfortunately, the AL leadership takes serious issue with the public's right to know about the decisionmaking process in the newsroom, as indicated by Randell Beck's comments last summer.

Every piece of Lalley's that I cite below is a publicly available record and is fair game to analyze and discuss. (The Tempest archives can be viewed at the South Dakota State Historical Society in Pierre.) I link to the entire text of every document I cite, giving the reader the opportunity to decide for himself whether my characterizations of the document are valid. In short, this post is an attempt at media accountability. It's fair to watch the watchdogs. I am a determined critic of the AL because I want it to become the daily document it is capable of becoming, rather than to continue as the Democratic pamphlet it is widely and justifiably perceived as being.

With all of that in mind, let us turn to what I have discovered.

Patrick Lalley wrote an editorial piece for almost every edition of the Tempest during his tenure there. These pieces usually appeared on page five. Perhaps it is best to first read this semi-autobiographical piece Lalley wrote for the February 19-March 3, 1992 edition of the Tempest, in order to understand his approach to the world.

In a piece for the June 10-23, 1992 edition, Lalley wrote that his editorials "set the tone" for the Tempest. Interestingly, one of the first issues of the Tempest, dated March 1990, (when Lalley was managing editor) contains a letter from Catherine V. Piersol of Sioux Falls, a prominent Democratic activist in the state, offering her "congratulations on giving Sioux Falls an answer to the Village Voice." For those readers who are unaware, the Village Voice is an extremely liberal New York City publication, as a visit to its website can easily attest.

In a September 1990 editorial, Lalley indicated that Gary Hart was his "hero," who was "the dashing savior of the anti-Reaganites" and would "surely defeat the evil Republicans." Relevant excerpt:

Strangely, as the Persian Gulf crisis unfolded I found myself thinking back to a simpler time, a time of heroes and villains. In 1987, my hero was Gary Hart, the dashing savior of the anti-Reaganites. At that time if someone would have said Donna Rice, I would have replied, "No, I'll have the baked potato."

In the race for the Democratic nomination in the 1988 Presidential race it was rather difficult to pick out the issues. Hell, it was difficult to pick out faces let alone issues. But Hart was leading the pack. He didn't need issues, he had image. He was the most promising Democrat since Kennedy--any Kennedy--and he would surely defeat the evil Republicans. Hey, I said it was a simple time.

So the assistant managing editor of the AL has in the past glibly characterized Republicans as "evil." That's not a promising indication of objectivity in the AL newsroom. Lalley's opinions don't make him a bad person, but I think it would be difficult to believe that he can separate himself from his strongly held feelings as he makes split-second decisions in the day-to-day chaos of the newsroom.

In 1992, when Senator Tom Daschle was up for reelection, facing Republican Charlene Haar, Lalley wrote a piece profiling the candidates dated October 28-November 10, 1992. Not surprisingly, Daschle is portrayed positively in the piece, while Haar is portrayed negatively. Now that Daschle is facing a tough reelection battle in 2004, the 1992 piece is an illuminating example of what can be expected in the day-to-day decisionmaking Lalley will make as the year progresses. As I have already noted, the AL has developed a troubling pattern of ignoring negative stories about Daschle, but fully covering and following up on negative stories about Thune.

Ironically, Lalley occasionally blasted the AL during his tenure at the Tempest. Because of the Tempest's success in its niche coverage of local music and cultural events, the AL's editors decided to try their hand at competing with the Tempest, publishing a supplement to the Thursday edition of the AL named Venture. Lalley wrote the following, in a piece dated October 4-27, 1992:

You need to ask yourself who better represents your interests in this community: this tiny publication, that is basically a few well-intentioned people with a couple Macintosh computers, or the huge media conglomerate that sucks untold millions out of this community every year, with the profits earmarked for the corporate coffers in Washington D.C. or wherever it is the Gannett fortress calls home?

Lalley's commentary on the AL in a piece dated July 31-August 15, 1991 is also striking:

Since time eternal, it seems, people in Sioux Falls have been complaining about the Argus Leader, our daily newspaper.

As the largest daily in South Dakota, the Argus should elicit a certain amount of attention from the populace. But mentioning the Argus anymore is about the easiest way to receive a sneer or half-hearted "hrumph" in conversation. The paper doesn't have the best of reputations.

However, with a few exceptions, the people who complain about news coverage generally have no particulars on why they think the Argus is the worst publication they have ever seen, other than how "liberal" they are. I have news for you: they aren't as far to the left as you might think.

There are some things to keep in mind when discussing the Argus and media in general. With the exception of the Public Broadcasting System, media is a business, a big business....

Businesses need to advertise to bring in business. The voting populace needs to be informed to make decisions on issues and topics that face us. We need the media to survive as a democracy. There is a balance between what we want to know and what we should know. The Argus is the best example of that....

I think that as part of the Gannett chain of papers, they are overly influenced by the dollar and the bottom line, but that's my opinion....

Your comments, as always, are welcome, because media coverage is an issue and, like other issues, it needs to be discussed to establish what is best for the community as a whole.

The attitude reflected in that last sentence seems to have been lost on the executive editor of the AL, who only a few weeks ago complained about blogs discussing and criticizing the AL's political coverage.

Lalley does throw something of a curveball in a piece written in 1992 entitled "H. Ross Perot for President." However, when you read the content of the piece, you get a sense of what issues are important to Lalley, and his view of the issues almost always seems to cut in favor of the left. Excerpt:

On issues [Ross Perot] is as non-partisan as they come. He is pro-choice, pro-gun control, hyper-patriotic, supported the Contras and Reagan, but opposed the Gulf War.

As seen by a piece cited above, Lalley characterized himself as an "anti-Reaganite." In that aspect, he disagreed with Ross Perot's support of Reagan. In other pieces, Lalley clearly opposed the first Gulf War. So we know he agreed with Perot's sentiments on the Gulf War. I think it's fair to say that Lalley is "pro-choice" and "pro-gun control" given the revealing paragraph he writes later in the Ross Perot piece:

Voting for Bush has never been an option for me and Clinton is a political opportunist who I believe has forgotten, or perhaps never cared, about the American left and the working men and women of this country.

It seems Lalley has a soft spot for "the American left," and openly admits that voting for the first President Bush was never an option. I think it's fair to assume that if voting for the first President Bush was never an option, voting for the second President Bush is definitely not an option for Lalley, either. And there's certainly nothing wrong with that. However, Lalley's sentiments for "the American left" and Republican presidents goes a long way toward illuminating the mindset that is making the decisions about what is printed, and more importantly what is NOT printed, in the AL.

For a glimpse of Lalley's views on the first Gulf War, see this piece, dated December 1990. The piece also offers a glimpse of Lalley's liberal views on the environment.

Another issue Lalley discusses in an editorial for the Tempest dated September 16-29, 1992, is the death sentence handed down for Donald Moeller, one of the most notorious and repugnant murderers in the history of South Dakota. "Please don't kill Donald Moeller," Lalley wrote. Lalley is opposed to the death penalty, which is certainly a legitimate position to take, and one on which reasonable people can disagree. However, Lalley's position on the death penalty, like most of his positions on a swathe of issues, are not positions taken by the majority of South Dakotans.

Lalley also addresses his concern about an "ill-informed populace" with "little concern for the machinations of governmental bodies" in this piece. This concern is poignant given the AL's penchant for ignoring Tom Daschle's behind-the-scenes machinations on such issues as ethanol, or the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. As DVT has noted, such behavior at the AL is strangling democracy, by not giving voters all of the information they deserve to know. Lalley himself wrote a piece dated February 15-26, 1991 in which he declared "The free exchange of dialogue is the cornerstone of Democracy at every level." It's high time the AL put that concept into practice.

Finally, in Lalley's farewell piece dated January 26 - February 8, 1994, he made the following announcement:

In what could be construed as a sellout, I have taken a position in the mainstream media in a neighboring community. I have been critical of the mainstream for many years and I have come to the conclusion that I have an obligation to work from the inside, as it were. I'm not on some covert mission of reform but I am hopeful that my perspective will be welcomed. I intend to be fair, unbiased, truthful and tenacious.

As everyone knows, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think it's reasonable to believe that Lalley's "perspective" and his sense of "obligation to work from the inside" have outweighed his intentions to be impartial. One only need see this pattern of AL bias to come to this conclusion. As observed only a few days ago, the pattern continues.