In his recent 2,800-word essay criticizing blogs, Argus Leader editor Randell Beck assailed critics of “South Dakota’s largest and most influential newspaper, the Argus Leader, and longtime political reporter David Kranz.” Beck said that, during the last election, bloggers would twist “facts” (Beck uses quotes), engage in a "gutter-level war of words," and “manufacture evidence” to “damage the newspaper’s credibility.” To claim that someone “manufactured evidence” is a very serious charge. It turns out that the editor of the state’s “most influential newspaper” is the one who made up “facts.” Again.
When prospective US Senate candidate Neal Tapio criticized the Argus Leader’s main political reporter, Dave Kranz, for his close ties to the Democratic Party, Tapio noted that Kranz was a campaign worker for the anti-war candidacy of Senator Eugene McCarthy in 1968. This matter was noted by Dakota blogs. In his latest debunking of blog criticism, Argus editor Beck says “And that bit about Kranz working for McCarthy? It didn’t happen.” The problem is that it did.
Kranz’s December 13, 1987 Argus column is completely dedicated to reviewing how he worked for the McCarthy campaign in the crucial presidential primary in Wisconsin 20 years before:
It was the McCarthy campaign that pushed my “politically active” button for the first time. … By March of 1968, we, the residents of 1107 4th St., decided to go into action. … So five of us gathered one morning in March to make our contribution—a few days in Wisconsin ringing doorbells and making phone calls—spreading the word. … I didn’t get a grade for that mission in Marshfield[where the McCarthy campaign sent Kranz], but the Sunday night we arrive back in Brookings, President Johnson went on National television. At the close of his address he told the world: “I shall not seek, nor will I accept the nomination of my party for president of the United States.” We five cheered this announcement, hoping this would mean the end of the war. We gave ourselves A’s for forcing the hand of this powerful man.
Well, good for Kranz. He was part of the historic McCarthy insurgency of 1968. But bad for Beck, who maintained in his recent column attacking blogs for making up “facts” that Kranz had nothing to do with the McCarthy campaign.
In his recent column, Beck also says that former Senate hopeful Neal Tapio “apologized and said he regretted making the unsubstantiated accusations against the political reporter.” Again, not true. Tapio has made this very clear:
Specifically, when Randall Beck said I apologized to Dave Kranz, he is right. But he couldn't be more wrong about what the apology was about. I met with Dave and apologized to him for putting him through this. It is not in my nature to try and hurt someone. I did not, however, say that what I said was "unsubstantiated" and that I "regretted" it. That is the same as saying that what I said was lies and I wish I didn't do it. Nothing could be further from the truth. I felt then as I feel now, that it was important to keep Dave Kranz and the Argus Leader in check in this election, because I think he(they) has(have) a very close relationship with Daschle and his staff and his(their) reporting reflects that relationship.
In his recent column, Beck also says Tapio and the blogs falsely claimed that Kranz was a member of the college Political Science Club with former Senator Tom Daschle during the 1960s. Beck wrote that “No, Kranz was not a member of the political science club.” But that’s not what the record indicates. While Daschle was president of the Political Science Club which organized a 1968 mock Democratic convention, Kranz was “publicity chairman,” according to the April 3, 1968 issue of the South Dakota Collegian. In 1976, Kranz recalled his and Daschle’s “tireless” efforts during the convention: “I remember our tireless search to find a renowned public speaker to address the convention such as McGovern, McCarthy, Humphrey or some other prominent Democrat.” I suppose, to be fair, it's not entirely clear if Kranz was "publicity chairman" for the Political Science Club (Daschle was President of the club) or the 1968 Mock Democratic Convention (which was chaired by Daschle). But isn't that something of a distinction without a difference? Beck needs to explain the confusion, if there is some.
Beck has misstated the facts before. In August, after The New York Times ran a story about Daschle raising money in the Hamptons, observers wondered why the Times was doing more reporting on this than the Argus. Beck testily responded that “Daschle's fundraising visit to the Hamptons has been reported at least twice in this newspaper.” It had not. Beck’s “facts” were wrong. Ironically, Beck was simultaneously berating a reader for relying on blogs for information because blogs “fail to let the facts get in their way.” After he was consistently informed of his misstatement, Beck still did not issue a correction.
Beck says in his recent column that Jason Van Beek and I “weren’t going to let facts stand in the way” of our blogging and that we "manufactured evidence." Again, this is a serious charge. And it is completely unsubstantiated. Beck needs to issue a correction. The blogs commitment to factual accuracy still stands untarnished (we are happy to correct any problems people find). Beck’s attempt to show otherwise indicates he doesn’t know his “facts,” is making them up, or has been misinformed by someone about what the facts actually are. In an attempt to discredit blogs for spreading inaccuracies, Beck in fact spreads inaccuracies and discredits himself.
Beyond his failure to get the factual record correct, Beck simply ignores inconvenient evidence. He doesn't address the internal Democratic memos (listed at the right) reported on by Sibby and Van Beek which noted how Democratic insiders viewed Kranz and how they worked together to advance their mutual interests. The memos are a large part of the criticism of Kranz, so to ignore them is telling. Beck also derides my post entitled "The Argus Leader and the Degradation of American Democracy," where I calmly note the larger implications for the democratic process of the Argus Leader's poor reporting record in recent decades (I even note how I like Kranz personally, but object to his record of reporting--nothing personal, just criticism of his content). Beck derides the post, but doesn't mount arguments against it or claim anything was factually wrong in it. He just derides. Beck also never mentions the very reasonable and rational platform of reforms that the Dakota Blog Alliance suggested to the Argus last summer. I had hoped prior to Beck's column that he might take the criticism of recent years more seriously:
Beck [has] said that the blogs had no impact whatsoever on the Argus. Of course, that's not what his assistant managing editor told the National Journal--see here. He said there was no doubt the blogs had an impact and others at the Argus said there was a "siege mentality," whatever that means. And Dave Kranz said blog claims about him had some validity. Anyway, one assumes that in his column this weekend Beck will have to address how the current controversy started, i.e. with criticism of the Argus, and then address the merits of that criticism. Hopefully he won't go down his previous path by talking about how 'even Hitler would have a blog' (the comment which prompted the former editor of The New Republic, Andrew Sullivan, to write a post entitled "An Editor Loses It"). Maybe he'll even address how he made up something on the Argus blog and refused to correct the mistake when asked politely several times. Most know how Beck feels about blog criticism of the Argus (it is "crap" driven by a "violent" internet "cabal" of "yahoos" and "jokers," who are full of "hatred" and "vitriol" and lack "guts" because they hide "behind their computer screens" and won't face him "man to man"). To be fair, I'm sure Beck wasn't happy about blog criticism and to a certain extent did his duty defending his newspaper/reporters and may have said some barbed things that he now regrets or would now say differently. No problem. But now he has a chance to actually respond to substantive criticism made by the Dakota Blog Alliance. He can actually respond to arguments with counter-arguments. The criticism of the Argus, after all, is how the SD blogosphere took off, gained national attention, and sparked the current controversy about Gannon, who first wrote about the Argus. Beck can also explain what the Dakota blogs got factually wrong, which no writer has ever done. If Beck simply launches another Howell Raines-ish 'blogs are evil' diatribe, then the whole discussion will remain stalemated and circular. Seriously, Mr. Beck, please elevate the debate by responding to specific criticisms of the Dakota blogs and spelling out what they got wrong factually. One would think that a newspaper which has been accused of "vituperative" treatment and "hysterical bashing" of Republicans by The New York Times and Roll Call and whose coverage has been questioned by the Wall Street Journal in an editorial about Rathergate (the WSJ questioned the control "Tom Daschle's pals at the Argus Leader have long had on [South Dakota's] political dialogue") and by the Economist ("Local bloggers also had an effect; in South Dakota, for instance, they repeatedly highlighted Tom Daschle's partisan record in Washington, DC, something that the Democratic Senate majority leader's friends in the local print media had never laboured to expose.") and other publications would want to clarify the record. Beck might also want to address why Senator Daschle's former media advisor Karl Struble has explained in a magazine article how his media operation has used the Argus in the past: "The press ate it up. Our campaign systematically doled out the information piece by piece to reporters in D.C. and South Dakota. The result was a series of damaging articles. ... We used the headlines generated as validators for our ads." Again, in all seriousness, this a real opportunity to move the debate to the next level. Let's hope that happens.
It didn't happen. Regardless of whether Mr. Beck ever honestly comes to terms, at long last, with the arguments made against the Argus or whether he takes seriously the criticism from other major publications in the mainstream media (like The New York Times, Roll Call, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist etc), Beck has an obligation, at a minimum, to correct the factual errors in his recent column. I've never done this before (but this is an exception given Beck's serious and dishonest charge that blog "manufactured evidence"), but please email him and respectfully request that he fix the clear factual errrors in his column: [email protected]
Also, I've requested space in the newspaper to respond to Beck's charges. Please request that I be given that space, especially given the seriousness of the charges, i.e. "manufacturing evidence," Beck has made. Beck has consistently gone on about how wonderful the Argus is and how it maintains "high ethical standards." Well, here's another test case--will Mr. Beck retract what was incorrect and allow those he criticized unfairly with knowing the "facts" to respond? We'll see.
Recent Comments