I read, reread and reread again Heath's posting trying to understand the what and why of the post. At first I thought it was a bone with Dennis and he should have just said Dennis is a horse's ass. That, often times, could be true. The other truth, though, is that Dennis can write his ass off and is capable of damn fine "journalism"--if, when and where he chooses. His blog is Dennis, and all that goes with that, whether it be crude or cynically erudite.
Your reference to the revenue generating "news" site probably has more to do with Heath's intent than any of the criticisms/arrogance he expressed. The post is a clear example of provacative link bait and a classic case of page view sell out. How often have we seen this on the very blogosphere Heath purports he and his site reside above? Pissing people off is a sure way to draw fire and eyeballs, unfortunately it has more to do with advertising and very little to do with "journalism" and "reporting".
There is always a subtext...and for sure you can find one there. As I tried to say in my somewhat convoluted post, I don't think anyone is really capable of true objectivity, and can only hope people assess their biases as honestly as they can. I'm curious to know what he and others think the value is of the dialogic quality often found in the blogosphere. Part of what makes it vibrant is the willingness of bloggers and their readers to connect with each other in cyberspace. You see it at all levels. Is conversation good or not? Should it be the purview of only the power brokers and their media consorts? One subtext may be a desire to shore up the boundaries of that group...to shut out voices that challenge the status quo of how knowledge is produced. I say this because of the tone used in his post. It was not one meant to generate reflection and dialogue, and it was not about the purported topic. It was about the blogosphere and a perceived lack of control of it. Power, in a nutshell. Haussamen shows in his post that he is just as much embroiled in the subtext as anyone else, his assertions of neutrality aside. As for myself, I'm a bit of a Freirian...I think knowledge is found everywhere, and dialogue is good.
bottom line - blogs have power. Heath's post was in response to the pressure the bloggesphere has applied to the media in general about a story that was not being covered.
So what if it's a rumor, isn't a lead always a rumor until it's proven true. It be interesting to hear the rumor about Manny Aragon stealing 4 million dollars from the state. Wow that's a big rumor. Journalists looked into it and now we have a case to dig deeper and find the truth.
He obviously doesn't like the exertion of pressure (and power) and is attacking back under the guise of objectivity.
Here's the picture of the day. Thanks corporate media, not that Heath's corporate.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/cKmZzHsr.jpg
great image found on lanr.blogspot.com !
Joann, that image is great!!! Marj, you've written so much here and I promise I will dig into all of this great stuff soon... a little crazed at the moment. Thanks for being so consistently awesome.
Joann,
That image first appeared (in NM at least) on SWOPblogger.
k
I wrote a long, eloquent, well-reasoned comment to this... and then it got eaten up by Senator Ted Kennedy's hungry tubes.
Many bloggers don't have the training, time or contacts to conduct journalism like Haussamen would like us to do. What we do is a) work off either personal anecdotes or stories from friends and family. Or b) Work off stories from journalists.
In this case, we worked off a story done by a journalist. He had a source (MacCallum) and people who confirmed what his source said (Arnold-Jones, Cargo).
Haussamen thinks we should somehow doubt everything Domrzalski wrote. Should we then look into everything Jeff Jones writes? Everything Haussamen writes? Everything Steve Terrell writes?
Do we have to go through every quote in every story to make sure they are accurate?
No, we trust the journalists (of whom Domrzalski is obviously one) and i will continue to do so.
My two cents, anyway.
...here's my cut on this situation, although broken into two posts, since Haloscan gagged at the length.
It's revolving on three specific points; this particular 'story,' journalistic instinct vs. blogging instinct, and the idea of being 'objective' in reporting. Anywhere it happens.
First, let me be clear here. I am not a trained journalist. I'm a columnist noodling on the state on things from my own POV. At home. In my underwear (sorry) sometimes. Not slogging through hours of meetings and phone calls and interviews like real reporters do.
A weird (and wonderful) middle world between straight reporting and the free wheeling blogosphere, albeit in a paper.
But I'm also a life long news hound that respects the efforts of the straight press to get something right when there is no 'right,' considering how people lie, position, shade, obfuscate, or whatever you want to call it (hint towards the instinct portion) and do what they can to navigate through the various agendas of sources and information givers.
Now, On the DD piece itself. I have been in a blind fury about this 'vote buying' story since second one. I have not had a chance to get to Dennis personally yet, but will.
From basic, non reporter instinct, it was a piece of shit all the way up and down. And I was stark raving nuts when the local blogosphere just 'went there.'
Why? Because it had all the instinct killing beats necessary for those inclined to just go there; the name Wilson, money, an aggrieved GOP party insider, the dramatic and romantic actions of a respected and long time reporter falling on her sword...the whole bit. Perfect Could not script it better.
The problem was no one (seemingly...I could be wrong here) in the local blogosphere...and let's just say it out loud, left leaning sites, did anything more than just repost it without even a SHRED of anything besides, 'a-ha!!'
Let's get to a couple of things straight away regarding conventions, money, and votes at those conventions.
It is a very common practice in large states for candidates and parties, as well as private citizens, to pay for people's expenses for party conventions (hotel, travel, etc.) for participation. It has been a practice in the NM GOP for a since the early 90's. If one does not know that going into the piece, then one cannot instinctually go, 'wait a minute,' from go.
In fact, many states pay for the entire shebang through a single large donor, sometimes corporate money, a practice rejected by the GOP here for obvious reasons.
Second, by being inclined to just 'go there' because of the parties (and party) involved, the instinct to ponder why these people would risk an entire career breaking a federal law for a lousy $30.00 (x a grand total of five people) flew right by.
And that no one in a room of 1,000 people, some of whom opposed to your very existence (Wilson/White), would not drop a dime in an instant?
Are you kidding me? Whatever anyone thinks of the GOP/Wilson/whatever, not being able to simply step back from the emotion and consider that point makes me wonder.
Third. If anyone who just went there bothered to pick up a god damned phone, they would have discovered that two of the five people who received money were PEARCE SUPPORTERS.
Fourth. do you really think Wilson/White or anyone else is going to go in the tank over a registration fee about determining ballot order? You're gonna 'buy' votes over ballot order?!?!?!
You can't! There's nothing to 'buy,' people! It's a closed, paper ballot vote. Come on.
AND that no money changes hand directly to that attendee? The entity paying for the registration pays it to the Bernalillo County GOP, which then gets pays the hotel to pay for the damned thing. The payer and payee is documented and available to anyone who wants to see it.
AND, that the person who has received the largesse works in some voluntary capacity for the party in return.
Does this scenario smell like a 'buy' to you?
Sixth. On McCallum, do any of us know the narrative thread leading to her decision to just quit? Does it not strike one odd that a seasoned reporter, who I have no doubt has had many stories kicked back by bosses for more vetting (as we ALL have), would walk from a gig of which there is no comparable lateral move in this marketplace?
I don't know the answer to that, but by instinct my feeling is there is a lot more to the dynamics between McCallum and her boss Pat Allen than any of us know.
That said, his memo was sloppy as shit, as ALL internal memo's not written for public consumption are, BUT, it was written in news gathering subtext that has gone right by people.
When he asks why bloggers weren't on it, he was asking why, if so, the typical GOP'er with an axe to grind was not on it on a GOP friendly site, BEFORE HER?
This is a key point and a perfectly plausible question given the players and culture involved. But you have to have the instinct developed from spending time reporting in those circles to get that.
McCallum did not have a story. I'm sorry, but she just plain did not. Her instincts failed her badly, from beginning to end. Being a gripe taker over the phone and just 'going there' is not cool at that level. I would hazard a guess that her very job was in jeopardy from pushing and the walk away not as romantic and principled as it would seem.
End of part i...
...part 2:
Seventh. I find this issue in the blogosphere on the use of unnamed sources curious at the least and intellectually bankrupt at the most. You want to put a bullet in the use of unnamed sources? Go get some and shame the straight press into better habits. Pick up the phone, do the work and make a point.
Let me illustrate.
You want a quote? Here's a couple from Lou Melvin (she), the Chairman of the State's Rules Committee for the New Mexico Republican Party, from a call to her early this afternoon:
On 'who' has received help from the GOP: "Three times I have paid for Joe Carraros registration, and once for Dave Cargo."
How interesting. I ask you bloggers, how juicy would it have been for you to have that little tidbit yesterday, the day before, of before that? Sheds a little more light on this, no?
More:
On Cargo losing: "14 of the 40 running in his ward got elected. Not everyone can win. I have lost in the past. That's politics."
Did any of the local blogosphere, besides Heath, bother to pick up the phone and talk to the woman who has been involved in the rule making for this party for 30 years? Did anyone have the instinct developed over time and effort to even know such a person exists?
The level of idiocy here is beyond mind blowing. Heath's frustration is well founded on this issue. Unfortunately the back pedaling by the local blogosphere has been predictable.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the blogosphere wants to fill holes and reflect different opinions,. there's no argument here. In fact, you'd find very little argument in the straight press either, who are endlessly frustrated by their inability to get at the little nuances between the cracks from the relentless day to day nature of newspapering. They get it.
And this gets me to the point (after walking away from this for a few minutes) on this idea of balance and objectivity.
For me, the goals of objectivity in the straight press are honorable, but a cop out. No one's fooling anyone anymore...I would hope. But we cling to this thing like a pit bull.
Why? I personally like to know where a paper, blog, or anything else is coming from. It gives me something to push against. I happen to like the way the Brits do it. If you're gonna pick up the conservative rag, why have a snit when you get hit between the eyes as you open it?
I would point all to an article in the Columbia Journalism Review website from many years ago (I still have in a drawer) called, "Re-thingking Objectivity," (www.cjr.org type in the title in the search function) that caused an enormous fire storm in the early 90's, as one could imagine coming from the most noted entities of press criticism.
Basically, the piece makes a very compelling case that 'objective' is an ideal who's time has come. I would agree. And here's an example.
In the run up to the war, Amy Goodman broke open the story that not only were the calls to Congressional offices running 80-20 opposed to going into Iraq, that that was the split for letters to the editor to papers and news magazines.
BUT, the papers and news rags ran the letters 50/50, ostensibly for balance.
The result? A profoundly false sense of where the country was, hijacked by a false ideal of achieving balance.
This is very tricky stuff in practice. Easy to criticize, hard to do. CJR makes a good case that the effort is in essence impossible.
A special note to the section of the piece entitled, "An Ideals Troubled Past." Gaining a sense of where things come from always illuminates the current.
In fact, if you go through their site it won't take long to get a sense of the internal friction of covering news in 2008.
There's a discussion and debate going on there at a very high level I dearly hope the blogosphere will find a way to do.
CJR hammers bad journalistic practice relentlessly and without flinch. That's an important point because I believe too many bloggers have convinced themselves that the press is one big club.
Look, people get fired and careers end when you fuck up in this business. Happens all the time. Can the same be said for blogging?
That point, and my final one, is the make or break moving forward with blogs. When the stakes are low, you can get away with anything.
The only money in the blogosphere is reputation, and to this early days point, its minimal.
Will the local blogosphere plead mea culpa on this KOB/GOP thing once all the facts are out there? Doubtful. Because there's no loss for being wrong. In fact, its impossible, because blogs by nature are beholden to their constituency, which would have a fit giving an inch to anything GOP...even if profoundly off the mark.
I have problems with that. Big ones. Because at the end of the day, with no self policing, we could very well end up with a system far worse than the straight press screws up currently.
Now, that phone call to my friend Dennis.
...btw, hope ya'll are listening to 770 AM KOB right now. This thing is off the hook. Cargo screaming, Carraro with convenient memory loss, GOP spokes people revealing his fee's being paid 3 times, Carraro claiming threats from darren White...and now White is on the air refuting.
Wow...
Hi Gene, thanks for your book. 
Regardless of how the Republican Party has conducted its business since the 90s, or what you might possibly call partisan hyperbole in describing it as "vote buying"...it's not good practice for a campaign to pay fees for people to attend gatherings that determine how ballots get constructed. When money gets put into the mix it lends an air of impropriety...at the least.
In Dennis' blog, he quotes Cargo saying that not only were the fees paid by the campaigns, but that the people also said they were being paid by the hour. As to your point about the GOP paying registration fees, I think its less objectionable than actual campaigns paying fees. But in general, I guess I have less of an issue with fees being paid (aside from the issue that fees actually can dissuade participation) than I do with the thought of people getting paid by the hour.
I hear you on that...it doesn't make a lot of sense for a campaign to risk such a controversy over something like that.
But like I said in my blog...we don't really know the facts in this case. And I don't think its inappropriate to point out allegations of this nature being made by a former governor.
By the way, when I look around at the blogs that Heath takes to task, I don't see a lot of backpedaling. In fact, I see people continuing to discuss it. And I might add, I'm enjoying the fact that this hornet's nest has been stirred...it's in overdrive on KKOB at the moment. Good thing, if you ask me, all around. Plenty is being aired between Joe Carraro and Darren White at this very moment. You have to wonder, could this story really and truly have been spurred by the liberal blogosphere? Surely we do not get all the credit. It boggles the mind.
On the other matter, the one I find most interesting...on objectivity, journalistic integrity...the role of the blogosphere...I am more than happy to engage in that debate...but think it can be undertaken without slinging mud.
...a book it was!
Earlier on KOB Pat Frisch point blank asked both Cargo and Carraro if he had anyone, anyone, who could corroborate this notion of being paid by the hour.
Zip. Nada. Nothing.
Now, all that aside, does it pass the smell test? Nope. Is it proper by their parties rules? Yes. But...
Make of it what you will, but I found it most interesting when Carraro called back after it was revealed by Frisch what I posted earlier; he's had his entry paid for three times. His blubbering and denials were very funny.
And on slinging mud, I have to confess I found your response to Heath rather petulant. Images of a father figure taking to task all the children? Did you really take it as such? A story forced on him? What? He was reacting on his own accord, it seems to me. Forced how?
Journalists like to check blogs to find their stories? You can't be serious! I'll give you a week and a dollar for every story reported exclusively on a blog first here in Albuquerque. Not re-hashed...reported. First.
To be fair, I very much appreciated how you stated having the facts at hand and distortion. I wish more bloggers would do that.
I would be perfectly OK if sites would explicitly say, look, we're not a news site. It's opinion and we're coming from X. Here's what we've just received. We don't know if it's true or not, but here it is. have at it. I could live with that.
But how come bloggers can criticize the press (which they can and should) with impunity, but when the tables turn it's a problem?
I love blogs. Some, not all. But there's way too much of this, 'we're perfect and in the moral sun and you (press) suck...
Gotta take it. It's the deal with having a public voice.
Be sure to check out that CJR piece. You'll dig it. In an inside out way it very much supports what bloggers are trying to accomplish...
That was the overall impression I had when I read what he wrote, yes. In both respects.
I can give you one concrete example from just last week (not from m-pyre), but I won't do it here.
I've never said we're journalists here, in fact I think its very clear that we're not.
As for taking it...I can take it baby...dish it out. Criticism is good...but one thing I've learned, and continue to learn, is that criticism teeters on an edge...you can either fall on a productive side or a destructive one. Thats the main thing to consider when you engage in it. Do you want to be productive or destructive? And seriously, it just depends. I almost always at least want to fall on the positive side of that...but sometimes fail.
...on being able to take it. Big smile here.
And I just now read Denni's criticism of Heath at f-brilliant. Wow. I believe he doth protest way too much. And the MaCallum piece was profoundly unconvincing under it.
Positive is good. Very good...
I too, found Heath's tone and manner offensive and holier than thou. At least on the first few reads.
After reading comments here and elsewhere, I realize that as a reader, I've got a pretty strong prejudice that I previously had no idea even existed. I have a lot of respect for the many bloggers whose voluntary efforts and strong beliefs contribute as voices that might not otherwise be heard. Heath, on the other hand, is making a professional go of it (I respect that in itself--what a hard road) and as such, I'm realizing I hold him to a higher standard. If he would have edited out the vitriol and insulting tone, I would not have had the visceral reaction that minimizes his credibility for me as a reader. I would much rather have him remain another valued voice, but his post changed things, at least for a while.
I think the business influence/demands changes things in many ways we are just now starting to understand. And it's screwing up our expectations. It's easy to see where you m-pyre women, barb, scot key, coco, jon knutson, et al are coming from and what value you provide. What is much harder to grasp is where folks like Heath, Dennis, John Fleck and Gene bring value, and what, if any, outside influences exist. Is Dennis acting as a journalist, or as a pissed of (ex?) rethug out for blood and revenge? Or is he just bored with the MRGCD gig and looking to stir things up? It's hard to tell. Heath's out of character aggressiveness and school marming does make one wonder what drove his anger and tone. If there wasn't an external influence or business pressure, the post certainly could be seen as immature and unprofessional.
Personally, I'd get a lot of value out of the discussion of blogs by Heath and Karlos, Marjorie and Gene and all the other interested bloggers. I hope it happens, and I hope you share!
I think this situation with the Republican party will play out how it will. Should be interesting. As for Heath, I can appreciate what I believe he was trying to do in the blog he wrote. I don't have a problem being self-reflective about it all either. I get a lot out of Heath's site...he provides straightforward and comprehensive coverage of the electoral landscape, and has done some very good investigative reporting along the way. What we are currently immersed in here is a dialectical moment...and I have faith that all of the folks who write about politics in a serious and honest way in New Mexico will learn something from it.
Is it still a (non) story if the Journal covers it?
Gulp. I dunno.
k/s
....is what still a (non) story? What's the "it' you refer to?
From any reasonable angle, "it" is a seven paragraph piece about MacCallum, with the only reference of any substance outside of her quitting a sentence: "...a story she produced concerning the Republican Party delegate nominating convention in Bernalillo County."
I would say the "it" they are covering is her and her actions, no?
So I ask again, what "is" the story now?
duh?!...lies & deceit, man...that we are still talking about...
Word.
In response to Gene (nice piece of writing!), and everyone else withquestions, I wanted to set the record straight on a few things.
I attended the Delegate Convention that Sunday. I heard people talking about money changing hands between delegates and candidates. It's not a stretch to link paying for convention entry fees by candidates to paying for votes and support. New Mexico law is clear on this issue.
I gave NM GOP PR flak the FIRST opportunity to discuss how the process works. In the second round of stories the following day, I still never mentioned Heather Wilson.
In addition, I had gotten calls and e-mails from folks who were angry at people having their way paid by candidates.
One thing everyone is forgetting is this: Despite the fact that the state GOP has been running things like this since the 90's, it is still illegal. Anyone who offers, or takes, money in the election process, is guilty of a 4th degree felony. Hence, Gene, you will not have people coming forward in droves to admit they've accepted a bribe.
That's why the Secretary of State and A/G are both investigating this illegal process. What they'll have to do is offer a couple of delegates immunity to get at the bottom of it.
And, one more thing. You insinuate that there was friction between me and News Director Pat Allen.
I quit because this was NOT the FIRST time there were ethical problems with this station.
Several months ago, we were told not to air anything with Phil Sisneros, spokesman for the Attorney General's office. Why? Because Phil is suing KKOB parent company Citadel Broadcasting for wrongful termination when he worked at one of the stations here.
I filed a complaint with the Poynter Insititute on that one.
This however, was ths straw that broke the camel's back for me. I couldn't, with a clear conscience, continue to work for a station that promotes itself as the "news leader", when in all actuality, it only airs what it sees fit, all journalism aside.
While many can read into my resignation whatever they want, I did what I thought was right. And, to me, that's generally called courage.
Laura MacCallum
(formerly of KKOB-AM)
Thanks Laura, for your courage. Stuff like this really concerns me in the age of continued consolidation. It will take the courage of journalists to stand up for what's right if we are to defend communications rights for the disenfranchised. How many stories are killed simply because voices and perspectives are marginalized by the blinders of media bias???
Laura:
The law, as you say, is quite clear on this. I have the same problems with candidates paying for people as unions paying for these things on the D side as well. The whole thing stinks.
It's my understanding that previous AG's have looked into this situation before and never come up with a direct link of paying for votes. We'll see how it plays this time with this AG.
Regarding you and Pat, I'll take you word on that. No problem here. As well as your reasons for leaving.
Here's hoping you land somewhere.
Perhaps a blog is in your future?
Gene, I wanted to make sure you saw this:
http://www.dukecityfix.com/
profi...A71744#comments
...was there something specific in there I didn't see? My guess it's the bit about television news reporters finding stories on blogs?
I've seen CH. 13 feature DCF many times in their blog round up segment. I've been waitng for them to note m-pyre!
The KB homes thing is a good example of the bottom up power of blogs. KB certainly wasn't going to alert the media to this!
I guess it's the post modern version of dropping a dime. In the old days it would be a call/letter to a newsroom, but blogs add the value of others adding in similar stories...which eliminates the single disgruntled citizen who can't get any traction.
Yeah, earlier in this thread you expressed disbelief at my assertion that reporters routinely look for their stories on blogs.
....ah. Got it.
I believe it was they "get all their stories from blogs," or something along those lines I was commenting on.
Reporters have routinely scanned blogs since day one. It's a good resource to get a feel for multiple voices...the same reasons they listen to talk radio.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I clearly did not say they get "all" their stories from blogs. I said they like to "check out our blogs" to find stories, even though they give us little respect (maybe an overstatement). For your reply all you have to do is read up in this thread. In any event, I suspect a community blog like the Fix routinely originates good stories.
...as they did this morning with the new Journal columnist.
My fault. Was going off memory. never a good idea for me.
Commenting by HaloScan
