Most Active Stories
- As McCain suspends campaign, talking points on economic crisis stress bipartisanship
- Canter already aiming to turn CD-6 blue in 2010
- Carrigan urged to seek U.S. attorney position
- Gallegos misses petition deadline; Vigil turns in signatures
- Colorado Independent lays off six in restructuring
- Several candidates may seek CD-3 seat if Salazar gets USDA post
- Brophy says he's considering CO-4 run in 2010
- REVISED: Patriot Majority ad against Schaffer evokes forced abortions
- Senate Dems name 2009 committee chairs
- Hesse says many county Republican organizations 'are in shambles'
Recent Press Releases
Most Popular
PolitickerCO Partners
June 16, 2008 - 10:22am
Opinion
Kaminsky questions Post bias
By Wally EdgeThe Inside Edge covered the multiple stories by the Denver Post about Bob Schaffer's involvement in Mariana Islands legislation. The subsequent fact finding mission that then-US Rep Schaffer went on to the Islands was eventually to have been shown to be "partly" paid for by the notorious Jack Abramoff.
Yesterday an alert Wally World reader sent us a multi-part series from the Rossputin blog (aka Ross Kaminsky) taking issue with many of the facts asserted in the Post's story.
Chief amongst the objections Kaminsky has is that the Post series "used misleading information and partisan rhetoric" disguised as a "news" story to advance "thinly-veiled Democratic propaganda against Bob Schaffer."
We have to agree that the Post's stories weren't the most balanced pieces of journalism. We don't think the bias is nefarious however. We just think it's the product of the club-like atmosphere in journalism, especially the type practiced by newspapers.
We'll give you one quick example:
We find it ironic that the Marianas articles would allow the DSCC to attack by proxy forced abortions that happened on the Islands. It implied 1) Schaffer was responsible for the abortions and 2) that there is something inherently wrong with abortions. It did not however question the position of the Democrats in general about abortion in light of the controversy nor mention Schaffer's unquestioned support amongst pro-life groups.
Without addressing the rights or wrongs of pro-life versus pro-choice arguments, we think any fair-minded journalist might see the irony inherent in the exclusion. Except of course one so blinded by their own bias that they don't understand the pro-life side of the question.
We were reminded this weekend of one of the most enlightened comments about this issue.
It came from Tim Russert who said that real diversity in the newsroom wasn't just about black and white, or male and female. It was about the newsroom taking people from small schools and big schools, people from different walks of life and people who had divergent views, from liberal to conservative.
So if you really want to embrace diversity, take a minute to read the Rossputin blog. You don't have to agree with it. In fact, real diversity isn't about agreeing, but about disagreeing and reading it anyway.
Related topics: Jack Ambramoff, Colorado, Bob Schaffer, Mark Udall, DSCC, Mariana Islands, Denver Post, Ross Kaminsky, Rossputin
Syndicate
We don't know
Mr. Menezes,
The truth is that Media Matters is just as biased on behalf of progressive causes as Kaminsky is of conservative causes.
That's OK. That's your right. Just like it's his right to be heard on what he thinks is wrong with the Post's reporting.
But the fact that both the DSCC and Colorado Media Matters has so tightly embraced the Post story does make some wonder how objective the reporting is.
You may not agree with that, but it is something that should be counted in the balance.
The impression that news reporters aren't always balanced we think is more responsible for the loss of circulation by newspapers than any other thing, the internet included.
That's our opinion here at the Inside Edge anyway.
More misinformation from Kaminsky
Wally,
Interestingly enough, in his screed responding to your column, Kaminsky engages in the same type of misinformation that we documented (http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200806130002) in the first installment of his "articles" purporting to debunk the Post series on Schaffer's ties with Jack Abramoff.
Here, as in the first post of his "series," Kaminsky makes unsubstantiated allegations about what Mike Riley did or did not do, without ever contacting the reporter for comment or response. He literally has no idea exactly how Riley conducted his reporting, and didn't bother asking him, yet makes speculative statements posited as fact on that very subject.
Further, as our item detailed, Kaminsky engaged in a variety of egregious omissions and other misinformation in describing the Post articles as well as documentation posted elsewhere that verified the accuracy of key passages in Riley's reporting. A reader who takes the time to look at the Post articles side by side with anything Kaminsky has written on the subject, as well as with the readily available documentary evidence about Schaffer and his CNMI trip (see http://www.squarestate.net/diary/5984/the-full-abramoff-monty-and-bob-sc...) quickly will see where Kaminsky's "reporting" veers from fact into misinformation.
Bill Menezes
Editorial Director
Colorado Media Matters
10 cents per word?
Wally, thanks for the link.
The series of articles will be long because there is so much misinformation in the Denver Post's series that deserves to be debunked.
I believe my case will be that much stronger with more reporting and more interviews behind it.
As for your snide comment about "10 cents a word", that's the sort of stuff that earns you some of the more abusive comments. I do not get paid anything by anyone to write these articles. I do it in my own time (much to my wife's chagrin) because I believe it is important.
What the Denver Post did was reprehensible, if not out of character. Mike Riley took incorrect or misleading information straight from liberal web sites and, I presume, other sources whose only agenda is to oppose Schaffer.
I believe this has, as the Post and Schaffer opponents intended, poisoned the well for news reporting about this race.
For example, the Rocky Mountain News ran an article talking about how Mark Udall received campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff's firms (which Schaffer never did), but more than 3/4 of the article devolved into talking about Schaffer and the CNMI trip!
And if you read comments on blogs and other web sites, it's clear that the public (or at least the gullible liberals who read the Denver Post) is buying the connection Riley fabricates between Schaffer and Abramoff, despite the fact that there is zero evidence that Abramoff influenced Schaffer in any way and despite the fact that in 1999 nobody had heard of Abramoff or his firm any more than they had heard of any of the other top 10 lobbying firms whose people crowd the halls of Congress.
Again, thanks for the link, but I do wish you could stop assuming self-serving or otherwise venal motivations. It makes you sound too much like the Denver Post.
Post new comment