This post is the fifth part of a series [1, 2, 3 and 4] on
the payments by state senate Democrats ($40,000) and state Republicans ($5,250)
to the accredited member of the senate press corps for “research” and “consulting.”
For his part, Mr. Towle posted
an open letter yesterday [one of two]
defending his conduct in accepting payments from political parties.
In his first open letter of the day, Towle
writes of an encounter with veteran reporter Pat Kessler, which purportedly
took place on Monday,
In
fact, yesterday[,] when I made my way through the Capitol Press Corps, prepared
to defend myself[,] I popped my head into Pat Kessler’s closet.
He
said to me and asked, “What the hell, is it true[?]”
I
said, “Is what true?”
[“]Did
you take money from the DFL[?”] and I replied, “I have taken money from many
sources, I have received money from the Republican Party as well.”
He
said, “You have taken money as a member of the Capitol Press Corps?”
I
responded, ”Again, from them and from the Independence Party and from the Green
Party, I will take money from anyone. I am both the management and the talent.”
I followed up with, [“]doesn’t WCCO
accept campaign advertisements, no difference.”
To
which he said, “Get out of my office.”
He is open about his political bias and openly contemptuous of the idea of
journalistic objectivity, writing that,
I believe political
stories should be written based on the concept of gravity, meaning if a person
can affect the outcome of an issue[,] then and only then[,] do they warrant
inclusion in the story and[,] if not[,] putting them in is a [false?] attempt
at an unnecessary balance. A mere artifice, a sacrifice to the journalistic cult of
objectivity, and a false presentation of two sides of an argument where one
will suffice and ultimately prevail. To
me in the current political calculus only the DFL opinions should be discussed,
except in regards to the bonding bill. Republicans
cannot stop any legislation and in the case of the House, [they are] only
trying to propose amendment[s] useful on the campaign trail. Every [time] the MSM gives them [a] voice they
are actually facilitating campaign ads and fostering the opposition to the
majority.
Towle claims to have been an accredited capitol reporter dating back to
1999 and he believes that only one side of the story merits reporting.
Strictly speaking, I’m not sure that’s the system that Hamilton and Madison
had in mind back in the 1790’s. In this
session of the Minnesota Legislature, a number of initiatives have fallen by
the wayside—gun control, etc.—as it became clear that enough Democrats were willing
to vote with the minority Republicans to defeat the measure.
It’s a remarkable statement for a working
reporter to make. And a reporter he is.
Watch at the 47:05 and
57:30 marks of this video to see Mr. Towle asking questions of
Republican leaders
at a press conference on the budget forecast that took place on December 1,
2011. Towle can be heard asking
questions alongside other accredited reporters.
If you look at his recent output (see March 5,
2014, July 25, 2013, April 22, 2013, October 25, 2012, etc.) it’s clear that
the Democrats have gotten a much better return on their investment. For people whose opinions don’t matter (state
senate Republicans), Towle spends a lot of time discussing them.
Towle does have a point that as print
journalism gave way to broadcast outlets (TV, radio) in the 20th
century, legacy media in the 21st century is giving way to new kinds
of internet and other electronic journalism.
But what kind of journalism? Towle may not believe in the existence of “objective
reporting,” but if that presumption is cast aside, what do we replace it
with? A legislator has the ability to
ask questions on the floor (captured by live TV), send letters, issue press
releases, and otherwise get out their message to the public. Should they get “another bite at the apple”
by employing credentialed journalists to reach the public? What strange days are these.
No comments:
Post a Comment