South End Grounds

Rove

Several folks have asked about my thoughts on the goingson surrounding Karl Rove.  This about sums it up.

And Lance Frizzell's customary wit and pith put everything into perspective:

My question is why do Democrats think voters care about Karl Rove? They didn't care about Dick Morris. It's kind of like getting all excited because you think there is wrong doing in the office of the Deputy Assistant to the Undersecretary for Cultural Matters for SE Durkadurkastan. Rove is only a boogieman if you are in the Michael Moore-type fool category. And that's a mighty small group. But they email each other every day.

Name That Newspaper

Which newspaper had the following quote in a front page, above the fold article?

More tax collections than expected — an extra $272 million — are pouring into Tennessee's coffers.

How much of a refund can you expect back?

Not a dime. Gov. Phil Bredesen and legislative leaders already have plans for the cash.

Pinch myself...no I'm not dreaming...it's The Tennessean.  This story could have been written, in varying degrees of the dollar amount, for the past several years.  But it never has been.  Be still my beating heart.  There it is in the Tennessean.  On the front page.  Above the fold. 

Trent Seibert deserves a lot of credit for writing the story.  His editors deserve a lot of credit for its prominent placement and its strong headline, "Give Taxpayers back $272M, some say."  I literally sit in stunned disbelief as I write this.  I cannot believe that I am seeing this.  Fair reporting, in black and white newsprint, is coming from the newspaper that I and so many others have derided for so long. 

Lest you think that I am praising The Tennessean for printing a Republican Caucus press release, I encourage you to read the whole article with a critical eye.  You will find that Seibert devotes four full paragraphs to presenting the Governor's side of the story.  You will not find charged, persuasive words advocating either side of the issue.  Instead you see a fair portrayal of what the Bredesen administration and others of a different mind believe are the best uses for the money.

I disagree with Bredesen's view on how to spend the money.  Funny thing is, I see that side presented in the article as well.  Seibert quotes two of my fiscal soulmates, Ben Cunningham and Drew Johnson.  Twelve months ago, these guys' opinions couldn't get printed on the "Letters to the Editor" page.  Today, they appear with appropriate context in a prominent story. 

The challenge for The Tennessean now is to extend the quality of coverage coming from Capitol Hill to the other areas of the paper.  I hope they are successful at it because this kind of journalism is good for a community.  Actually, it's great.  A newspaper has the capacity to be the catalyst for debate in a community.  If it presents relevant stories and treats all sides fairly, citizens can start debates around the proverbial water cooler and be well-equipped to argue their point.  Most importantly, citizens can make an informed decision during election seasons.  That's the highest calling of a free press and someone at The Tennessean is taking it seriously. 

Some of my readers may be weary of me writing these posts in praise of The Tennessean's resurgent Capitol Hill coverage.  I've never been shy about taking them to task about every story they've botched in my view.  Given that, it's only fair of me to praise them every time it is warranted.  More than anything, I'm excited that our community's most prominent paper has taken our criticism to heart and done something about it. 

I am preparing a letter to the new editor at the Tennessean, Everett J. Mitchell,  to thank him for the differences I see in the paper.  John Gibson, the paper's Reader Editor, will also receive the letter.  If you agree with my assessment that The Tennessean has shown marked improvement in recent months, I encourage you to do the same.  You can contact Mitchell and Gibson at the following address:

The Tennessean
1100 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37203

The crown jewel for any journalist is a Pulitzer Prize.  Who knows?  If The Tennessean keeps this up they may be the first recepient of the Groundsizer, a prize with almost equal prestige. 

Bredesen Mum on Ford Contracts

At times, like my last post, I am critical of some of the Tennessean's reporters.  Then I read this piece from other Tennessean reporters (Brad Schrade and Trent Seibert) and it gives me hope for the paper's future in this town. 
The story has a strong lead that explains what happened and why it's important.

Even as the scandal around state Sen. John Ford's financial ties to a Memphis-based TennCare contractor grew to a fever pitch, Gov. Phil Bredesen waited weeks before publicly disclosing that Ford had pressed him to send more business to the company.

And then, a little extra legwork that is becoming Schrade and Seibert's calling card, they find a voice that isn't ordinarily heard to provide context.  In this case, it's a corporate compliance expert who opines:

Clearly the fact that any corporate executive these days would wait to be approached in an investigation instead of stepping up and being more engaged in helping investigators finding out what's going on in their organization is foolish.  It's a real danger from a public perspective.

The icing on the cake is an expert that provides the opposing view, a law professor:

I think he has discharged any moral obligation, any public obligation, by making this conversation public.

In the political arena, Bredesen would have been wise to follow the advice of the compliance officer.  One would think that a seasoned executive, as Bredesen allegedly is, would have intuitively come forward with this knowledge.  He didn't want the story written that Ford approached him.  Instead he got a very well-done story about how he concealed the information and  that included some insightful expert thoughts on whether or not his course of action was wise.

I used to believe that every member of the Capitol Hill press corps went to dinner with Deputy Governor Dave Cooley on a regular basis to get their marching orders.  Based on their recent coverage, it appears there are two reporters who have managed to maintain their independence.  Kudos to Schrade and Seibert.

Why Now?

Commissioner of Economic and Community Development Matt Kisber wants tighter state controls over a small business grant program, according to The Tennessean.  Good.  We should all be for keeping a close eye on how the state spends our tax dollars.

One questions springs immediately to mind:  Why is Commissioner Kisber taking on this issue now?  The Tennessean fails to point out that Commissioner Kisber used to be Chairman Kisber of the House Finance, Ways and Means Committee.  The article notes that these grants have "bugged him" since he took over at ECD.  They apparently existed before he joined the Department.  Ergo, he must have voted on these things time and time again while he was in the House.  Why didn't these grants "bug" him when he was sponsoring budget bills?

These grants generally start as one shot deals and then like any other government spending, grow a life of their own and exist in perpetuity.  There are several different kinds of these grants and only a handful of people know them intricately, among them are the Chairs of the Finance Committees, and former Chairs.  Why on earth would a reporter let that fastball of a question go by, "Commissioner Kisber, why didn't you do something about these grants, if they bugged you so badly, when you were in charge of the state's budget?"

I hope Commissioner Kisber is successful in controlling these grants and I hope his colleagues in the Bredesen Administration follow his lead in their own departments.  I wish he would have taken a more keen interest in these grants when he held more sway over the budget just like I wish some reporters at The Tennessean would ask the questions that need to be asked. 

Who's "Mean and Hateful"

Lost in the heated ethics debate of recent month is the fact that there are some truly remarkable people in the General Assembly.  Some legislators actually go to Capitol Hill to represent their constituents.  They stand up for ideals they hold dear and refuse to play the political games that so often manacle our legislative process.  The media don't cover them much because their story isn't juicy or salacious.  These folks patrol both sides of the political aisle and should be the pride of our state.

One such person is Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville).  He was born in the Panama Canal Zone and his story only gets more interesting from there.  When he's not legislating, you'll find Rep. Dunn in a tree plying his trade as an arborist.  He has a beautiful family, complete with five children, that he adores.  While many legislators are being wined and dined throughout Nashville, Rep. Dunn is in his office...eating peanut butter sandwiches...reading Comptroller's audits.  Because he does, he can tell you about every wasted dollar in state government.  His political senses are acute but he doesn't use them to game they system, only to quietly advance his cause.   Rep. Dunn is not just one of the most principled, decent and honest people in the General Assembly.  You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in the world who is his peer. 

Whether or not you agree with him on the issues, Bill Dunn possesses the rare combination of principle and intellect that  you want in your legislator.  There's not a fair-minded person who has a bad thing to say about him.  Unfortunately, the Capitol Hill Press Corps is not constituted entirely of fair-minded individuals.

Rep. Dunn is the House sponsor of a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as consisting of one man and one woman.  An ordinary politician would send out a press release every time the bill moved from one committee to another.  Bill Dunn is not ordinary and he hasn't made any political hay of the resolution.  He hasn't, nor would he, campaign against the resolution's opponents.  In fact, he accepted an invitation to speak at a gay right's group to give his side of the story. He feels that pushing the amendment is the right thing to do.  So that's what he'll do.

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit to halt the amendment on procedural grounds.  Not that they need the press coverage to influence an impartial judiciary, unaffected by the ebb and flow of public opinion, but the ACLU felt it necessary to hold a press conference to announce its lawsuit.  The room was packed with reporters who dutifully scribbled their talking points on their notepads because they didn't have another "dog bites man" story. 

After the ACLU completed their mission, Rep. Dunn offered his side of the story to the assembled press gaggle.  A few reporters asked some pointed questions as reporters are apt to do and then one crossed the line of professionalism and decency.  John Commins of the Chattanooga Times Free Press apparently didn't like what Rep. Dunn had to say so Commins called him "mean and hateful."

When thinking about derogatory terms to associate with Bill Dunn, none spring to mind.  Certainly, the least likely candidates would include "mean" and "hateful."  I will not stoop to Commins' level and use a few words that would appropriately describe him.  Bill Dunn would be disappointed in me if I did because there's not a mean or hateful bone in his body.

However, I will say that calling Bill Dunn "mean" and "hateful" is like calling Bill Gates a technophobe.  It's like calling Shaquille O'Neal diminutive or Hank Aaron an average hitter.  Asserting that Bill Dunn is "mean" and "hateful" is like saying John Commins is a good journalist or a fair reporter.

A reporter cannot fairly cover a beat if he is going to baselessly assail the character of those he covers.  Commins' bosses should demand an apology and if he doesn't comply, they should offer him a pink slip.

UPDATE:  I have received an email and a phone call from Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter John Commins in response to this post. Neither his email or his phone call contain much information that is fit for family reading.  However, he did one make one salient point.  I should have called him for an opportunity to comment on my post.

While I stand by what I wrote because I trust the sources that gave it to me, I do regret not giving him the courtesy of a call or the readers the benefit of his thoughts on the matter.  I invited him to write a response that I would post unedited.  He has declined but the offer still stands any time he would like to take it up. 

 

Excellent Reporting

From The Tennessean?

I don't know what's going on over there but I find myself less preturbed every time I read The Tennessean and an article in today's edition actually made me proud of our local daily.  Is the paper nosing around for good stories and reporting them fairly these days?  Time will tell. But today's edition is reason for encouragement.

The report raises questions about possible loopholes in the ethics bill recently passed by the House of Representatives.  Because of a quark in the wording of the bill, Speaker Jimmy Naifeh and his wife, who is a lobbyist, might be exempt from some of the bill's disclosure requirements.  After a careful reading of the bill, it would appear that the couple would be partially exempt.  House Republican Leader Tre' Hargett has long advocated for the provision in question and it ended up in the bill in large part because of his work.  He has no reason to exempt Naifeh and his wife so I don't think it was in any way intentional.  Furthermore, I take the Speaker at his word, as noted in the article, when he says that the House will address the matter.  (In fairness to the Speaker, his disclosures have always been much more detailed than required by law and his wife has always complied with the laws surrounding her disclosure requirements.)

The paper also highlights a few other "questioned provisions" including one that allows legislators to vote on a bill that a family member has lobbied.  The bill requires them to only disclose the conflict while several other states require recusal in such a case.  It also raises questions about allowing legislative staff to participate in some of the activities that are off-limits to their bosses.  These are newsworthy and fair questions indeed.

The larger point about this story is that it may be indicative of a better product coming from The Tennessean.

Tennessee Jobs

These headlines appeared in the same newspaper (The Knoxville-News Sentienel) on the same day, covering the same subject from the same Tennessee Center for Business and Economic Research.

State's Job Forecast Bright

State's Sagging Economy Pumping Up Welfare Rolls

Does it surprise anyone living in Tennessee for the last few years that Bill Fox, income tax proponent and head of CBER, is the focus of the second article. As long as there is no income tax in Tennessee, it's alway's raining in Fox's world.

But here are the facts:

*Non-farm jobs will grow by 1.2% this year and 2% next year.
*Professional and business service jobs (read high-paying) will grow 4.7% next year.
*Unemployment will drop to 4.7% next year.

As Bill Hobbs is fond of saying, "I blame the Bush tax cuts." Some of you, my dear readers and friends, will want to credit Phil Bredesen for this good news. To you, I ask, can this man be responsible for such economic growth, when his plan for dealing with this scourge is to appoint a study commitee and wait until next year to take action? Or, a Governor who balances the state's budget by cleaning out local governments' cash drawer? For that and for our higher property taxes, I blame Knox County Republicans.

Blog Radio

In the wake of Rather/Memogate, many are examining the effect that blogs are having on big media, and for good reason. Out of the Red Sox nation is born a new radio show that will talk to bloggers about blogs and how they are changing the political and journalistic landscapes.

Check out this exciting new effort here and here. Upcoming guests include Matt Margolis, Scott Johson and Donald Luskin. An A-List lineup to be sure.

Who knows, maybe one day they'd like to talk to a guy who named his blog after a ballpark in Boston? Even if they don't, your attention to this new endeavor will be richly rewarded.

The Tennessean: Nashville's Irrelevant Daily

The Tennessean opines that there should be a cooling off period between the time a state government official leaves thier post and when they take a lobbying job. Several states require officials to wait a year or two before they begin lobbying. Congress has a similar rule.

The Tennessee Insititute for Governmental Ethics and Reform has really thrown The Tennessean into a tizzy. The paper is so used to being Nashville's self-appointed arbiter of ethics that they must be incredibly threatened by citizen's groups like TIGER who will prove to be much more effective.

I wonder why the Tennessean chose this cooling off period as their cause of the week. Of all of TIGER's proposals, this one would have the least effect on ethics around Legislative Plaza. There's also been nothing in the news this week that would have brought this issue to light.

If a lobbying firm or organization wants to hire a retiring legislator as a lobbyist they will do so. If there is a one year moratorium on that legislator lobbying, he will just play golf and collect a paycheck until he can actually register to lobby.

This is more evidence that The Tennessean, especially its editorial board, is ill-informed, out of touch and worst of all...irrelevant.

Who Edits the Editor?

The Tennessean apparently angered some Democrats with its coverage of John Kerry's selection of John Edwards. Editor Frank Southerland responds to angry Democrats here.

Truth be told, I bet the Tennessean is ecstatic that they are now being called a "Republican propaganda machine." They can now go trumpet from the rooftops that their coverage angers Democrat and Republican alike therefore it must be balanced. They aren't guilty of bias. They are guilty, however, of poor journalism. And that's something I've become used to from the Tennessean in general and Bonna de la Cruz (who covered the Kerry/Edwards announcement) in particular during my time on Capitol Hill.

You can find the evidence of poor journalism in Southerland's own column. Writing about de la Cruz's assignment to find out more about John Edwards' years in Middle Tennessee he inform us:

As for the follow-up story, the assignment was to find out more about Kerry's professional life in Tennessee. She found that Kerry, while in Nashville, represented corporations as well as the ''little guy'' he mentions in his campaigning. I firmly believe that the professional records of any presidential or vice presidential candidate should be reported for an office of this stature. (emphasis mine)

Frank, you got the wrong John. It was Edwards, not Kerry, who lived and practiced law in Nashville. If the Editor in Chief can't get this elementary fact straight, how is he to edit his lowly and substandard employees? Yes, the Tennessean does have a liberal editorial bias and that is a problem for the paper. But the real problem with this rag is that they just aren't very good at journalism.