Team Baucus
I’ve got a write-up on National Review Online today about L’affaire Baucus — I wrote it just so the latest from the Missoulian could be highlighted (how Team Baucus spun the local press like a top doesn’t appear to really have made it to the national political consciousness yet)…
From the piece:
A former journalist who reported congressional news for several Gannett local newspapers, including the Great Falls Tribune, says that Baucus’s long-time press aide and new chief of staff, Barrett Kaiser, “was a total jerk, always threatening to cut off access if you didn’t cover the office’s press releases.” Mostly, Team Baucus gets its way.
Incidentally, kudos to the Tribune for tackling the Baucus-Hanes matter in an editorial yesterday, which comes on the heels of editorials in the Gazette, the Missoulian, and the Independent Record.
Billings Gazette also did a story on Hane’s 14k pay raise for exemplary service this weekend.
Buried in the back pages, of course.
Conrad’s medical condition got better billing.
Credit where credit is due: the Trib ran the $14k bit as its top story over the weekend. Don’t know about position on the Dead-Tree edition of the Missoulian… I’d assume the top
I’ll bet the Trib had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover the Baucus affair. They probably ran their opinion past Pat Williams first.
[...] Electric City’s Travis Kavulla, writing in the National Review Online. If the Missoulian had run the story and not allowed itself to be bullied, I think it safe to say the scandal, unmassaged by press flacks, would have been greater… [...]
I’m sorry you did think a life-threatening stroke of a longtime U.S. senator from Montana is newsworthy, Big Swede. Perhaps if Conrad were a Democrat you’d actually show a little compassion. I’m glad the Gazette doesn’t see news through your distorted glasses.
It seems as thought the Missoulian is now spinning, pretending like they’re being hard on Baucus over all this. However, some journalists and bloggers are starting to wonder, why did they sit on the story back in the Spring? Even despite the actions of Baucus’ office staff in trying to kill the story.
You would think that would make the Missoulian even more suspicious. But instead they told the reporter to sit on it.
I’m starting to think that the Missoulian may be just as much to blame here as Baucus. We did a story on this at Libertarian Republican: “Did the Missoulian cover up for the Baucus Affair.”
I quote noted journalist and legal scholar Jonathan Turley of cable news fame, who is also questioning the actions of the Missoulian.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republilcan
Swede:
Anon:
WINGNUT FIGHT! WINGNUT FIGHT!
I cannot get this point across, meaning I’m not very good at getting points across. You’ve got to get away from party politics, stop being hacks, and look at how newspapers and TV stations cover Washington politics in general.
1) They don’t do very much coverage. They don’t have people in Washington. They don’t investigate them, monitor them beyond the votes they cast now and then. When stories break, it is usually some DC or other state publication that breaks it. The Hanes story was not the result of Montana news research.
2) This seems to have blown right by: Politicians control newspapers and reporters by granting or not granting access. (Check me on this, but John Adams surely now has no access to Baucus, as he was confrontational when he interviewed him.)
3) News outlets and politicians have relationships – they know about each other, but it is at high levels.
4) Politicians put out information that they want the news media to have,and they expect that media to regurgitate that information. This is what Barrett Kaiser was fuming about – press releases were not always treated as genuine news.
5) All of the above is true of both parties. Burns was treated with the same deference and Baucus, and Tester is now too.If they behave themselves – that is, if elected officials don’t mess with powerful people, they can pretty much do as they please.
You are all right to criticize Baucus, and I enjoy that too, but ask yourselves why there was not a well-financed candidate to run against him in 2008? Why? The money is out there, a candidate can be “groomed” (local news media are good at that kind of stuff), and yet no money flowed into the state, no fair-haired boy or girl became a “go-to” or a centerfold. The money people left Baucus alone. Why?
Answer that question, and your understanding of politics will double in a heartbeat.
Come on Mark, the Gazette is going to treat the Hanes affair the same as Abramahoff?
What do we have now, maybe three articles on Hanes? Do you think they’re going to continually lambaste Baucus over this?
Use the search feature at the Gazette, Mark. Do a little research.
And Anon, lighten up.
My point was that the Gazette can’t bury anything on Conrad. Especially when its bad news, like he’s not leaving the hospital early.
“Max Baucus is at times a babbling monstrosity, grossly unable to wrangle his train of thought, ejaculating numbers without context. ”
LOL
Precious, and delightful.
(Any murmurs yet? Time to bounce Baucus?)
Swede – check out Missoulapolis – I wrote something about the Abramoff thing over there and don’t want to be boring here as well.
As usual, it’s a little too complex for you to grasp.
Mark, do you really think you make a difference here?
That is, the readers that visit this site who are undecided or uninformed, are they convinced by any of your arguments?
Your pattern of behavior says otherwise. I think your obfuscations betray your purpose. The dispute becomes more important that winning minds, even those disputes with like minded cohorts.
Frankly, I don’t even think Sancho Panza would pick you back off the ground.
Wow! A four-syllable word and a Don Quixote reference, all in one! Will wonders never cease!
No, absolutely not. I’ve said many times that blogging is of no importance. We are a very small community, and have no effect on anything. I like to write. I like to match wits with people. I like to meet smart people and learn from them. I like to make fun of dumb people.
There was a guy, back around 1973, I think who got in an argument with a guy over a beer and the guy he was arguing with realized he was wrong and changed his mind. That is the only recorded case.
People who think about things are constantly shifting their views to accommodate new information. But it happens over time. I was once a conservative Republican, and then I went too far left, and now I realize that if I brand myself, I close myself to a whole array of views that have merit. There is much about conservatism that is right and good. There is much about liberalism I abhor.
I have very few “like-minded cohorts.” Now listen: If blogging doesn’t matter and if people never change their minds, then the only reason to do it is to have fun. What is fun? Playing off one another, jabbing, ducking, getting smacked down and picking up and going at it again.
The “minds” of the American public are owned by TV sets. Most people don’t read, and certainly don’t process more than one side of any debate.
I got nuthin’.