Missoulian Journo talks about the Baucus Spin
Jodi Rave, formerly the Indian country reporter for the Missoulian who is now working on a book, dishes big-time on how the Baucus Affair story was managed when she first approached the Senator’s staff.
Hear her story on Voices of Montana.
Ms Rave notes that we live in “a small state with some very powerful senators” and that, elsewhere, “I’ve worked with editors who would have pushed and nailed that story.”
Apparently there is less vigor in Montana papers. The biggest revelation is that other Montana reporters were aware of this story — and they, too, sat on it. In fact, it took Ms Rave (who is not ordinarily a “political reporter”) to push the envelope, when much of the rest of Montana’s press corps was mum.
Of the Missoulian’s decision not to print when the story was in, Rave says “We could have—we should have, being the reporters, having all the information—we should have gone with the story. But we weren’t pushing it…We gave Senator Baucus and Melodee Hanes plenty of time to get a game plan…”
I am happy to hear that my storyline of this incident has been confirmed by one of the principals.
Wait a second. According to posters and commenters at this very website, wasn’t Jodi Rave a biased reporter who didn’t cover anything but the Indian beat, working for a biased paper? That is, according to one notable poster and many commenters right here at ECW? Weren’t there calls for her to cover more stuff, and further calls that she was a racist who only had one view, and that’s why she described a racist letter as racist? But, now, when you need her to, she has credibility? I find that … odd.
(Don’t even bother, trolls. I have the links already lined up. And no, Travis, you weren’t involved in that, but this website certainly was.)
As much as I supported Rave’s narratives then, I support her now. Nobody is arguing the fact that this was an attempt at covering something distasteful on behalf of Senator Baucus. To me, what is distasteful is that a website that promoted someone’s destruction of credible reporting is now relying on her reporting for favored politics. Before, she was a racist playing the ‘race card’. And now she’s a trusted source concerning the enemies …
Right …
That’s actually kind of disgusting when you think about it.
Now that the right wing has cornered the AM radio market maybe they can start publishing newspapers…there are plenty of printing presses for sale-cheap.
“That’s actually kind of disgusting when you think about it.”
I think the lady doth protest too much. Exactly what’s incongruent about labeling a reporter a native booster and pointing out where she has been hard on a rich white guy?
Did Melodee Hanes’ ex contact media other than the Missoulian with information about the conflict of interest? Has anyone talked with her ex to see where he took his tip?
The Tribune’s front page article today on Mr. Cotter’s nomination has this uninformative, whitewashed account: “Hanes withdrew her name later after she and Baucus determined it would be best if she did so.” No kidding. This carefully parsed sentence conspicuously omits critical facts that bear on the couple’s decision as to what would be “best”. The Missoulian’s Chuck Johnson reported on 12/8: Baucus’ “office finally replied in March that Hanes had withdrawn – but only after the Missoulian told Baucus staffers that Rave’s story on the senator’s recommendation would run the next day. Throughout that time, Baucus’ office refused to acknowledge any personal relationship between Hanes and the senator.”
The Tribune may not want to keep re-hashing the Hanes’ story, but if it’s going to describe the facts, it shouldn’t be crafty.
I don’t see anything strange or hypocritical about my praising Jodi Rave; I’ve never written anything about her and, in fact, have always liked her. I think Wulfgar must have me confused for Prof Natelson — everyone writing for this blog has his own opinions!
Both the R’s and D’s are continually look through press clippings for evidence of bias in that media towards one or the other party. When they think they’ve found it, they get all triumphant. But Mr.Kavulla seems to be on the right path in putting up this post. It’s not about the party of the person in power. It is about the power grid.
Jodi Rave said that Montana is a state with two very powerful senators. She’s right, and the best course of inquiry would be to understand what is the nature of the power, how is it exercised, and why do journalists cower in fear of it?
Power is not abstract and hard to comprehend. It is force, the ability to hurt or reward people to get them to do what you want. How would a senator like Baucus hurt or reward a little newspaper writer, or the big newspaper itself?
For the little beat writer, the direct reward is access. But indirectly, through the newspaper, the compliant and submissive reporter will receive promotions (and if the reporter is an especially talented sycophant, become an editor).But for the run-of-the mill reporter, merely keeping a job and supporting a family is enough.
People who are so desperate to hold a job that they submit to this demeaning situation are, in the Mencken hierarchy of minds, second, third, or fourth-rate. I forget which rank he used for reporters.
Suppose, however, that a reporter decides to rise above his station and investigate and report on misbehavior by Baucus, or Burns for that matter. How can Baucus punish that reporter, and teach him/her a lesson? Access is immediately cut off – that’s a given, but there is more. Further punishment is meted out by the newspaper hierarchy, first a warning t stay away, removal from the beat, and, if the reporter is a courageous individual, dismissal.
Baucus is wired to the publisher, who is wired to the power grid within the state – the wealthy families and powerful corporations who are always present but never mentioned.
This situation was openly apparent to all when Anaconda Company owned the state newspapers, and is only hidden from view now, but still exists.
Rave said But we weren’t pushing it…We gave Senator Baucus and Melodee Hanes plenty of time to get a game plan…” They knew better than to push it.
What you have uncovered here is important – if you can avoid the thought pattern that wants to make it “D” versus “R”, you will have better insight into how it works,and why newspapers protect politicians. It’s not just Montana, and the “power” that Rave referred to, is not in the office of Senator, but rather in the financial bastions of state enterprises and wealth families.
DO a NEXUS search sometime,if you can, looking in Montana newspapers for mention of the state’s most powerful individual: Denny Washington. Why is he virtually invisible?
Oh please Wolf, spare us from the shame of your false accusations.
No one’s dealt the ace card more than you.
I dunno. I got the impression listening to her that she didn’t push very hard for that story either. It wasn’t clear to me why.
I gather, David, that Ms Rave was looking into another aspect of the story — why no Indians had been considered for US Attorney. (This, incidentally, is the type of invented story that causes some to roll their eyes at Ms Rave.)
Actually, I think Wolf is on to something. It may not be what right wingers want to hear, but, as someone far wiser than the collective genius in here once said: “Truth has a cwertain ring to it.” I hear that ring.
Watch it Trav, that comment’s racist
As a writer, you should know that ‘reading is FUndamental’, Travis. You seem to have missed this part of my comment:
Wulfgar, my point is that you can’t cry “hypocrite” based merely on the fact that Prof Natelson has one thing to say about Ms Rave, and I have another. No one has ever made the claim that this blog is anything other than a group of several individuals, all with their own opinions.
It wasn’t only Prof Natelson, Travis. It was the majority of commenters here as well. And yes, the argument and claim has been made that this blog is something other than just a bunch of posters with different opinions. It is an online community, and that suggests a whole. I appreciate that you seek to defend yourself against my ‘attack’, except that I never accused you. I accused the whole, the community. Expecting some consistency among a grouping is not that out of line.