Burnt Orange Report

My Thoughts On The Kos Non-Scandal

By Vince Leibowitz

Guest Post By Vince Leibowitz

I hate to give any more bandwith to a non-story than it's already getting, but I felt I had a few important points to make on this particular issue--given that I've worked in the realm of both the "traditional" media and for politicians, and been a blogger.

JimD noted in his earlier post on this subject:

What's really at issue is whether employment should (ethically) bar bloggers from writing about their employers. This is really a matter of following procedural ethical norms, not one of substantive honesty.

Jim is correct. This is a personal ethics issue for the blogger, not something that should have any impact on a blogger's credibility in any way, shape or form.

And, as I believe blogs fall under the category of jornalistic media, ethics can be a complicated, slippery slope to navigate when it comes to issues like this.

I firmly believe Kos took all the necessary steps to stay on the right side of the long gray line that is journalistic ethics. He clearly pointed out his affiliation, as mentioned in earlier posts, and acted responsibly.

However, this entire situation brings to light a much more important point: that Bloggers have become and will remain part of the "mainstream" media, thus subject to the close inspection and scruitany of our counterparts. Further, this very "non-scandal" shows just how much credibility blogs have gained in the United States. Since Kos is obviously one of the leaders in the field, it's no surprise to me that he's in the spotlight right now. Though the Kos stuff is a "non-issue," the style of coverage is similar to what happened with the New York Times and Jayson Blair. The NYT is one of the nation's leading newspapers. Any hint of scandal in its hallowed halls is a huge story. Since Kos is so popular, credible and essentially what many other bloggers strive to be, he's become the focus of the media spotlight.

This also points out that there is--and should be--somewhat of a different standard of ethics for bloggers than for mainstream media when it comes to specific areas like conflict of interest.

No one at a major newspaper would likely be allowed to consult for a candidate or be on their payroll while writing for that publication.

However, in the blogsphere, many of us are or have been on candidate's payrolls, worked on campaigns as volunteers, or hold leadership positions within our party. That said, some of us may have an inherant bias going into specific stories which may color what we do. But, the same is true in journalism. Though most mainstream journalists aren't simeltaniously working in campaigns or holding party leadership posts, they all have their opinions and biases and--regardless of what is said about the "unbiased media," those biases often show through in journalists' work.

Does that make them less credible? In most cases, no. While it might make them "muckrakers," who needlessly go after people, agencies, etc., it doesn't make them less credible. Facts are facts, though sometimes the benefit to the public of those facts becoming part of a front page story is debateable.

During my tenure as editor of the Van Zandt News, Canton Herald, and Wills Point Chronicle in Van Zandt County, I was put in the spotlight on one occasion in particular for a story I did about a county commissioner.

The commissioner, Ricky LaPrade (R-Grand Saline), hired his father to do dozer work for Van Zandt County and submitted bills to the County Treasurer to have him paid for that work. Obviously, that's a no-no (it's called nepotism). The County Auditor refused to pay the bill, and sent him a strongly-worded letter about nepotism.

I got wind of this, and secured the documents in question. I wrote a story about this incident with comments from the Auditor, District Attorney, and other officials. However, the Commissioner in question never returned my calls.

At the next meeting of the Van Zandt County Commissioners Court, County Judge Jeff Fisher (R-Martins Mill)--now the Executive Director of the Republican Party of Texas--criticized me, my story, my ethics, and my truthfulness in open court at the conclusion of the meeting and without provocation. He--a sitting judge who hears criminal cases mind you--put his arm around the commissioner in question and proceeded to say he'd done nothing wrong and was innocent of my trumped up, muckraking charges.

At the time, I was sitting in the jury box in the county courtroom, where the press usually sat. I decided I'd had enough of this garbage, and stood up and asked Fisher if I could now respond in the same fashion since he'd taken about five minutes to slam me in open court. Stunned, he agreed, so I walked out of the jury box to the court table and sat at the mic reserved for those speaking to the court. I launched into a five-minute recitation of the facts, noted that they were all from public records, and (perhaps my biggest mistake) criticized Fisher for so openly and loudly criticixing me, proclaiming LaPrade innocent, and intimating that I had a hidden agenda in writing the story. Keep in mind that at this time I was not the party activist I am now because of my job at the newspaper. In fact, I don't think that, up to this point (sometime in 2001), I had attended a single meeting of the Democratic Party in this county.

The other local media had a field day with this story, and wrote about it on their front pages--including when Fisher followed me to the hall continuing our exchange, which, at that point, was really rather polite. I, on the other hand, wrote nothing of it. Since our papers were the "big dog," (wealthiest, highest circulation, most awards, etc.) they couldn't wait to smear this exchange on their front pages.

Overall, it had little impact on me, my job, or my credibility. I was seen as defending myself by the public. Oddly, one local journalist who published a monthly newspaper focusing only on politics, compared Fisher to Nixon and made me out to be the hero in his column.

However, from that point on, I was hated by Fisher loyalists and most of the local GOP-establishment--in spite of the fact that they got just as much good press as they got bad press, which is the same thing that happened with Democrats during my tenure.

The point is that, as a journalist, blogger, or whatever, when you express a strong opinion, present stirring facts, or even get a lot of attention for simply doing good work, you're going to come under tremendous fire--sometimes from all sides.

When I was a journalist, the wall of awards I'd earned (including the Nancy Monson Award from the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas and the Texas Press Association) doesn't make any difference to the people who disagree with your or who are looking for a reason to bring you down. To those folks, credibility isn't the issue--you yourself are the issue.

As a blogger, on the other hand, I took a decidedly different appropach when I went to work for the Bob Glaze for State Representative Campaign as its Communications Director. I stopped blogging, period. I did't blog on my personal blog, Free State Standard, and I didn't contribute to the Political State Report, either. I stopped cold. Why? Not because I didn't want to promote my boss, that's for sure. In fact, if I had been blogging, I would have blogged on all of our opposition research and had a field day. Whould that have been credible? Yes, I had all the facts and sources to back it up. Would it have been considered a conflict of interest? Likely yes, by many, even if I stated I was working for Glaze. Would it have been useful? Without a doubt.

However, I stopped blogging for another reason entirely. I stopped blogging because I didn't want the campaign to be hurt or criticized for anything I published. I am, after all, quite opinionated, and tend to call things as I see them. And, most often, the GOP is the main source of my "wrath," so to speak. So, knowing this, I didn't want Glaze being painted as having hired a liberal member of the " liberal blogsphere" (or whatever) who had become a lightening rod for the campaign.

If I had to do it over again, however, I probably would have kept blogging during the campaign. For one thing, I'd have kept an online but private daily campaign journal. And I would have exposed Dr. Glaze's opponent for what he really is when it comes to his votes on the issues. Maybe it would have helped, maybe it wouldn't have helped. But, I think I would have felt better doing it.

The bottom line is that this entire Kos affair is a non-issue. It's pointless for the media to engage in it. But, it's something we should all come to expect. As we become the prefered source of news, opinion, and information for so many people, bloggers will begin to be attacked and will be put in the spotlight in ways we've never before thought about.