The media: a cautionary tale
Published by Mike Stark August 28th, 2006 in UncategorizedEven after being burned by Jason Zengerle and TNR a coupla months ago, and even after reading the sly hit piece the Wash. Post did on bloggers when they profiled Mary Scott O’Connor - even after watching the media assissinate Howard Dean (and Al Gore before him), for some reason I thought that if I were to be the subject of a story, I’d find a way to make sure that I wasn’t miscast, misrepresented or caricaturized… I’d closely monitor whatever was written and make sure that my story was told accurately. If it wasn’t, I’d insist on immediate and prominent correction fo the record.
Boy, was I naive.
Now before I go too much further, let me put out there that I don’t think this story is a hit piece. I don’t think the author’s intent is particularly malicious. Instead, I believe Graham is guilty of having allowed himself to have been led down a path of cliche and group-think. I also think he looks much too much like Chris Matthews, but that’s a different issue altogether…
Mr. Graham has agreed to let me reprint the email exchange we shared, so y’all could make your own judgments. While it wasn’t technically necessary for me to ask permission, I thought it was the right thing to do. In exchange, I’ve offered Mr. Graham the opportunity to respond to this post, and he has committed to doing so. If nothing else, Graham should be credited for at least engaging his readers…
I don’t have the original story Chris put up, but right now, this is what is posted at AugustaFreePress.com:
A University of Virginia law student and self-identified supporter of Democratic Party Senate candidate Jim Webb was asked to leave a George Allen campaign event in Staunton today after interrupting the start of a local press availability with the senator to ask him a series of questions that included a racial slur.”Have you ever used the word ‘nigger’?” the man, who later identified himself in a Web log posting as Mike Stark, a first-year law student at UVa., asked the Republican incumbent after Allen had finished up speaking to a local chamber of commerce group.
After repeating the question, Stark then asked Allen about a Confederate flag and noose that he keeps in his office.
Allen at first requested that Stark wait to speak with him until after he had addressed questions from the members of the media who were awaiting the start of the press availability. Allen campaign aide David Snepp then asked Stark to leave after he became combative - and Stark left after being asked by a member of management at the Holiday Inn-Staunton where the event was held.
Stark left the premises before the end of the senator’s meeting with members of the press - briefly leaving details about his identity and any possible connection that he might have to the Webb campaign a mystery.
…
In addition, the original post mentioned that I carried a notebook, tape recorder and pen (which, I have to believe would lead a reader to believe that I was misrepresenting myself as a reporter) and that I was escorted from the building (I was not - I left of my own volition when the hotel manager asked me to leave - after the Senator’s campaign aide, David Snepp, sought out the manager and asked him to ask me to leave).
In response to the article Mr. Graham wrote, I emailed:
Chris,
I’m mildly disappointed at your reporting of the events that took place today at the Allen event.
First, you write that I “was escorted from a George Allen campaign event in Staunton today after interrupting the start of a local press availability”.Several factual inaccuracies.First: this was not a campaign event. The Allen staff will tell you that today’s events were paid for with federal dollars. The difference is subtle, but important. George Allen was working “on the clock” - for me. If this was his personal time - his campaign time - it would have been fine for his staffer to ask me to leave. But he is my Senator now and he should be answerable to me when he’s working for me.Second: the word “interrupting” is unfortunate. It characterizes me as some gate-crasher that ambushed the Senator when he was otherwise engaged. What actually happened is reflected on my blog - he was wrapping up a photo-shoot, was traveling between “activities” and I sought, and received, permission from him to engage him between the two events.Third: I identified myself as Mike Stark, 1L from UVa Law School to the Senator when I met him while waiting in the buffet line. I never sought to disguise or hide my identity.Fourth: I was carrying a tape recorder, notebook and pen? News to me - and absolutely false. I had absolutely nothing in my hands and only an IPod, wallet and keys in my pockets. I had dropped off my MacBook in the car before returning to ask the Senator my questions.Fifth: while it is true that Allen asked me to wait until the press availability was over to answer my question regarding the noose and the confederate flag, he answered the first question by saying “no”. I thanked him for his answer. It was only after his campaign goons confronted me that he told me he’d answer me after finishing with you folks. In fact, as I noted earlier, he was receptive to my questions - before he found out what they were.Sixth: I’ve got this entire sequence recorded and I just listened to it on my IPod. I defy you to show me any point at which I became “combative”. Yes, I asked difficult questions, but there was no point at which I raised my voice or otherwise acted ignobly.Seventh: I was not escorted from the building. I left of my own accord because I was asked to by hotel management. This only happened, however, after the Senator’s campaign goon - the one you mentioned - asked for management to ask me to leave. And that only happened after the same campaign goon heard the Senator tell me he would answer my questions after he finished with the press availability.Finally there is this: why wasn’t it you folks asking these questions? Do you somehow imagine that there aren’t thousands of minorities in Virginia that would like to know before they cast their votes why the Senator had a Confederate Flag, opposed martin Luther King’s birthday, kept a noose in his office, called a campaign worker a macaca, signed into law “Confederate Day” without once mentioning slavery - and now wants their votes? And this is only the beginning. Read Ryan Lizza’s piece in TNR for more of George Felix Allen’s racist antics…I would like to see a corrected version of your story.Best,Mike Stark
Mike,
I will make two corrections to my story - one, on the point about what I thought I saw you holding in your hands when you were talking with the senator, and two, to better reflect your version of the events surrounding your departure from the hotel.
Issues 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are not factual inaccuracies, as you describe them.
1: This event was a campaign event. You can quibble over whether or not it was paid for by federal dollars, but the fact is that George Allen was in town to promote his campaign for re-election to the United States Senate.
2: From the perspective of an eyewitness, namely, me, you were clearly interrupting something. Allen’s “campaign goon,” as you call him, David Snepp, had informed members of the local news media (from newspapers located in Staunton and Waynesboro, a TV station in Charlottesville and a Harrisonburg station in Harrisonburg) that Sen. Allen would be available for questions after the event and asked us to set up at an area adjacent to a backdoor where the senator could exit the hotel after talking with us.
Then he informed us that the senator was coming our way and that we would have several minutes to ask questions as you made your way to begin your own Q and A session. I’m pretty sure that I still know what the definition of “interrupted” is from grade school - and this easily meets the definition.
3: When asked after you left the area as to your identity, the senator said and then repeated that he didn’t know who you were. I have no reason to doubt either him or you with your recollection of having introduced yourself to him in the buffet line. I would say that in spite of your efforts at transparency, you seem to have failed to get across who you were, given his answer and general cluelessness as to your identity when asked.
5: My tape recorder was running at the early part of your conversation with the senator. I have played it back, and could not detect the answer to your question as you noted.
6: “Combative” is another word whose definition would seem to be pretty clear. The wording of your opening question to the senator was “combative.” Your resistance to the overtures from the senator and Mr. Snepp to allow the senator to proceed with the Q and A session that had been prearranged - obviously outside of your realm of knowledge - with members of the local media was also “combative.”
And as to your final point - you seem to think that you’re the first person to ask the questions about the Confederate flag and the noose. I can’t believe that you’re serious about that. Ditto for the other points that you raise in your post here.
I was in attendance for the event today for one reason - to ask questions of the senator related to the ongoing controversy over his use of the word macaca to single out a Webb campaign volunteer at an event in Southwest Virginia two weeks ago. I’m not sure how much of the press availability you were able to take in before you left, but after another reporter asked three questions unrelated to that topic, I posed a question to the senator that led to a lengthy discussion of the issue.
So in a way, we were there for similar reasons.
I apologize for the errors in fact.
As noted above, they will be corrected - both on the AFP Forum (through a new post, to come in the next 20 minutes) and on the main page of The Augusta Free Press (through edits to the story posted earlier today, also to come in the next 20 minutes).Regards,
Chris Graham
oy…I had to travel for the weekend so was unable to respond…but I gotta tell ya that I think your work is really shoddy… and I’m trying to be nice…as a reporter, your first job is to get the story right - tell your readers what happened… it shouldn’t be that hard to not make shit up…but you’ve clearly constructed your own reality - one you must wish exists - because your reporting, in spots, has no relation to what happened at the scene.the audio of the exchange is here:
http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/audio/mstark-podcast-2006-08-26-1217.mp3after listening, can you tell me how you justify this?
Allen at first requested that Stark wait to speak with him until after he had addressed questions from the members of the media who were awaiting the start of the press availability. Allen campaign aide David Snepp then asked Stark to leave after he became combative - and Stark left after being asked by a member of management at the Holiday Inn-Staunton where the event was held.
As you can tell by listening to the tape, I agreed to wait for the Senator. I never became “combative” after that. Sheesh, the more I think about this, the more peeved I get. Why couldn’t you report the clear truth - that Sneddon had management ask me to leave because he didn’t like the content of my questions? If you want to share information with your readers, let them make the judgement about the nature of my questions… but everyone on the effin planet knows why Sneddon wanted me gone.
The real story here is that the Senator told me he’d talk to me after he was done talking to you guys, but he let his staff have me removed from the hotel (or asked to leave by management, as it were). That’s some cowardly stuff your readers deserve to know.
I’m not gonna spend a lot of time on this, but your comments about grade school definitions are pretty pathetic as well. For something to be interrupted, it must have begun. Your press availability had not begun when I asked my questions. You know full well that your characterization leads your readers to believe that I barged in on an underway press conference and “Code Pinked” the event - that I was a protestor that created a disturbance.
The fact is that I posed a question that happens to be on a lot of people’s minds these days. If I had asked the Senator about offshore energy this would not even be reported. But because I asked him a prickly question, you cast me as a protestor and leave implications that I was a little bit shrill, extreme and less than entirely credible… It’s a shame a constituent can’t ask a hard question of his Senator without being cast in such a light.
Combative… please… I spent four years in the Marines. I know combative.
Why didn’t you characterize Sneddon as combative? He encroached upon my personal space and tried to intimidate me. He asked me to leave without having any authority to do so. If there was anyone that came a little unhinged, I think you could have rightfully said so about Sneddon.
Finally - your remarks about me thinking I’m the only person to have asked these questions… I’m kinda-sorta snickering here as I write this because you make yourself the emblem for everything I think is wrong with self-satisfied journalists…
Perhaps you can point me to the “journalist” that has asked the Senator if he’s ever used the word “nigger”. The reason I put “journalist” in quotes is that there damned sure isn’t one. Everyone that’s uset by these comments wants to know if this guys a racist. The most logical place to start is to ask him what other racial slurs he has used. One slur, in particular, is relevant.
But y’all are so busy kissing authority’s ass, you’ve forgotten who you work for. It’s a shame too - because there used to be a great tradition of muckraking journalists… Lions with pens… Now you’re all tame little bunnies.
Well, I’ve rambled enough.
MS
The last-minute change in plans came minutes after a man identifying himself as a University of Virginia law school student broke in front of reporters at an event at Staunton’s Holiday Inn, forcefully asking the senator, “Have you ever used the word n—–?”He also questioned why Allen, a one-term Republican senator and former governor, had once displayed a noose in his office.Allen, caught off-guard but still smiling, put his hands on the man’s shoulders and offered to speak to him later, but aides quickly led the man out of the room and Allen soon boarded his bus and left.
26 Responses to “The media: a cautionary tale”
- 1 Pingback on Nov 1st, 2006 at 11:02 am
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Don’t get pissed off. That’s the key. If I could say anything, I would have been less dismissive in your reply, and more engaging about specifics. Of course, you have to ignore people at some point, too, when you’re not getting through, but remember that you’re playing politics now, and the rules, while indefensible, are what they are until we can change them.
I admire your dedication and cleverness.
Mike,
Simply put…. thank you…
CRW
Sent to the reporter:
Re Senator Macaca.
I read Mike Stark’s blog entry about your story on his confrontation of Allen. I think where Mike has it wrong is with the assumptions that underlie your story.
In this day and age, anyone who dares question a politician who is part of the GOP power structure is, ipso facto, “combative” and acting inappropriately. It does not matter whether the person is the former head of US anti-terrorism efforts, a retired general, a former vice president, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, a former Treasury secretary or a former Marine law student. Once a person crosses that line and refuses to honor the script of those in power, he or she is pegged as a lunatic, is swiftboated and smeared by the press and punished for daring to open their mouths. That’s just the way it is in America now.
One day, this period will be looked back upon in the same way the McCarthy period is (or was). ANd it could never be this way without the complicity of the press, just like the Iraq war could never have happened without the slothful complicity of the press in a massive misinformation campaign intended to mislead and dupe the nation.
I used to feel bad about representing large corporations that sought to evade their legal obligations to people they had harmed. I can’t imagine what it feels like to be a journalist who sucks up to the powerful and smears anyone who dares stand up to them. It must be awful.
p.s. where did you go to grade school?
I’m not gonna spend a lot of time on this he said, amidst a painfully annotated pissing match with a local reporter about a bunch of trivial minutiae. Way to show him how uncombative you are.
I was reading some of the comments over at James Kunstler’s blog, and someone mentioned the “emotional belligerence” of the left. Describes our problem perfectly, I think. Really, we need to stop wasting so much energy on such bullshit quibbling.
Mike,
As I wrote in my earlier comment, I think it was irrelevant for you to ask Senator Allen if he had ever used the word ‘nigger’, but your second question concerning him displaying a confederate flag and a noose in his office was entirely appropriate.
I am totally unsatisfied with the smug response Graham gave to that second question. Has he ever asked it himself? If not, why? Senator Allen’s previous response that it represented his tough law and order stance is unacceptable (it was a noose suspended from a tree in his office) and in light of his recent use of the word ‘macaca’, simply not credible.
These, among many, many, others, are the questions reporters should be asking today. I agree with your main premise the the press has voluntarily abdicated its role as watchdog, holding the political branches accountable to the public. If we had been stuck with today’s press corps back in the days of Watergate, Richard Nixon would still be president.
I think Mike has a point overall, and was right to protest some of the story’s elements, as evidenced by their being corrected, but I do agree with fishbane and c.jodi above; stepping up the game will require knowing when you’re ahead and keeping the emotional side in check. The 2L or 3L in you wouldn’t write what the 1L would. It’s good to keep credibility up, as the reporter could have been an ally in the end, but surely now not, and the importance of your main message can be lost in such a case. The point could have been made well enough without so much personal attack. Getting into law combined with the blog experiences will likely allow you to be more visible on these issues in the future, so protect that by being as strong and strident as the situation calls for, while also being as judicious as possible.
Mike, I totally agree that you got screwed, but there is an old adage you need to remember. “Only a fool would get into a pissing match with the guy who owns all the ink in town”. Your first e-mail was justified and professional, but in your second, it appears thatyou let him get under your skin and it made your tone unfortunately sound like a case of sour grapes. I don’t need to remind someone with your obvious patience and inate skill for tilting at windmills….Hate the game, not the player. Now, get up, brush off the dirt on your ass, get back in there and go do the only thing that really matters in the end….score a touchdown.
And, win one for the Gipper. (oops…one too many football analogies…my bad)
Mike’s got it right.
Chris’ account was simply inaccurate (I’m hesitant to label it a “story”). His response to Mike was sneering and smug, telltale signs of a certain political persuasion.
When I read the “grade school” remark, however, he lost me. He’s just an amateur.
Real journalists, like real men, don’t resort to prissy, snide, bullshit remarks like this. Real journalists tell the facts, and they don’t rewrite the definitions of certain words, such as “combative”. Real journalists don’t have an air about them…you know, like their noses are stuck up the asses of those in power.
I think I’d not waste any more time on this goober.
The day and age of real journalism is dead and over, now we have highly paid lobbyiest idiot yes men bobbleheads who obediently do what the upper elites of society dictate to them what to do.
That is why upper elites and the MSM are so afraid of bloggers. Bloggers have one true tool on their side: the truth.
Mike, never shut up. As for the rest of the 99.9% of non upper elites of society, please speak up. We need your voice.
The wingnuts have done a good job at fastening the title of “liberal media” on all that used to oppose them. Now, even when they are on they are in the right, our media is too gutless to report/ask what they should. Absolutely disgusting. And then there were blogs.
Cjodi- keep on posting comments. I’ll be happy to manipulate what you’ve typed and twist your words in a way that will benefit my side of the story. Then maybe you’ll understand it’s not “bullshit quibbling”.
Mike, I totally agree that you got screwed, but there is an old adage you need to remember. “Only a fool would get into a pissing match with the guy who owns all the ink in town”
Mike, you can ignore comments like this. They come from people who would never dare risk anything to make an important point or to challenge the status quo. Same with the crap 2l and 3l comments. You are more of a man and a patriot than these timid folks could ever dream of being. Trust your own judgment and instincts and ignore their petty criticisms.
Mike -
db’s comment, uh… what he said.
DB, Where do I start…..all I can say is you it is this…It painfully obvious that you have absolutely no experience whatsoever dealing in media relations. Mike knows that I strenuously support him and his efforts, but when you feel the urge to rebut, it is a cautionary rule that you limit yourself to one response and only one response. You do this because a second rebuttal inveriably comes across as sour grapes.
Mike has had a continuing e-mail exchange with this reporter. While this continuing exchange has resulted in a clarification in position between the two, in the end, public corrections only resulted from the initial exchange.
Mike has every right to persue his grievance, but my caution was that the editors still control what is printed, and if your tone sours them, you can kiss your soapbox goodbye.
‘Nuff said on that.
Finally, while you apparently mistook my prior post as an attack, I am sure that Mike read, understood and appreciated the proper intent or he would have responded himself…..and with apologies for pressing the Cervantes theme….I seriously doubt anyone as obviously gifted as Mike Stark would ever require a stooge like you to play Sancho Panza to his Don Quixote. Back off chump…this ain’t the kiddie pool, and it appears your mamma forgot to pack yur water wings today.
And, Frank…uh… what I said to db.
Frank, you said:
Mike, I totally agree that you got screwed, but there is an old adage you need to remember. “Only a fool would get into a pissing match with the guy who owns all the ink in town”
I still think the comment is stupid. Sorry you disagree.
I’m sorry, it was Jeff, not Frank, who said that. My apologies.
db…maybe I need to “dumb down” the phrase so you can understand it better….It means, when you get into an arguement with a newspaper, no matter how right you are or how wrong they are, they still hold total control of every single word….everything….that will ever make it into print about it, and like it or not, THEY hold the ultimate control over how your tone is presented. Worst part is, they always get the last word on any topic.
Mike got screwed, but other than this forum where HE holds control, there is little that can be achieved by calling the reporter a “tame little bunny” who is “busy kissing authority’s ass”. Those were the references that I was alking about from his second e-mail exchange.
Here’s how it works… The reporter got testy in his response t Mike, and Mike got testy back….the reporter could well have used those very comments in print to support his original assertion that Mike was interruptive and combative instyle without ever disclosing his own comments that prompted the exchange.
Luckly, this time, the story was small enough to not warrant a follow up in the paper, but people are not always that lucky. If the reporter was pissed enough, he could have written a follow-up that could have really made Mike sound like an ass to those who do not know the background or his temperment.
In that case, the public sense of the score would have been reporter 2, Mike 0.
Radio call-ins are vastly different from print media….in radio, they can edit you, but they cannot change the presentation of your overall tone or demeanor of how you present yourself. Print can come across completely different when the reader must rely on cues from the writer of the quote to determine your timber and personality.
…Get it now? Good. You may be seated.
No, Jeff, what I think is stupid is the idea that you feel you are qualified to tell Mike how to do what you would never have the guts to do yourself. That was my initial point. Critics like you are a dime a dozen, and are typically more interested in using other people’s achievements to make themselves look smart or knowledgable than they are in making a meaningful contribution.
Now, get up, brush off the dirt on your ass, get back in there and go do the only thing that really matters in the end…. Inflate your ego.
p.s. I shall now leave ‘this’ pissing match for greener pastures. You can have the last word if you like, Jeff. My only advice to you is that you not talk down to people, including Mike. He’s not your inferior. Far from it.
Mike inferior? Heavens no, db. You on the other hand….(yawn) NEXT!
he didn’t return your e-mail… maybe he was as confused as i am– who is sneddon?
Jeff said:
“In that case, the public sense of the score would have been reporter 2, Mike 0.”
Maybe, after another year or two of law school and a couple more attempts at making the story center on you versus the issues at hand, you might even the score!
Eh,if the reporter completely misrepresents you,isn’t there legal action that can be taken? I mean,if it can be deemed libelous anyway.
It would seem to me that could be the case. However,I recognise that by the time it would be mediated and set right,many of the newspaper readers would have formed a damaging “first impression” of Mike.
I guess maybe it would depend on the mischaracterisation?
Yakki, your ability to persue legal actions becomes severely curtaled when you put yourself “in the public eye”. Defamation cases, as Mike is learning in law school, require you to provide overwhelming evidence of three things: 1) the action was patently false, and could not be construed otherwise 2) the person who claims to have been defamed was done substantial harm by the action, and 3) the person who took the action was aware at the time that it was untrue and acted with intent to cause substantial harm.
Courts do not usually side in cases of this nature where the person claiming harm intentionally exists “in the public eye”, and I am sure they would rule that Mike fits that delimiter.
Hey man, that’s the way it goes. Now, you have to REALLY wonder about EVERYTHING in a newspaper or off any newswire or on TV. NONE of it could be true. It could be close to the truth, but not the truth.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Mike,
Thanks for doing this. I enjoyed listening to Allen asking if you were a journalist. Both your questions were 100 perecent valid, and questions which deserve an answer, for the sake of the voters.
Whether you choose to play by the rules of the chattering class is up to you, but in a sense it’s sort of pointless. They are quite threatented by bloggers or any independent voice that has not been credentialed by j-school, and developed the condescending tone of the true insider. You are dead on when you discuss this fact…it’s the reason that so much of what passes for reporting these days is merely stenography for the powerful.