Calling All Wingnuts

Dkos member memekiller wrote this overlooked diary last Friday. It’s taken me this long to track down the whole story, so forgive me if the subject is a little stale. It’s still important.

In a nutshell, Jake Tapper writes a blog named Political Punch for ABC. Last week, he was breathlessly reporting the “Air Pelosi” story and complemented it with a blog post.

memekiller (have I told you how much you guys amaze me) took the time to grab the House Sergeant At Arms press release to post in the comments of Tapper’s blog entry. The comments are moderated. His correction of Tappers story was never posted. So he tried again. Nothing. He posted some snark. That made it in. So he posted some snark mixed with the press release. The press release was edited out, the snark made it in. Propagandists.

So, I got in touch with Mr. Tapper.

First, from me to Tapper at his home email address (don’t ask how I got it - let’s just say that not everyone at ABC is happy with their right-wing tilt):

Mr. Tapper, My name is Mike Stark. I’m a fairly prominent blogger, activist and media gadfly. If you google my name, you’ll get an idea of the type of things I’ve worked on.

Anyway, a DailyKos diarist got in touch with me regarding your blog, “Political Punch”. His concern was that in your post regarding “Air Pelosi”, you or your moderators refused to post his comment which included the press release issued by the House Sergeant At Arms - a press release which deflated the entire story and undermined the misleading nature your post.

After receiving that email, I went to the post in question and attempted to post the press release myself. It did not appear on the blog.

So, I was wondering if you could answer some questions for me.

1) Do you moderate your own blog, and if not, who does?

2) What is the criteria for determining what blog comments will be allowed?

3) What is the overall purpose of the blog? Does it have an agenda? Is there a specific reason a comment containing a press release - that completed the picture and brought more “news” to ABC’s readers that would have allowed for more complete contextualization - was not approved?

Best, Mike Stark

Tapper’s response:

mr stark i don’t moderate the comments, i don’t know anything about them until they’re posted. there are certainly lots of posts from the left and right critical of my work and that of abc news, so i’m surprised to hear your complaint.

why don’t you email my work account - [stricken, ed] - with what you tried to post and i will forward to the dot-com people and ask what happened.

jt

From me to his work account:

Mr Tapper,A DailyKos diarist got in touch with me regarding your blog, “Political Punch”.

His concern was that in your post regarding “Air Pelosi”, your moderators refused to post his comment which included the press release issued by the House Sergeant At Arms - a press release which deflated the entire story and undermined the misleading nature of the blog entry.

After receiving that email, I went to the blog entry in question and attempted to post the press release myself. It did not appear on the blog.

So, I was wondering if you could answer some questions for me.

1) Who moderates your blog? 2) What is the criteria for determining what blog comments will be allowed? 3) What is the overall purpose of the blog? Does it have an agenda? Is there a specific reason a comment containing a press release - that completed the picture and brought more “news” to ABC’s readers that would have allowed for more complete contextualization - was not approved?

Thank you, Mike Stark

Tapper to me:

There was nothing misleading about my blog entry But I will inquire about the posting situation.

Me to Tapper:

It’s often astounding to me that some folks in the media elite seem to be uninterested in criticism of their work. I understand that you folks are in a profession that draws an outrageous amount of criticism and if you paid attention to all of it, you’d do nothing else.That said, 10 minutes a day checking MediaMatters.com and, say, Bozell’s Media watchdog group would do each and every one of you a world of good without introducing a bunch of distracting chaff.

This is why your post was misleading:

You wrote:

So….THE BROUHAHA about the request by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to use a larger military plane than the one afforded her predecessor, perhaps even a large luxurious C-32,

But the Press release reads:

For Immediate ReleaseFebruary 8, 2007

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

This was clearly a case of a media story that was “juicy” to tell, facts be damned.

In fact, I laughed out loud when I saw this paragraph in your regular news report:

On Feb. 1, unnamed administration and congressional sources leaked to the Washington Times that Pelosi was “seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request ‘carte blanche for an aircraft any time.”

ABC now relies on news gathering by the Moonie Times. How far you’ve fallen…

And to be clear, Mr. Tapper, I am not blaming you singularly. I understand how conventional wisdom and group-reporting can lead to reporting and a blog post like this. It isn’t right though. The Drudge to Moonies to Fox to ABC conduit has to be severed. Halperin be damned, it’s not good for your industry. Further, with competing interests and WWW3 on its way, your continued marginalization of yourselves by relying on this facts-be-damned, if it’s fun, it runs kind of news dynamic will result in the continuance of your vanishing ratings.

There’s a reason people don’t watch much news anymore - if it’s not news, they’ve go tbetter things to do.

Best, Mike Stark

So… I was a nice guy about it. I didn’t go through his entire blog and point out that 9 out of 10 posts bash Democrats - even though it’s true. I didn’t personally insult the man or besmirch his character… I simply raised some concerns - and even offered a suggestion that I’d really like to see him follow - go to MediaMatters.org for 5 minutes a day. Then visit Bozo’s media watchdog group. It’d truly be an eye opening experience for him and others in the media to compare the difference in the criticisms they receive from each side. Which criticism is substantial, which is media hate for media hate’s sake?

Anyway, you might think he’d take the email in stride. Maybe even give it a little professional thought.

Or maybe he’d be a snippy and petulant elitist reporter that felt a little singed by a dirty fucking blogger and recoiled from the thought. You be the judge. This is his response:

I said I would look into the posting situation for you. Please stop emailing me.

Well, needless to say, he didn’t mention that he also wrote that his blog post was not misleading. He didn’t give an inch with regards to being totally fucking wrong.

But that’s our media. Time and time again, that’s our media.