That's good. The problem is that Brauer uses the rest of his piece for settling scores with reporters who do report Bachmann's extremism to the public--in news items or in feature profiles.
The reason that some reporters do that regular or summary coverage of Bachmann extremism, is because what Bachmann says and tells people to believe has national and state-wide significance.
But Brauer doesn't allow for that in his critique. Instead, he alleges that all these guys who are reporting on Bachmann are somehow flawed. He claims that Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone profile of Bachmann last year was "ripped off" (not true, but Brauer foregoes dealing with the factual details in order to do a drive-by smear of Taibbi and Rolling Stone.) And Brauer thinks it's terrible that the City Pages regularly reports all these controversial things that Bachmann continually says.
(CONTINUED)
Brauer suggests that this kind of reportage is just other journalists using references to Bachmann as a "hit-whoring crutch." (His colorful phrase.)
"Hit-whoring crutch" suggests that Brauer thinks there's not much real news value in these pieces documenting Bachmann's latest extremist nonsense or outright lies. The phrase also suggests that it's somehow biased or irresponsible reporting to regularly acquaint the public with instances of Bachmann lies or hate-mongering (as these continue to occur in real time.) It leaves you with the impression that Brauer would rather not see this stuff reported at all.
"These "hit-whore" journalists just run that stuff to generate hits," seems to be Brau's take on his peers.
It also seems to irritate him on a more personal level. For example, it seems to annoy him that more people are interested in reading the latest about Bachmann's extremist outburst--than read and react to the piece Brauer wrote yesterday about money and media. (Yes, it's true: Brauer cites his own work as an example of something that should attract more reader attention than Bachmann coverage. Brauer describes his own work as "deeply reported!" I've never tried what Brauer is doing there, awarding myself some kind of prize--publicly--for my hard work.)
So: according to Brauer, Rolling Stone and the City Pages and the other journalists who "hit-whore" the Bachmann brand are doing journalism all wrong. Who has got it right, when it comes to determining the appropriate tone and coverage space for Bachmann? Brauer doesn't tell us, but I think it's safe to assume that Brauer thinks the publication that he works for has got it juuuust right. Not too much, not too little. I guess over at the MinnPost they think they are "the porridge that Goldilocks ate." Brauer is highly critical of other journalists and publications, but he doesn't cite any mistakes or missed opportunities or coverage lapses at the MinnPost, no sir.
Well! I've been reading professional press coverage here in Minnesota on Michele Bachmann since the year 2000. I can't recall any single MinnPost story on Bachmann that led the way on identifying Bachmann to the public for what she is.
What is she? According to David Brauer, Bachmann is the kind of politician that Brauer would vote against, twice, if he could. I can't think of any original MinnPost piece on Bachmann that led the way, in revealing that picture of this politician and what she represents. Brauer must have formed his opinion of Bachmann based on reporting in other publications, including the ones he criticizes. Maybe Brauer read about her extremism in the late, great Minnesota Independent.
(By the way: what is the biggest story the MinnPost ever broke? Does anyone know? Were they first to do a big feature on the horrifying rate of gay teen suicides story in Anoka/Hennepin? What is the biggest Minnesota story they ever broke over there?(
(I'm not claiming that those guys never did any significant story that led to a real reform of an evil. I'm just saying that I can't think of one. Can any of you? Please don't tell me about any awards they've arranged for each other; awards are BS. What counts, is breaking stories that significantly change Minnesota for the better. Have they done anything like that, since they've gone into business?)
(I mean: people are funding them, what have they achieved with that mone--that the Strib and PiPress haven't done? It just seems to be more of the same c**p that Sturdevant and the Strib and PiPress run; the c**p that inspires readers to turn to the City Pages and the grassroots blogs instead.)
Anyway, listen: for all their claimed experience and expertise, I don't know of any professional Minnesota reporter or columnist who presciently appreciated the ideology and thread of Bachmann's career--and was responsible and courageous enough to report it. The best we could hope for, from the mainstream press guys who think so much of themselves, was an occasional fact that came in over the transom. There was that profile of Bachmann as a creature of the religious right in the City Pages (all those years ago, 2006)--and then a deafening silence from the Minnesota press corps about Bachmann's extremism, political roots, national sponsorship, and strategy of lying.
When bloggers (including, a-hem, yours truly) sent quotes out of Bachmann's own mouth to Minnesota news people back in 2006, those Minnesota news people steadfastly refused to print them...
...even though they proved that she was indeed an extremist, a homophobe intent on sowing homophobia, a political paranoid spreading global conspiracy theory.
The MinnPost generation of political journalists wouldn't touch that stuff, even though it was bullet-proof sourcing: the words from Bachmann's own mouth, transcribed from recordings of Bachmann herself.
The people who did begin to print that stuff, publicly, were the people who Brauer now describes a "hit-whores": the political blogs, the City Pages, the out-of-state new sources that understand why Bachmann is important. (The best Minnesota reporter on the Bachmann story here in Minnesota--freelance, on salary, wherever--was Andy Birkey at the Minnesota Independent.)
The fact is that the old hands at the MinnPost and the Strib and the PiPress had hot copy on the hands--a story about a real live extremist who was winning office here and exercising national influence--and those experienced and professional journalists wouldn't run it.
It wasn't just "hot copy," either...it was an important Minnesota story--the story of the most important career in Minnesota and what it boded for the future and agenda of the state's Republican Party.
If the MinnPost guys were the experts they claimed to be, they would have recognized this and reported it. Instead, the dailies they used to work for (with very few exceptions) printed c**p about Bachmann. (Look at the profiles of Bachmann that did appear in the Strib and PiPress, look at the interview that the MinnPost commissioned with her. They're embarrassing c**p.)
When the national (and international) journalists arrived in Minnesota last summer to find out "who presidential candidate Michele Bachmann really is"--they went to Bachmann supporters and opponents for that information. Quite rightly, they ignored the professional Minnesota press take on her. Because practically all of it (as it appears on the record in their publications) was worse than useless.
In some cases, the "professional reporting" was little more than pro-Bachmann spin, apparently designed to make her look less crazy than she is. These professional reporters and editors simply "left out" established facts indicating that Bachmann was a right wing kook. If you really wanted to know what was really going on--you read the "hit-whores," not the mainstream journalists and newspapers.
But I hate to see Brauer (or any salaried news professional in Minnesota) so upset about how few people want to read their self-described "deeply reported" pieces on non-Bachmann topics. Those other topics they write about are important. And when I see a salaried journalist get miffed and begin to complain publicly that people are wrong to ignore his work in favor of some other very important topic--a little piece of me dies.
So I have a positive course of action for Brauer to take, if he really wants more people to read and react to his "deep reporting." (I counsel action. Rather than sit around your laptop complaining about how people are reading other stories, you should do something.) And here it is:
It's clear that Michele Bachmann is still "hot copy" whether you want her to be or not, David. It's clear that this will be the case in Minnesota (and perhaps nationally) through the next election cycle at least.
So why don't you use your "deep reporting" skills to do a fine, brand new, investigative piece on Michele Bachmann? I mean--real reporting; not just criticizing other news sources.
Why don't you "turn up some new facts about her, facts that have never appeared in Rolling Stone or the New Yorker or the City Pages before?" It's a shame that they're all beating you on this, Brauer ("Brau-beaten?") because you live here in Minnesota! You should have been on top of this thing that everybody wants to know about--right?
You say that you'd vote against her twice, if you could. So why don't you use your print space at the MinnPost to acquaint your readership with the reasons why you'd vote against her--using new information, not yet reported by the City Pages and Rolling Stone and the New Yorker and Newsweek and the blogs?
If you want more readers and more reaction--that would be a "good" thing for you and the MinnPost to do. It doesn't have to be negative in tone. You guys might be the first to identify some very positive fact-pattern that discredits all this stuff about Bachmann being one of the biggest nuts in government. That would be "news!" Good luck with that, if that's your angle!
Whatever angle you take, you would be doing "a news story that people around the country would be interested in reading." You might get an award! (From someone else, not yourself.) All it has to be, is "original investigative reporting." Do what we do...make a few phone calls, find a few good sources, look stuff up.
And here's something you probably haven't thought of. After reading year after year of valuable, factual and courageous Bachmann coverage from sources other than the MinnPost...you must have realized that Bachmann is a conservative. So: it is very likely that she is somehow supportive of many troublesome issues that interest you. (For example, news developments in the relationship between money and politics.)
It may be possible to get more people to read your "deep reporting" on such an issue-- by including a factually significant link between the issue you're reporting, and "hot copy" Michele Bachmann. (If there's no factually significant link between your topic and Michele Bachmann--that would be what you call "hit-whoring." So don't do that.)
Anyway--there's a bee in your bonnet for you, on how to get more reader interest in all your hard work. A new, original piece of investigative reporting on Michele Bachmann--by a Minnesota journalist! For the first time since 2006! With new revelations about her life, ideology, career, national sponsorship, political agenda.
But remember: The revelations have to be new--you can't just retread facts originally gathered by all those "hit-whores" you seem to despise.
I'm just here to help. And unlike you--I'm not puzzled by all this continued reader and voter interest in Minnesota's most significant political figure. So I'm qualified to explain this to you.