Lambert went on to call the major league Minnesota press' coverage of Bachmann's career a "fail." Then he made the following ugly suggestion about why Minnesota Public Radio (MPR), the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and the St. Paul Pioneer Press failed to cover Bachmann properly:
My suspicion/accusation has long been that the local news media have each separately made an economic calculation that regular and full reporting Bachmann's misrepresentations, activities, alliances and influences becomes counter-productive after the point of perfunctory diligence.
When Bob Collins of MPR read that accusation his ears burned or something. He wrote of Lambert's accusation:
The innuendo seems clear: Because MPR and other organizations didn't cover Bachmann "properly," kids are dying by their own hands, collateral damage in an economic calculation.
Well, the "innuendo" may be "clear" to Bob. But I don't think that Bob understands the message Lambert's trying to convey there, in that passage Bob quoted. All Lambert's saying there, is that economic calculation--the pursuit of self-interest by leading Minnesota news outlets--is a factor in explaining why Minnesota coverage of the state's leading demagogue has been so awful and so cowardly for so long.
Bob goes on:
(Lambert's accusation is) an unsubstantiated and scurrilous accusation that assaults not only the facts, but the integrity of those who've been waving their arms for more than a decade, yelling, "you've got a problem here."
What does Bob mean, when he talks about "those who have been waving their arms and yelling for more than a decade?" He seems to be referring to media coverage of Minnesota teen suicides--rather than to media coverage of Michele Bachmann, which was what Lambert was talking about. Bob doesn't seem to understand the distinction.
Bob discards the point at issue in favor of another topic, and hopes that no one notices, and then praises himself, and then assumes the role of moral arbitrator.
First...Bob cites his own coverage of teen suicides. He then deplores the fact that his own coverage met with indifference, "possibly because (those pieces) couldn't provide the political jollies that the pro-Bachmann/anti-Bachmann warriors seek in important issues."
Now that was two cheap shots by Bob Collins. Two cheap shots, in a single sentence! If Bob's pieces on teen suicide were largely ignored by the public--well, it wasn't just the "the pro-Bachmann/anti-Bachmann warriors" who ignored them. So Bob shouldn't have singled them out for blame--right?
The second cheap shot by Collins: Bob suggests to his readers that the "pro-Bachmann/anti-Bachmann warriors" are more concerned with getting their "political jollies" than "more important issues."
Wow. It doesn't even seem to occur to Bob that people who support or oppose Michele Bachmann are doing so precisely because they care deeply about important issues--global warming, abortion, separation of church and state, science, Christianity, political freedom, issues of war or peace...the list of important issues that concern pro and anti Bachmann people is actually very impressive--contrary to what Bob thinks and would have us believe.
So the stand that Bob is taking here--is an incredibly self-righteous or ill-informed or patently inaccurate stand for a news professional to take. (Take your pick, "self-righteous," "ill-informed," "patently inaccurate,"--or any combination of those.)
Nonetheless, it is valuable to see him print this stuff. Seeing "how Bob thinks and how Bob operates" helps to explain why we've been so ill-served by MPR's Bachmann coverage over the years.
Now: what do you think of Collins' dismissal of Lambert's accusation--that Minnesota news coverage of Michele Bachmann failed by because of self-interested "economic calculation" at MPR, the Strib, and the PiPress? Bob seems to think that accusation is "unsubstantiated and scurrilous."
(CONTINUED)
Well, I don't know what you think. But I believe Lambert's accusation is well-founded. I do believe that Minnesota publishers, editors and news reporters consider their own interests (including economic,financial interests) when deciding what political news they will and won't cover. (Don't you? Is that belief really "a stretch," for most people with experience of real life and the quality of American news media?)
Of course I don't expect that any respected Minnesota journalist, editor or publisher would ever go public with a shameful admission like that: "economic calculation of self=interest played a role in what important truths we would print, and what important truths we would spike."
What would happen to a credible Minnesota reporter or editor who "broke the silence" and accused colleagues of spiking important truths --regularly, as a matter of policy--out of motives of economic interest and careerism?
Going public with an admission like that, would bring a hail of dead cats down on the head of the reporter who admitted it--and submitted proof. The resentment of former colleagues and employers would be tremendous. The reporter documenting that charge would be seen as "untrustworthy, revealing the content of 'internal' 'private' conversations and comments. There would be severe consequences to the career and income prospects of a news professional who documented that horrible charge. Not just in Minnesota: any news outlet would hesitate to hire a reporter who disclosed his colleagues' less-than-admirable motives.
On the other hand, a reporter who chooses not to disclose such evidence--keeps his chance to keep his career alive.
That's why we're unlikely to see someone from inside the PiPress, Strib or MPR go public with the story of why their coverage of the most important political figure in Minnesota was a cowardly fail. "Economic calculation" and careerism were factors in Minnesota professional media's Bachmann fail--and they will be factors in Minnesota media's refusal to explain the fail.
As we've seen, Minnesota's most influential legacy media believe it's acceptable that the state's Republican Party and the Minnesota Legislature be delivered into the hands of Bachmann-like imitators and crackpots. Better that, than for them to "get into trouble" for reporting what Bachmann actually said, as she said it.
(Remember: that's all we were asking them to do for the past ten years and more. We weren't asking sources of straight news to publicly identify Bachmann as "a lying nut or hater." All we were asking them to do, was to report Bachmann's heinous lies and smears as they occurred. That's they're job. But they wouldn't do their job. And they still won't explain why they wouldn't do it.)
No Minnesota news commentators at the Strib, PiPress or MPR...ready to take on Bachmann in any meaningful way. Prominent political reporters characterizing her as "a populist," "a child safety advocate." Puff piece profiles and interviews with Bachmann. Reporters admitting her lies into their reporting--without fact-checking, without checking the veracity of her claims by consulting experts on the topics.
Minnesota readers who learned about Michele Bachmann from the Strib and PiPress must have been surprised by the papers' unwillingness to endorse her at election time. If the PiPress and the Strib were your source of information over the years on Michele Bachmann--you wouldn't know what dark conspiracy theories the editors were referring to, when they refused to endorse her.
You see--they knew, all along, exactly what she was. But they didn't report what they knew--to their readers.
Cowardice, cowardice, cowardice. Narcissism, narcissism, narcissism. Self-interest, self-interest, self-interest--every day, for years on end;, all at the expense of the voters, all at the expense of the quality of government and the tone of politics in Minnesota.
And so far the Minnesota news professionals have no explanation for why the best, most complete, and most relevant coverage of Michele Bachmann came from Minnesota blogs or from outside the state.
In the absence of a better explanation for why Minnesota's news professionals failed the people of Minnesota: I accept Brian Lambert's "suspicion" that "economic" self-interest plays a role, (In fact, I've published that "theory" before.) And I would add my own belief; that the careerism and cowardice of Minnesota reporters and editors played a key role in a horrible fail.
Still: Bob Collins of MPR says that such suggestions are "scurrilous and unsubstantiated." After all: who could imagine that such slimy, cowardly considerations--"economic interest," individual careerism--could ever influence the news coverage decisions of our courageous and dedicated professional news media?
Those guys will always be there to tell us what a great, wise, courageous job they're doing for us. And they'll always be there to tell each other that, too! They give each other awards!
And remember...this is not just about how they cover the Bachmann story. This same caste of news professionals brings the same degree of integrity and courage to their reporting on all the other important issues...
...global warming, abortion, separation of church and state, science, Christianity, political freedom, issues of war or peace...
LINK to Bob's article:
http://minnesota.publicradio.o...