< Norm Coleman to vote against embryonic stem cell bill | Main | Collins sighting >

More on bunker mentality

Posted at 6:53 AM on July 13, 2006 by Mike Mulcahy (11 Comments)

Normal people probably don't care much, but it's a big issue for us in the radio business--politicians seeking statewide office who won't take questions from reporters. It happened yesterday as noted here by Mr. Scheck when journalists tried to ask legitimate questions of the two top DFL endorsed candidates in the state.

Instead of answering the questions Mike Hatch and Matt Entenza tried to manage the news by issuing written statements. Written statements may have some usefulness in the print media, but for broadcasters they're pretty much useless. It would seem the primary reason for such a strategy is to keep the story off TV.

DFLers are not alone in using such tools. Remember a few weeks ago when the Pawlenty administration announced there were no bidders for the crosstown highway project? They did it on a Friday afternoon with a written statement and made no one available to answer reporters' questions.

It happens all the time, but somehow seems more cynical during campaign season. These people are, after all, asking the public to accept their message. They invite the media to any number of inane photo ops and statements on policy. But when the news is bad they head to the bunker. Shouldn't the voters and the media be entitled to wonder what would happen if they're in office and things take a turn for the worse? Should we expect four years of hide and seek with the press?

Comments (11)

Mike,

I think you took the first step to ending this kind of tom follary. Let's have the media call both sides out. Maybe you could call each campaigns press secretary. The first thing you should tell them is that they are being recorded, than ask them the questions you want answered. If they are still stonewalling, ask them why they don't want the people they represent to know the answer to these question which are vital to the public interest.

I am sure it wouldn't make the greatest TV, but it could work. Also, I am sure it would work on the radio.

Posted by James | July 13, 2006 8:40 AM

First, I have to say I agree. But, I do have to comment on the level of the relevance of a particular story that the media tends to find "sellable" Sure this little scrape between two people on the same side has more "juicy meat" to it than, say, transportation, heath care, education, or any of the REAL issues our candidates should be questioned about, but that does not mean that the story is relevant to anything but selling papers or turning the dial to your station. I do think that these two guys handled this situation poorly, but in the scope of what should be important to our elected officials, this is nothing, and the "media" should be able to tell the difference and report on what really matters in these elections.

If you are going to get all upset about people using your own media cycle (Friday releases, etc), then try to get upset about something real.

Posted by Ag | July 13, 2006 10:10 AM

I think the media, especcially MPR, would be more than happy to cover those important issues, if the canidates would talk about them in a serious way.

However, both canidates only talk about those issues in vauge platitudes, talking points. Let's here Hatch come out with what he sees as the problems with MN's health care system, how he intendes to fix those problems, and how he intends to overcome the polititical obsicles.

Untill that comes out, I think these two morons,or anyother parties morons, diserve everything they get including intraparty horserace coverage.

Posted by JP | July 13, 2006 11:07 AM

If posting very in-depth position papers on issues is not good enough, then okay, but just so you know that there are many issues well outlined on Hatch's website. Take a few hours and go through them and then say that these guys don't talk substantively about the issues.

http://www.hatch2006.org/positionpapers/AccessibleHealthCare.html

http://www.hatch2006.org/positionpapers/ppPharmaceuticalReport.html

http://www.hatch2006.org/positionpapers/ppHIPPALawReview.html

oh, I do not work for any campaign, this information is just pretty easy to find.

Posted by Ag | July 13, 2006 12:03 PM

The MSM is going to cover these candidates whether they do anything newsworthy or just produce written propaganda. They know they're the only show in town, so why would they open themselves up to unfavorable portayals?

Perhaps, instead of giving coverage to the propaganda that the various well financed campaigns are distributing, the reporters could do a little actual work, and report on something newsworthy instead.

For example, there are a lot of independent candidates in this state, myself included, who have been knocking on doors for more than a week trying to get on the ballot in this dangerous heat. Hardly anyone even knows that candidates are collecting signatures to get on the ballot now.

These are the kind of candidates who would gladly walk into any trap from a reporter - they can't get any other kind of coverage and they don't know how to avoid the traps yet.

Posted by Justin C. Adams | July 13, 2006 1:22 PM

Ag,

You kind of hit it on the head with your position papers. Hatch certinally has laid out the problems and what he thinks is the best way to fix them.

Posted by JP | July 13, 2006 9:41 PM

JP,
I am glad you read through them - I wish the "media" would. They are almost too long, but one thing that can easily be said, is that if the "media" wanted to report, question, talk about, make controversy, whatever, there is enough real information out there to go with. I am having the feeling that with the over-reporting about this Hatch-Entenza thing, they are just being lazy and running with a meaningless juicy story that needs no real work to get press time on. It does not matter that the story does not matter all that much, just as long as they can make 'heat" out of it and sell their product. Hatch and Entenza are at least getting their names out there, no news is bad news at this point in the game, their name recognition is definitely going up over this silly story (not that Hatch needs it). So, have fun with the silly story MPR, Strib ect, I hope you sell something (well not really).

Posted by Ag | July 14, 2006 8:02 AM

Ag, when I started this whole discussion I did say that this is a bigger deal to those of us in the media than to normal people, and, yes, there's no doubt I want people to listen to MPR. (Really, there's not much point to having a radio station if people don't listen to it). But do you really think this is not a story? When the endorsed candidate for governor tries to recruit people to run against the endorsed candidate for AG? When one office holder hires a firm to do research on another office holder? That's not a story?

Posted by Mike Mulcahy | July 14, 2006 8:10 AM

Mike,
First, I do love your work, but this just is not a story, and you are still getting your facts wrong about it.

1) The AG tried to recruit people for his office if he decided to leave it (shocking that this might happen - shocking). NOT the "endorsed candidate for Governor", I believe he was just endorsed in June, at the same convention Entenza was.

2) What is so unusual about a potential candidate doing research on a potential opponent? Really, if this is such a "hot" and unusual story, I bet your missing similar "hot" stories on about 99.99% of other campaigns.

Oh, and I am an avid listener to MPR, but these type of non-stories really put me off. If anything, I have been turning the dial off when I hear this stuff. You guys at MPR have been one of my last refuges from the dumb-down media I see everywhere these days. Please do not follow their lead and stick to the high standards that you guys usually follow.

Posted by Ag | July 14, 2006 9:40 AM

And I hope this will be my last post on this subject, but the facts clearly are at issue here. We would love to ask Mike Hatch when he tried to recruit others to run against Entenza. He won't answer our questions.

1) Go back to what the Star Tribune reported in the story they printed Wednesday.

Here's what it said: "Former U.S. Rep. Bill Luther would make a good attorney general, Hatch said. Luther said he hasn't ruled out running in the primary against Entenza. The filing deadline is Tuesday."

Now does that not seem to indicate that Hatch (the endorsed candidate for governor) is trying to get another candidate to run against Entenza (the endorsed candidate for AG)? It does to me. Sure would like to be able to ask Hatch about it.

2)I don't think it's unusual for opponents to research each other, but Entenza apologized yesterday after refusing to answer questions for a day. Is that unusual? My point was that if he and Hatch had answered questions the first day (or a year ago when the issue first came up) the story probably would not have been such a big deal.

And I promise you we will do plenty of reports on other issues as the campaign goes on.

Posted by Mike Mulcahy | July 14, 2006 10:07 AM

I will follow your lead, and leave this as my last post on this subject too.

I do question the Strib's quote in that I don't remember them ever mentioning what (if any) question lead to that statement. I can imagine a question like "IF, Entenza was not the endorsed candidate, who would make a good one?" Taking that quote (which should have never been made - that was pretty stupid of Hatch to do), out of context may explain a great deal. Also, one silly comment, in relation to all the joint appearances the two have been together at, since the endorsement, should speak louder towards their shared goals, and mutual respect they have for each other. I can ignore a great deal to find controversy where there is none, but that still does not make it right, nor good journalism.

thanks for your dialogue, I do appreciate it.

Posted by Ag | July 14, 2006 10:33 AM

July 2006
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31

Master Archive

MPR News
Radio

Listen Now

On Air

BBC World Service

Schedule

Shortcuts
Hourly Newscast
Hosts
Station Map

Other Radio Streams from MPR

Classical MPR
Radio Heartland

Services

Become a Sponsor

In The Spotlight

Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web.
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.