Posted at 10:53 AM on July 31, 2009
by Mike Mulcahy
(7 Comments)
I neglected to mention in the Daily Digest that Midday will broadcast Gov. Tim Palwenty's speech to the RNC at noon today. It was relatively short, about 25 minutes or so, so they'll round out the hour with some remarks he made at an education panel in Aspen a few weeks ago.
Oh my god! Are we going to have to keep having Pawlenty shoved down our throats by MPR for the next three years?!?!?! MPR already gives him an inordinate amount of airtime, reporting on his every breath and flinch.
I heard about a dozen instances of MPR leading the news broadcasts yesterday with the fact that Pawlenty had given a speech, complete with lengthy soundbytes of his spinning and lying and trying to sound affable and reasonable, and a few broadcasts the day before about the fact that he was GOING TO give a speech. And only once did I hear anything from a Democrat!
This is UNACCEPTABLE! We all know he's already running, therefore EVERY time MPR reports on his campaign activities, and especially when they broadcast his soundbytes and speeches, the good journalistic practice would be to broadcast an equivalent thing from another point of view, especially the Democratic point of view.
I think I will be turning my radio off even more now that MPR apparently is supporting Pawlenty's run for the presidency.
Jamie, why is it unacceptable to report what the governor is saying as he tests the water for a run for president? The other night we broadcast President Obama's press conference. Should we have required a GOP response? In the past week on Midday we have aired live speeches from two Democratic members of Congress at the National Press Club. Should we not do that because a Republican was not scheduled to speak immediately afterward?
To answer your first question, it is unacceptable for you to have coverage of Pawlenty's every move, which MPR has done since before he became governor, and which you do even more now that he's leaning toward a presidential run. And it is almost always positive or neutral coverage. We hear almost no criticism or serious analysis of Pawlenty on your air. Also, while you news media people may relish the idea of a Minnesota politician running for president (so you can get more national experience or do some exciting traveling with the candidate or whatever the reason), I couldn't care less, especially now, and I would bet that's the case with most Minnesotans. I also believe that this is an example of the news media CREATING the news, with your constant hyping of a topic.
It may sound like I'm contradicting myself now, but I don't expect to hear opposing views every time you have a politician on in whatever capacity. In fact, it isn't always helpful for you to do so, given the way all the major parties spin things to varying degrees (Republicans spin much more than Democrats and Independents, I believe, but they all do it).
But what I do expect of competent journalists is to have critical analysis of the issues that the politicians are spinning about, and soon after the spinning takes place. MPR doesn't do that enough. That's why it's a fallacy for you (and other news media outlets) to claim that you must be doing your job well if both Democrats and Republicans are complaining about your coverage of politics. Just broadcasting each party's spin is not doing your job well.
MPR generally does the news better than any other news media outlet in the state, except for your lap-dog treatment of Tim Pawlenty.
Jamie seems to be a TPaw hater!
There are a lot of things to hate about "TPaw," Mister C.
Methinks Jamie is merely masking the unrequited love with vitriol. Starting to sound a little Frankenesque.
What the heck does THAT mean?
| July 2009 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |