David Brauer says: I was only referring to Wizard's notion that the Strib had overplayed this story, and make the point that interesting things rank high in public attention, not just important things.
Peter Schmitz responds: David, correct me if I'm wrong, but as a professional journalist yourself I'm sure you realize that unimportant--albeit interesting-- things that the reading public may crave belongs in gossip columns and tabloids, not a newspaper like Star Tribune which is supposed to serve the public interest. At the very least, this non-story regarding Councilmember Johnson Lee's traffic citation belonged in C.J.'s column, not on the front page of the Metro section, for God's sake, unless the publishers and reporter involved were out to embarrass and humiliate an upstart elected official. David Brauer says: Another point I *didn't* make. My point was - since people think they can read a reporter's "spirit" - is that anyone who actually knows her knows differently. Peter Schmitz responds: I certainly never claimed that I could read a reporter's "spirit" (whatever that is). That's so New Age. Speaking for myself, I go by the content, presentation and quality of the reporter's writing. David Brauer says: The only examples Peter has cited so far are the placement of a picture on DFL primary day (which he admits might not be the reporter's doing), a reference to Rybak's family in a 2001 campaign piece (are we sure Rochelle wrote that one?), and the mention of the Biernat case in this story. Sorry, that's weak evidence for the serious charge that Rochelle Olson is ethically compromised. She's the one I'm defending here. Peter Schmitz says: I feel that yesterday's story in and of itself reflects upon Rochelle's integrity as a journalist. But if you want more evidence, go back two years ago to a nice little spin piece of Rochelle's, written, I presume, for the benefit of Sharon Sayles Belton, the incumbent mayor at the time: "Minneapolis residents largely happy with life in the city". It's main source was a silly poll that certainly proved the maxim "The only poll that counts is the one taken on election day." In his previous post Peter Schmitz said: So David, say what you will, but if Rochelle Olson has as much integrity and grit as you claim, then maybe she'll do an article about Barrett Lane or Lisa Goodman should either of them get stopped by the police for a traffic violation. David Brauer responded: But they haven't (unless you know something the rest of us don't)! Johnson Lee did. A Councilmember and cop getting into it is news. You can't claim bias if your counter-examples have never happened. Peter Schmitz responds to David Brauer's response: Can you be sure these counter-examples have never happened? And can you be sure that they would be reported by Rochelle Olson should they happen in the future? Admittedly, this is speculation on my part. This is why I've brought up the Strib's starkly contrasting responses to the Brain Herron and Joe Biernat scandals. David Brauer says: (And yes, it's quite possible that the police will more likely get into it with a black councilmember. But that is not the newspaper's fault, and the Strib mentioned racial selective enforcement in this story *prominently.*) Peter Schmitz says: I detect a bit of rationalization here. Of course it's not the newspaper's fault that "it's quite possible that the police will more likely get into it with a black councilmember". But again, it was Ms. Olson's choice to write this non-story, and the publishers decision to put it on the front page of the Metro section. Also, I know I'm missing something. Where in Rochelle's story is "racial selective enforcement "*prominently*" placed? Not that it has anything to do with my arguments. David Brauer says: Saying people have biases does not give everyone a free pass in alleging ethical compromise. Bottom line: you still have to have the evidence, and at this point in the discussion, my opinion is such evidence is weak. Peter Schmitz responds: In a racially polarized community like Minneapolis, Ms. Olson's story was provocative, senseless and did nothing to serve the public interest, especially when one considers all the unfair attacks Councilmember Johnson Lee received last year from the Police Federation (which added to the serious tension between blacks and whites in this city). If David Brauer feels my evidence is weak, fine and dandy, but he hasn't come up with any examples or evidence himself that convinces me of Rochelle Olson's journalistic integrity. Jill Harmon says: Right on David. What irks me most of all about the whole thing is Johnson Lee's insinuation that the cop 'didn't know she was a council member.' So what. She's the one rallying that everyone be treated equally, but gets pissy because she wasn't recognized as some sort of local celebrity. Tough bounce. Peter Schmitz responds: You might want to read the article again, Jill, for you have taken Johnson Lee's comment out of context. This is what Johnson Lee actually said, and I'm quoting from the article: "The officer who wrote the complaint did not know I was a council member so she was treating me like she probably would treat one of my constituents." Johnson Lee was not getting "pissy" on her own behalf, nor was she insinuating that she should be given preferential treatment because she's a councilmember. Instead, Johnson Lee was pointing out how ordinary black citizens in her ward are often treated by the Minneapolis Police. My heartfelt thanks to Tim Bonham for yesterday's corrections regarding the 2001 DFL endorsement process for Minneapolis mayor. I regret the errors. Peter Schmitz---------CARAG TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
