Jackson Free Press

Clarion-Ledger Executive Editor Ronnie Agnew has a truly absurd column out today. Once he gets through the crap in the beginning about Jim Hood bothering to talk to them on President's Day (who cares?), Agnew reveals that Hood asked him if he's going to hire a Democratic columnist to balance his partisan Republican columnist Sid Salter. Agnew then goes into a diatribe whining about how various people question fairness, and how Salter is fair to Hood, blah, blah.

You're skipping the question, Mr. Agnew, and it is a good question regardless of who asks it. Being that you present your paper as fair and nonpartisan and that you have such a partisan GOP columnist—which is fine—why not have an equally partisan Democratic columnist who defends the predictable partisan diatribes? Wouldn't that fit the image you push of your paper?

Of course, that partisan Republican columnist (whom I like, but who has twisted himself into logical pretzels to defend Gov. Barbour and his pet projects like "tort reform") is the *perspective editor*, so that makes it an even more pertinent question. And it's not answered at all by saying that Salter has also said good things about the AG. That is a truly nonsensical response to the question that was asked.

Then there is your closer:

But our staff-written news stories are sacred and should never tread in that territory. They must be accurate. They must be timely. Above all, they must be fair.

With all due respect, that is bullsh!t. Here are just a few examples:

1. Why did The Clarion-Ledger run a page 1 story about the civil-rights museum possibly going to Tougaloo recently without telling readers that numerous Tougaloo grads and officials were part of the recommendation process? Your editors knew it. Why didn't y'all tell readers?

2. Why didn't your reporter include back during his "jackpot justice" series the fact that the state of California had balanced their damage caps with meaningful insurance reform, leading to lower malpractice rates? (After all, Gannett News Service had reported the full story in other places. Click here for background on the Ledger's pitiful, and one-sided, "jackpot" reporting.

3. Why have your reporters repeatedly quoted people like Melton giving false information about "facts" like dropout rates without then including the "accurate" information? What is "fair" about that?

4. Why did your newspaper, supposedly the grand poobah of civil-rights reporting, report that James Ford Seale was dead without bothering to check it out?

5. Why did your newspaper repeat unsubstantiated accusations of former District Attorney Faye Peterson until weeks before the election without factchecking them or providing balancing information?

6. Why did The Clarion-Ledger take as gospel Haley Barbour's statements about his blind trust and having no further interest in his lobbying firm back when he was first inaugurated?

7. Why did The Clarion-Ledger decide to sit on the Ridgeway story after your metro desk was told about it from sources until after other media, led by the JFP, had reported it?

8. Why did The Clarion-Ledger editorial board write an editorial chastising the D.A. after the A.G. settled the gun cases about Melton? (Which the paper did run a correction on.)

9. Where was the "timely" story about candidate Frank Melton being involved in a Meridian lawsuit, alongside The Clarion-Ledger, in which he was lying to a judge about leaking a document to your reporting staff—all during his campaign? And why did I hear your metro editor say at a forum that people didn't want to know more about Melton during the campaign, thus the limited reporting?

10. Your nasty, slanted coverage (and columns) about former Chief Robert Moore, even as you're not holding the newest chief to the same belittling standard -- for saying, essentially, the same things the last chief did about your sensationalistic crime coverage.

OK, I could go on so easily, but I think the point is crystal clear. (And, I urge others to add to this list if you'd like.)

Bottom line: There is little "fair," "accurate" or "timely" about either news coverage or opinion in The Clarion-Ledger. It is a newspaper that sticks his finger in the wind to see why you think the public most wants to hear (like your ridiculous endorsement of Bush in his re-election, or the endorsement of Melton knowing that he was lying to a judge in Meridian about giving y'all a false memo). You finally started reporting facts about Melton, in response to our coverage, and that of WAPT, which you realized that the public was flocking to in order to know what y'all hadn't told them for so many years.

If your point is that, going forward, y'all are going to start doing better and more accurate reporting than people are used to over there, then say that. Apologize for the bad stories that helped us get in the messes we're in, and then tell us you're hiring an ombudsman to help your paper go to a better level; tell us about needed changes in your metro-state strategy; talk about the stories your paper flubbed that everyone knows happened. You're not hiding it, but pretending that you're some paradigm of good, "fair" journalism. The quality of journalism over there is the elephant in the room that this community knows well, regardless of their political leaning.

As the executive poobah, take responsibility for the mess, and tell us how you, Mr. Agnew, are going to fix it. The community awaits your leadership.

Previous Comments

ID

117306

Comment

Oh, and why do you allow your reporters to do e-mail interviews? You can't do real reporting that way. The questions get passed around, and you get the most watered-down possible responses? It's terrible journalism. Last year, I was interviewed by your reporter Chris Joyner (by phone; imagine) about the Ledger's capitulations to the Melton administration on open-records issues. I told him that I would only talk to him if he didn't take my comments out of context. He did, and blatantly (or, as I suspect, his editor did). It was pitiful. BTW, so was the Ledger going along with the idea that the government can take up to two weeks to provide readily accessible public information, even though that is against the spirit of sunshine laws. They should only take that long if the information is in storage or such, but the Ledger signed off with the city, hurting everyone's ability to get timely information. That makes it all the more ironic that the Ledger has made such noise of late about public information. Part of the reason is such a mess in this state is that our corporate media have let them get away with so much for so long. The Clarion-Ledger in its current form is bad for Mississippi. Please quote me on that. Repeatedly.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-24T11:38:01-06:00

ID

117307

Comment

Another question to ponder is why Salter seemed so against the attorney general questioning Barbour's ethics, but is following the right-wing blabosphere in condemning Hood for not spending state resources to try to double the work of the feds. It is very possible to criticize Hood or anyone else for working so closely with the alleged cads in this case in the past (whether Scruggs, Langston, Balducci, Peters, DeLaughter, Peters, Lott, Patterson, et al) while also wrapping one's mind around the fact that that very fact (whether through naievte or something worse) creates a conflict of interest in a state investigation. The partisan fury that is blinded so many people to basic facts like that are, frankly, the kind of idiocy that makes people in this state look a tad dumb. And having dealt with the feds in the past, which I'm sure Salter has done, I know that they can tell people (even elected officials) to keep their mouths shut about what is going on in their investigations so as not to interfere with them. I don't know that that is going on in this case, but there are a lot of unanswered questions while the investigation (and others related to it) is going on. So, in a nutshell, criticize Hood for being friendly with those guys, or accepting the contributions funneled through their preferred PACs if you want—but be careful about making the jump that that means guilt, without evidence of guilt shown, and don't be stupid enough to argue that his refusal to prosecute them based on his own conflicts means is further evidence of guilt because it's not. If the feds release evidence of Hood's guilt, if it exists, then that will be the right-wingers' time in the sun. But for now, the witchhunt ought to be tamped down a bit, at least at an operation that pretends to be a real newspaper. And Mississippi needs to look a bit more thoughtful than that, guys. Outsiders already think we're stupid. Let's not give them further evidence of it on the blogs of the daily newspaper.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-24T12:24:41-06:00

ID

117308

Comment

The first hyperlink in Donna's post leads you to the coliseum story. Here's the correct link on the Agnew editorial.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-02-24T13:33:13-06:00

ID

117309

Comment

Wait... Sid's a Republican? I'm insulted now. :)

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-02-24T14:13:16-06:00

ID

117310

Comment

Hmmm...I always thought he was a conservative Democrat.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2008-02-24T15:12:25-06:00

ID

117311

Comment

I fixed the link.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2008-02-24T17:38:30-06:00

ID

117312

Comment

Ronnie, why have you not reported on Houston Patton?

Author

iratetoday

Date

2008-02-24T17:56:08-06:00

ID

117313

Comment

Sid has been, and always will be loyal. His first break was reporting for a VERY conservative paper (OK the owner was on the sovereignty commission and gave Sid his shot) and Sid made his bones there and loved the man, the widow and we all know the rest. Sid was a late comer to a dying breed and worshiped at the feet. And Golden Eagle, he is a conservative Democrat, the same as Wallace was in th 50's and early 60's, BEFORE Wallace found religion as he claimed. That is my take on Sid. Others also need to be responded to as well, in terms of posts, irate's especially

Author

AGamm627

Date

2008-02-24T23:14:09-06:00

ID

117314

Comment

The CL is the poster-child for unfair and biased views (not news) reporting. Al roads lead to their one-sided, conservative, warped thinking process. They apparently think that all folks in MS are stupid and do not read other papers for a comparison of news reporting and ideas. There is seldom any continuity of stories in the CL and readers must draw their own conclusions or find other sources for details. One good example is the reporting of the Lott/Scrugs case that hit the National media like a ton of bricks last week. These folks are native Mississippians. What's up with this?

Author

justjess

Date

2008-02-25T10:38:09-06:00

ID

117315

Comment

I agree with you: The Gannett Corp. does seem to assume that Mississippians are stupid and will not reward them with advertising if they do too much substantive reporting. I think it's a huge problem; I mean, not all Gannett papers are this bad. I would argue that this is the worst; it's hard to imagine a worse one, but I'm sure some folks in other cities would argue! As for the Lott/Scruggs case: I see that a few directions. For one, I've heard for years that daily media in the state (not just the CL) have been sitting on info involving Scruggs and Lott that would damage Lott. They also have the problem that their "star" investigative reporter was depicted in a Hollywood movie alongside one of the superstar judges that is wound up in it. However, slightly to their defense, it's too late for the media to go overly crazy on this story. Why? Because the feds have already investigated it and once indictments start, it's very hard to get people to talk to you, other than to repeat what's coming out already in the courtroom and documents. So even as we need to comment on the story and seek out angles that aren't emerging, it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend massive time re-investigating what the feds have done. It's interesting to note as well that the local blabosphere is using this case as a stick to beat up the media. It's legitimate to a point: there certainly were aspects of this, which might have been brought out sooner than the feds by investigative reporting. But at this point, it's the media's job to inform people about what's coming out of the investigation. And the media cannot legally or ethically do what most of the bloggers (many anonymous) are doing: post constant speculations and accusations about various people's guilt. Media outlets are held to a higher standard than that. And most of the blog "coverage" out there is exactly that: People sitting in front of their computers all day competing to find links to court documents first and usually-partisan accusations that aren't substantiated. What would make more sense for the media to do right now, rather than compete with the feds, is to devote a lot of time investigating the "innocence" stories that are emerging in the state, or haven't been looked at yet, and particularly any cases that Steven Hayne was involved with. Talk about long-overdue investigations -- men have rotted in prison for many years because no one cared about that particular brand of corruption. On this front, the media can do some good. Not so much on the Scruggs mess, beyond basic information-sharing. The feds are way ahead of all of us there, including the whiniest bloggers.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-25T11:02:38-06:00

ID

117316

Comment

And the CL is not the only mainstream media not to report on the Nifonging of Keith Shelton. The Sun Herald, WLBT, Tupelo Daily Journal, and several others were contacted when folo broke the story and none, as of yet, have reported a damn thing even though Ed Peters is involved.

Author

iratetoday

Date

2008-02-26T14:39:12-06:00

ID

117317

Comment

Only slightly in the CL's defense, irate, the Shelton story isn't the easiest story to "report." The difference between a bunch of anonymous bloggers—as delightful as many of them over in the Folo parts—and a media outlet where reporters sign their articles is that we need real people to talk to. And once a federal investigation closes in, that's gets much harder to do, especially on the record. So while non-journalist bloggers sit and link and pontificate (with only the site editor responsible for their posts), the rest of us have to work a bit harder to pierce the shields that go up around these stories. On a complete different non-Scruggs-related story in the past, I've even been asked by the U.S. attorney to hold off on further stories once the indictments come down so that I don't hurt the investigation in some way. Indeed, my earlier coverage was then used by the defense (unsuccessfully, I'm happy to say) to try to hurt the prosecution. (The prosecutor used our reporting to help the case, though.) So reporting is a complicated business, and the truth is that a real news story is much different than anonymous blogging. I rather doubt the Ledger has enough to go on with the Shelton story, frankly. I actually don't think they're giving Peters a pass ... on this one.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-26T14:46:59-06:00

ID

117318

Comment

And don't forget, if I'm not mistaken, that Folo "broke" the story by posting links to court documents, right? They don't actually interview sources, do they? Most non-media blogs don't. Quoting court documents is protected, but it's not enough to do a real story based on. The links to court documents are handy, though; I'm not criticizing it. It's just not breaking a story. (And that's the first I heard of the Shelton mess, which was helpful.) A "story" contains real interviews (or narrative dialogue from observation or careful re-construction) and attempts to contact those criticized in it (and not just by e-mail).

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-26T14:49:34-06:00

ID

117319

Comment

It would take the CL about two seconds to call up Judge Patton and the attorneys handling Shelton's matter before the Supreme Court to flesh out the story. Since Peters is involved it's certainly relevant to the currrent fiasco taking place!

Author

iratetoday

Date

2008-02-26T14:52:02-06:00

ID

117320

Comment

Opps didn't see your first post! Sorry. Keep up the good work!

Author

iratetoday

Date

2008-02-26T14:53:15-06:00

ID

117321

Comment

Right, but he probably won't talk to them. The feds, or his attorney, or someone else has probably instructed him not to. I didn't say it's not relevant. I said there are real reasons that media outlets don't, er, copy anonymous bloggers. They're legal, and they're ethical. And often a story like this can take weeks to do right. That said, they may be skipping over it just like many others. My whole point is that you can't conclude at this point that it's because they're giving Peters a pass. That would be a fallacy. You know I'm all about media literacy and criticism, but this one may not have merit or be fair.. At least not yet.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-26T14:56:30-06:00

ID

117322

Comment

Personally, I must say, I'm hugely disappointed in someone I thought was an honorable man ... if the accusations are true ...

Author

gipper

Date

2008-02-26T14:57:56-06:00

ID

117323

Comment

No problem, irate. We're both cross-posting! I do think it's helpful to talk about how the media work. We get certain extra privileges from the First Amendment, but we also have added responsibilities that, so far, haven't been hoisted onto anonymous bloggers (except for site owners and editors). Sadly, I think that will change due to the lack of self-regulation of so many. Ultimately, it probably won't make sense to have different truth/factcheck standards for journalists and anonymous Webflies; that is, citizen journalists will be held to the same standard as real journalists. Meantime, I think it's great to see the corporate media gatekeeping challenged because they have so able to bury important stories. On the other hand, it's painful to watch the character assassinations that happen online because people hide behind fake names and are too socially stilted to even pick up a phone and have a conversation with someone, or ask for verification, before they go after them. That's the abuse that will probably bring more regulation, sadly. Folo, of course, does a great job of gathering links to info and posting documents, which is very helpful. Journalists love sites like that because it gives us a shortcut to "primary" sources.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-26T15:10:04-06:00