Senate Campaigns Positive about Caucus Date Change, All Still Abiding By Endorsement

Long live the precinct caucuses! The more election cycles I go through, the more I love Minnesota’s system of precinct caucuses.  You don’t have to be a billionaire.  You don’t have to own a chain of newspapers or radio stations.  All you have to do is to get out a bucketload of people who are excited about something and willing to give a few hours to a cause or a candidate.

It is an amazing grassroots system, a possible true antidote to many of our political ills.  Let’s see what the next caucuses produce, I say.

Question Jeff:

You have a direct quote from the Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Ron Carey in your post:

“…GOP chair Ron Carey saying there is a ‘90 percent probability’ of a change…”

Did you interview Chairman Carey?  Did he give you the “90 percent probability” quote?

Question #2 Jeff:

I called the Republican Party of Minnesota this morning and spoke with the Party’s communications director, Mark Drake.  I asked Mr. Drake if Chairman Carey did an interview with Minnesota Monitor yesterday.  He replied that Chairman Carey did not do an interview with Minnesota Monitor, nor was an interview requested.

If you didn’t interview Chairman Carey, how did you get the quote for your story?  According to numerous attendees at yesterday’s meeting of representatives of the major political parties and Secretary Ritchie, you nor a representative of Minnesota Monitor were present at the meeting.

Michael… You’re obviously game-playing, and I’m not playing.  I’m not going to clarify every word in every story I write for you.  Maybe I did interview Ron Carey…and maybe I got the information from wire sources…and maybe there’s another option you haven’t thought of.  Regardless, I’m not going to get sucked in to what’s clearly a case of you hyperanalyzing every word I write to see if you can find some reason that what I wrote is technically inaccurate, whether or not a reasonable person would find it so.

I appreciate give and take, and if you find an actual factual error in a post, I am always willing to correct it — indeed, I did so when you brought an error to my attention two weeks ago.  But I’m not going to get involved in a game of “gotcha,” especially over trivialities.

After all, I could ask you why you’re disputing that Carey said there was a 90% probability.  Has Carey changed his mind?  What do you know that you’re hiding, Mike?

But I won’t do that.  Because I don’t think you’re hiding anything.  I just think you’re a partisan bomb-thrower.  And as a target, I’m not going to help you aim.

I have made a semantic change to the story…. I’ve added one word, twice.

Are you running short of bits, perhaps? Shouldn’t that headline have been “DFL Senate Campaigns Positive about Caucus Date Change, All Still Abiding by Endorsement”? 

Even assuming that your Carey quote is accurate, that doesn’t speak to how the Republican Senate campaigns are about the date change, or whether they have or haven’t promised to abide by an endorsement. 

Short of bits?  Not mastering basic Journalism 101?  Some good reason?  Who knows?  (I mean that quite literally:  who knows, and what might he or she have to say about it?)

If the Minnie Mon is going to be, rather than a Fountain of Soros, a fountain of light (with apologies to Jackson Browne), surely basic accuracy standards would be a good first start.

Yes, you have . . .
. . . and you’ve apparently run afoul of the Minnie Mon’s “Code of Ethics”:

* Take special care with anonymous sources, keeping their motives in mind. Do not become beholden to sources; keep agreements with them clear and honest.

  * Never misrepresent events in an attempt to oversimplify or take events out of context.

Arguably, when you used an anonymous (or, at the very best, unattributed) source, you “[kept] their motives in mind,” although there’s no evidence of that on the page, what with you only having added the word “reportedly” twice.  By misrepresenting events, though, in your headline, you really do have some ’splainin’ to do.

Why would Coleman care particularly? I mean, he is running for the endorsement unopposed, at least for now.

If/when Repya jumps in the race, I’ll start asking the Coleman campaign about primary questions.  As it is, there wasn’t anything particularly newsworthy in the question of whether the caucus moves from a GOP perspective; if you’re Norm, you don’t care, because you’re going to get the endorsement regardless.

Wow, You Guys are Rattled I’m bemused.  Really, this is the best you can come up with?  I quoted information that had been released for hours, related it accurately, and didn’t specify exactly where it came from, and that…uh…doesn’t change anything about the story at all.  I didn’t use anonymous sources.  I even took care to note that Olson’s campaign mgr was speaking for himself, not the campaign.

Fine.  Parse every word I write, and I bet occasionally, some will be inaccurate from a hypertechnical standpoint.  And when I misspell something or leave a “reportedly” out, then by God, you’ve got your gotcha.

Question: how did my horrible, horrible lapse of something here affect the story?  And how would you have had me write it?  I’m serious — if you actually think this is an issue, then I really want to know.  I suspect I know the answer, but I want to see.

That’s an . . . interesting analysis . . . . . . albeit shallow enough to hydroplane on, and obviously a diversion from the questions I raised, which didn’t go to Coleman’s caring or lack thereof, but the lack of accuracy in your story.

Had you added something like, “The Minnesota Monitor didn’t inquire of the Coleman campaign as to their feelings about the data change or willingness to abide by the endorsement,” and still added the word “DFL” to the headline, you wouldn’t have been quite so inaccurate.

But, getting back to your diversion, let me remind you that prediction is inexact, particularly when it’s about the future.  I can think of at least one reason why the Coleman campaign might not want the date moved back, and another reason why it might.  I don’t know, from your story, if either of those reasons are valid . . . because you didn’t ask the Coleman campaign.

Question #3 Jeff:

I just came across this story from the Associated Press.  This story was published before your post and it contains the exact quote from Chairman Carey that you used in your original post.

“Carey said there’s a ‘90 percent probability’ the caucus date will be accelerated. His party’s executive committee intends to decide on the issue next month.” Source: Associated Press

Was your source the Associated Press?  And if so, why didn’t you source them in your original post?

Also, why would you write that you may have done an interview with Chairman Carey?

“Maybe I did interview Ron Carey…and maybe I got the information from wire sources…and maybe there’s another option you haven’t thought of.”

According to the communications director at the Republican Party of Minnesota, Chairman Carey didn’t do an interview with Minnesota Monitor, nor was one granted.

There’s a word for this Jeff.

To pour piss out of a boot, simply invert it and read the instructions on the heel. Parse every word I write, and I bet occasionally, some will be inaccurate from a hypertechnical standpoint.

Yes, that does seem rather more than likely.  And, in case you haven’t noticed, the Grand Canyon upon occasion will look somewhat unsmallish — from a hypertechnical standpoint.  Among other standpoints.

As to how your lapses (plural) in basic journalistic chops affected the story, it’s quite simple:  it turned it from accurate into inaccurate. 

As to your headline, how could you have fixed it?  you ask, more or less.  (I think; your writing isn’t clear.  Maybe your were only asking about your passive voice problem.) 

Could this be easier?  Are you really serious?  Well, anything to oblige, although I think this only takes anything north of the most  mildly keen eye for the obvious: 

You could, as I previously suggested — feel free to read the posting that’s apparently stimulated your inner [personal characterization deleted] — the three-letter word, “DFL” (without the quotes, to your headline.

Happy to help.  Wouldn’t want people to think you were feckless, after all:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – Cite This Source
feck

Question #4 Jeff:

Why did you add the word “reportedly”?

Bemused? Each to his own; you’re bemused, I’m amused, your excuses are reused, and no doubt this will leave you feeling further abused. 

Because I’m not confirming anything for you, Mike. I haven’t confirmed or denied anything.  At any rate, I’m done with your games.  Further requests for information will receive the same response as follows:

“I do not have any comment on that matter at this time.”

Selected excerpts . . . From the Minnie Mon Code of Ethics [emphasis added]:

….
By serving the public thoroughly and honestly, Fellows provide credible, professional, and truthful accounts of events and issues….

New Journalist Fellows should be honest, tireless, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information for the public.

New Journalist Fellows should:

  * Ensure the accuracy of all information, regardless of where it comes from. Review facts and stories….

  * Identify sources when possible. The public must be able to know how reliable sources are….

  * Never misrepresent events in an attempt to oversimplify or take events out of context….

  * Never plagiarize….

  * Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant….

  * Acknowledge the difference between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be understood as such….

New Journalist Fellows must maintain a sense of decency and integrity by treating sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect….

  * Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived, and disclose unavoidable conflicts….

  * Keep an open dialogue with the public in an effort to maintain and improve standards.

  * Encourage the public to use the information they have to question and analyze news stories on their own, and voice grievances when they feel stories are wrong….

  * Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

Question #5 Jeff:

Well I can confirm that you didn’t do an interview with Chairman Carey, contrary to your statement that you may have interview him.

I think my questions about your post were fair.  I find it very interesting that when pressed, you suddenly clam up and refuse to comment any further.

It’s also important to note that a “code of ethics” doesn’t mean much if you are not going to follow it.

Michael… I do not have any comment on that matter at this time.

Geez. “When asked for an explanation as to this apparent violation of ethical standards, Fecke replied that he had no comment.”

What’s the editor’s opinion Robin?

Long live the precinct caucuses! The more election cycles I go through, the more I love Minnesota's system of precinct caucuses.  You don't have to be a billionaire.  You don't have to own a chain of newspapers or radio stations.  All you have to do is to get out a bucketload of people who are excited about something and willing to give a few hours to a cause or a candidate.

It is an amazing grassroots system, a possible true antidote to many of our political ills.  Let's see what the next caucuses produce, I say.

Question Jeff:

You have a direct quote from the Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Ron Carey in your post:

“…GOP chair Ron Carey saying there is a '90 percent probability' of a change…”

Did you interview Chairman Carey?  Did he give you the “90 percent probability” quote?

Question #2 Jeff:

I called the Republican Party of Minnesota this morning and spoke with the Party's communications director, Mark Drake.  I asked Mr. Drake if Chairman Carey did an interview with Minnesota Monitor yesterday.  He replied that Chairman Carey did not do an interview with Minnesota Monitor, nor was an interview requested.

If you didn't interview Chairman Carey, how did you get the quote for your story?  According to numerous attendees at yesterday's meeting of representatives of the major political parties and Secretary Ritchie, you nor a representative of Minnesota Monitor were present at the meeting.

Michael… You're obviously game-playing, and I'm not playing.  I'm not going to clarify every word in every story I write for you.  Maybe I did interview Ron Carey…and maybe I got the information from wire sources…and maybe there's another option you haven't thought of.  Regardless, I'm not going to get sucked in to what's clearly a case of you hyperanalyzing every word I write to see if you can find some reason that what I wrote is technically inaccurate, whether or not a reasonable person would find it so.

I appreciate give and take, and if you find an actual factual error in a post, I am always willing to correct it — indeed, I did so when you brought an error to my attention two weeks ago.  But I'm not going to get involved in a game of “gotcha,” especially over trivialities.

After all, I could ask you why you're disputing that Carey said there was a 90% probability.  Has Carey changed his mind?  What do you know that you're hiding, Mike?

But I won't do that.  Because I don't think you're hiding anything.  I just think you're a partisan bomb-thrower.  And as a target, I'm not going to help you aim.

I have made a semantic change to the story…. I've added one word, twice.

Are you running short of bits, perhaps? Shouldn't that headline have been “DFL Senate Campaigns Positive about Caucus Date Change, All Still Abiding by Endorsement”? 

Even assuming that your Carey quote is accurate, that doesn't speak to how the Republican Senate campaigns are about the date change, or whether they have or haven't promised to abide by an endorsement. 

Short of bits?  Not mastering basic Journalism 101?  Some good reason?  Who knows?  (I mean that quite literally:  who knows, and what might he or she have to say about it?)

If the Minnie Mon is going to be, rather than a Fountain of Soros, a fountain of light (with apologies to Jackson Browne), surely basic accuracy standards would be a good first start.

Yes, you have . . .
. . . and you've apparently run afoul of the Minnie Mon's “Code of Ethics”:

* Take special care with anonymous sources, keeping their motives in mind. Do not become beholden to sources; keep agreements with them clear and honest.

  * Never misrepresent events in an attempt to oversimplify or take events out of context.

Arguably, when you used an anonymous (or, at the very best, unattributed) source, you “[kept] their motives in mind,” although there's no evidence of that on the page, what with you only having added the word “reportedly” twice.  By misrepresenting events, though, in your headline, you really do have some 'splainin' to do.

Why would Coleman care particularly? I mean, he is running for the endorsement unopposed, at least for now.

If/when Repya jumps in the race, I'll start asking the Coleman campaign about primary questions.  As it is, there wasn't anything particularly newsworthy in the question of whether the caucus moves from a GOP perspective; if you're Norm, you don't care, because you're going to get the endorsement regardless.

Wow, You Guys are Rattled I'm bemused.  Really, this is the best you can come up with?  I quoted information that had been released for hours, related it accurately, and didn't specify exactly where it came from, and that…uh…doesn't change anything about the story at all.  I didn't use anonymous sources.  I even took care to note that Olson's campaign mgr was speaking for himself, not the campaign.

Fine.  Parse every word I write, and I bet occasionally, some will be inaccurate from a hypertechnical standpoint.  And when I misspell something or leave a “reportedly” out, then by God, you've got your gotcha.

Question: how did my horrible, horrible lapse of something here affect the story?  And how would you have had me write it?  I'm serious — if you actually think this is an issue, then I really want to know.  I suspect I know the answer, but I want to see.

That's an . . . interesting analysis . . . . . . albeit shallow enough to hydroplane on, and obviously a diversion from the questions I raised, which didn't go to Coleman's caring or lack thereof, but the lack of accuracy in your story.

Had you added something like, “The Minnesota Monitor didn't inquire of the Coleman campaign as to their feelings about the data change or willingness to abide by the endorsement,” and still added the word “DFL” to the headline, you wouldn't have been quite so inaccurate.

But, getting back to your diversion, let me remind you that prediction is inexact, particularly when it's about the future.  I can think of at least one reason why the Coleman campaign might not want the date moved back, and another reason why it might.  I don't know, from your story, if either of those reasons are valid . . . because you didn't ask the Coleman campaign.

Question #3 Jeff:

I just came across this story from the Associated Press.  This story was published before your post and it contains the exact quote from Chairman Carey that you used in your original post.

“Carey said there's a '90 percent probability' the caucus date will be accelerated. His party's executive committee intends to decide on the issue next month.” Source: Associated Press

Was your source the Associated Press?  And if so, why didn't you source them in your original post?

Also, why would you write that you may have done an interview with Chairman Carey?

“Maybe I did interview Ron Carey…and maybe I got the information from wire sources…and maybe there's another option you haven't thought of.”

According to the communications director at the Republican Party of Minnesota, Chairman Carey didn't do an interview with Minnesota Monitor, nor was one granted.

There's a word for this Jeff.

To pour piss out of a boot, simply invert it and read the instructions on the heel. Parse every word I write, and I bet occasionally, some will be inaccurate from a hypertechnical standpoint.

Yes, that does seem rather more than likely.  And, in case you haven't noticed, the Grand Canyon upon occasion will look somewhat unsmallish — from a hypertechnical standpoint.  Among other standpoints.

As to how your lapses (plural) in basic journalistic chops affected the story, it's quite simple:  it turned it from accurate into inaccurate. 

As to your headline, how could you have fixed it?  you ask, more or less.  (I think; your writing isn't clear.  Maybe your were only asking about your passive voice problem.) 

Could this be easier?  Are you really serious?  Well, anything to oblige, although I think this only takes anything north of the most  mildly keen eye for the obvious: 

You could, as I previously suggested — feel free to read the posting that's apparently stimulated your inner [personal characterization deleted] — the three-letter word, “DFL” (without the quotes, to your headline.

Happy to help.  Wouldn't want people to think you were feckless, after all:

Dictionary.com

Unabridged (v 1.1) – Cite This Source

feck

Question #4 Jeff:

Why did you add the word “reportedly”?

Bemused? Each to his own; you're bemused, I'm amused, your excuses are reused, and no doubt this will leave you feeling further abused. 

Because I'm not confirming anything for you, Mike. I haven't confirmed or denied anything.  At any rate, I'm done with your games.  Further requests for information will receive the same response as follows:

“I do not have any comment on that matter at this time.”

Selected excerpts . . . From the Minnie Mon Code of Ethics [emphasis added]:

….

By serving the public thoroughly and honestly, Fellows provide credible, professional, and truthful accounts of events and issues….

New Journalist Fellows should be honest, tireless, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information for the public.

New Journalist Fellows should:

  * Ensure the accuracy of all information, regardless of where it comes from. Review facts and stories….

  * Identify sources when possible. The public must be able to know how reliable sources are….

  * Never misrepresent events in an attempt to oversimplify or take events out of context….

  * Never plagiarize….

  * Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant….

  * Acknowledge the difference between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be understood as such….

New Journalist Fellows must maintain a sense of decency and integrity by treating sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect….

  * Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived, and disclose unavoidable conflicts….

  * Keep an open dialogue with the public in an effort to maintain and improve standards.

  * Encourage the public to use the information they have to question and analyze news stories on their own, and voice grievances when they feel stories are wrong….

  * Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

Question #5 Jeff:

Well I can confirm that you didn't do an interview with Chairman Carey, contrary to your statement that you may have interview him.

I think my questions about your post were fair.  I find it very interesting that when pressed, you suddenly clam up and refuse to comment any further.

It's also important to note that a “code of ethics” doesn't mean much if you are not going to follow it.

Michael… I do not have any comment on that matter at this time.

Geez. “When asked for an explanation as to this apparent violation of ethical standards, Fecke replied that he had no comment.”

What's the editor's opinion Robin?