Republicans hope that by disseminating jokes made by Al Franken, the comedian turned Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, they can undermine his campaign to unseat Republican Norm Coleman. Michael Brodkorb, a Republican operative and sole writer of the blog Minnesota Democrats Exposed, has been delving into Franken’s past to find instances where Franken has made light of the struggles of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The few instances he has found have been heavily promoted — even included in a video for Coleman’s campaign.

The jokes have also put off a few GLBT members of the DFL.

At a recent forum held for the GLBT community by attorney Mike Ciresi, one of Franken’s opponents for the DFL nomination, it was clear that some found Franken’s humor objectionable. Former DFL state Sen. Allan Spear, who made headlines in the early 1970s as one of the nation’s first openly gay elected officials, introduced Ciresi. Spear said that unlike comedian Franken, Ciresi takes GLBT issues seriously. Spear cited the attacks on Franken by Republicans using Franken’s past jokes against him as a real problem — and a reason for the community to support Ciresi and defeat Franken for the chance to replace Coleman.

I asked Jeremy Hanson, an openly gay longtime activist who co-hosted the Ciresi forum if the jokes influenced his decision to support Ciresi. He said he agreed with Spear. “Part of the reason I’m supporting Mike Ciresi for U.S. Senate is because I know he takes seriously the challenges that GLBT people face and I know that as our senator he will take seriously the fight for GLBT equality and justice,” he said in an interview. “It’s unfortunate when GLBT people are needlessly used as fodder for political satire or humor.”

With a choice of DFL senatorial candidates, including Franken, who overwhelmingly support the issues important to gays and lesbians, voters have to ask themselves: Is this a real issue or a distraction? Are the jokes irrelevant to the campaign? Or do they tell us something about the man who would be senator?

Some notable jokes being spread by the Republicans include a 1976 appearance at Harvard in which he joked that a campus club was dominated by homosexuals and said he was glad a gay member of the club had been murdered. The Harvard Crimson newspaper reported that after Franken spoke, his smile ” became so broad it pushed his eyes shut. He couldn’t stand it any longer. ‘Put that in, put that in,’ Franken laughed, leaning over the desk. I’d love to see that in The Crimson.”  In other words, he was trying to be outrageous.

Republican operatives are also citing an off-color remark that Franken made about Elton John and a comment after watching presidential candidate Pat Buchanan rail against GLBT people: “No one likes a gay bashing joke better than me, but this was serious.” The editing of the clip obscures the fact that Franken was responding to Buchanan’s tirade with sarcasm.

Franken faced questions about his sense of humor in late January when he appealed for support of the Stonewall DFL, the party’s GLBT caucus. Held at the Hennepin County Government Center, in front of the Stonewall screeners and several audience attendees, Franken retold his Elton John joke. The original joke goes like this:

“Actually, and this is totally true, for the first six months after 9/11, I put three baseballs in my carry-on bag. I am blessed with an unusually accurate throwing arm and wanted more than anything to thwart a hijacking by beaning a terrorist. How American is that?! I imagined The New York Post headline: ‘Franken Beans Hijacker: Terrorist Hit In Face With More Balls Than Elton John.’”

The scene was captured on video by a Republican “tracker,” and the Stonewall screeners were largely amused. Clearly that joke, at the expense of the flamboyant singer-songwriter, struck the GLBT Democrats as more funny than offensive.

Copies of the screening questionnaires from the Stonewall endorsement process show that each of the three candidates — Franken, Ciresi and St. Thomas professor Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer — has essentially the same stands on hate crime, gay marriage and other issues important to GLBT voters (thanks to blogger Eva Young, the screening questionnaires are publicly available here, here and here). Ultimately, the Stonewall DFL did not endorse a candidate and rated all three as outstanding.

The stances of the three DFLers differ considerably from those of Coleman. The Republican broke with the party line to vote for the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, which was strongly supported by the Democratic candidates and GLBT groups. But Coleman supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which seeks to block gays from marrying. As mayor of St. Paul in the 1990s, Coleman refused to acknowledge Twin Cities Pride, the most important GLBT community event each year. Franken happily marched in the parade that Coleman refused to recognize.

That a Republican operative and the Republican Party of Minnesota are circulating these jokes — as well as demanding GLBT community members respond to them — is disingenuous. The Republican Party of Minnesota has an abysmal record when it comes to GLBT equality, and the statements made and policies pushed by the party damage the community. The hypocrisy makes it that much harder to have a discussion of the jokes themselves — and adds nothing to the debate over the policy issues at stake in the election.

The omission of context further discredits the Republicans strategy against Franken. For example, Franken’s jokes in support of the community are omitted. He once joked during a discussion of marriage equality that being gay was much harder than being black. “It’s harder being gay — because you don’t have to tell your parents you’re black,” he quipped.

He also took on former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich over the issue of marriage equality and Gingrich’s own admitted infidelity, asking: “Newt, don’t you want for a gay couple what you had with your first wife? Don’t you want what comes with that — that bond of fidelity that you had with your second wife?”

A recent editorial in the Mac Weekly, the school newspaper for Macalester College, widely known as one of the most progressive in the nation, had this to say about the jokes and Franken’s policy position. “Though Franken took flak from commentators for an alleged participation in an off-color anti-gay skit in the 1970s, he describes himself as solidly pro-adoption rights for same-sex couples, and pro-same-sex marriage, and he boasts the endorsement of GLBT community champion and openly gay state Sen. Scott Dibble (DFL-Minneapolis).”

Along with Dibble, Franken has secured a number of other endorsements form the gay community. City Council Member Jeff Anderson, Duluth’s first openly gay elected official, is on record as supporting Franken. Most importantly, Franken has the support of Phil, Randi and Jake Reitan, a Minnesota family of nationally known advocates of LGBT equality.

The other two Democratic candidates have also garnered GLBT endorsements.

In addition to Spear, Ciresi has the support of Rick Stafford, chair of the Democratic National Committee’s GLBT Caucus.

Nelson-Pallmeyer has the support of Rep. Karen Clark, DFL-Minneapolis, who is the longest-serving lesbian elected official in the country. He also gained the support of Ann Bancroft, a teacher, a lesbian and a world-renowned Arctic and Antarctic explorer. Also supporting Nelson-Pallmeyer is openly gay Minneapolis City Council Member Gary Schiff.

Eric Black ponders the numbers, looking at long-term trends and the effect of “Limbaughism” in the mid-1990s. But it’s the widening polarity of politics that has him concerned. “I’ve believed that the so-called polarization of U.S. politics was a bit overstated, because most people aren’t political enough to be polarized. But Pew’s section on the growing partisan divide has me wondering,” he writes. “I do worry though that the blogosphere makes it ever-easier for citizens to spend their reading time having their preconceptions constantly reinforced.”

Brodkorb’s “inner psychic”: In a recent Bloghouse column, the Star Tribune’s Tim O’Brien gives a rundown of bloggers’ takes on the politics of the 35W collapse. Just after Minnesota Democrats Exposed blogger Michael Brodkorb fisked (or was it “cluster-fisked“?) the St. Cloud Times’ Larry Schumacher, he gets similar treatment from O’Brien: “Brodkorb even channeled his inner psychic to read the mind of Rep. Melissa Hortman,” he writes. “Hortman told the Denver Post that ‘you wonder if this bridge was built to withstand the massive heat we have had this summer.’ In Brodkorb’s partisan translator, that meant she was claiming that global warming brought down the bridge. There’s blogging, and there’s fiction writing — you be the judge.” (Brodkorb’s rebuttal here.)

more insideStrib CFO on “proprietary” PiPress spreadsheets: The Star Tribune’s recently departed CFO Mike Riggs is highlighted in Editor & Publisher’s latest round of excerpts from the Par Ridder trial early this summer. Riggs, who was named as a defendant in the trial, testified that Ridder gave him spreadsheets filled with proprietary information from the Pioneer Press. E&P found it interesting that Riggs didn’t indicate any of the data would be used to get an unfair advantage over the competition, but he reiterated that Ridder told him to make sure information on and about the PiPress spreadsheets didn’t “get out.” The judge’s decision on the case is expected in the next few weeks.

Got a tip for Media Monitor? E-mail us your media news.

more insideIt said, in part, under the headline “MDE EXCLUSIVE: COLEEN ROWLEY AND BLOIS OLSON“:

I have been informed by a source in direct contact with Coleen Rowley’s campaign, that Blois Olson’s PR firm, New School Communications, tried to get Rowley’s campaign to hire Blois’ firm for a consulting contract.

Buck Humphrey, an employee of New School Communications, was the main person trying to get Rowley’s campaign to ink the contract.

Rowley’s campaign decided against hiring New School Communications.

According to my source, it was only after Rowley’s campaign decided against hiring Blois’ firm that Blois started to appear in newspapers criticizing Rowley’s campaign.

If my source is correct, and I believe they are, Politics in Minnesota and Blois Olson have some explaining to do.

Why did Blois never disclose he was trying to get Rowley’s campaign to hire his firm?

This story is developing and I will have more information later this evening.

##

UPDATE: Blois Olson sent me the following email:

—–Original Message—–
From:
  Blois Olson
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 8:49PM
To: Minnesota Democrats Exposed
Subject: RE: Minnesota Democrats Exposed: MDE EXCLUSIVE: COLEEN ROWLEY AND BLOIS OLSON
Importance:High

I don’t know who you are but your story is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

New School Communications does not do ANY political work. Buck Humphrey may have persued [sic] a work with Rowley PRIOR to his employment at New School but we do not do any campaign work.

I demand a retraction immediately.

##

Here is my response:

1. New-School’s client list shows political work.

2. This is from Blois’ bio on New-School’s website: “Blois Olson leads New School Communications with a broad background in public affairs, media relations and campaign management. Specializing in innovative strategies for small businesses and public affairs organizations, he is well known for his media relations and public relations, as well as his political and pundit work.”

3. Blois’ occupation is listed as “a Democratic consultant” in the above story.

4. According to New-School’s website, Buck Humphrey joined the firm in March 2005. My source informs me that Humphrey was trying to get a contract with Rowley’s campaign in June 2005. If my source is correct, Humphrey was an employee of New-School communications when he was trying to work with Rowley’s campaign and it was not done prior to Humphrey joining New-School Communications as Blois now claims.

In a comment to the post, Olson repeated his demand for a retraction, adding:

It is well known that New School and Blois Olson have not done any campaign work since 1998.

It would be a clear conflict to our publications.

It should also be noted that an anonymous blogger that doesn’t accept anonymous postings could be defined as a hypocrit [sic].

If you want attributal [sic], political insight from people with real experience and credibility, not afraid to put their name on what they write – subscribe towww.politicsinminnesota.com

That was it. Seemingly not much of an exchange, but since the anonymous blogger did not retract his claim, New School Communications and Olson sued.

Though the lawsuit claimed Olson was defamed, it was widely accepted within the blogosphere and by mainstream journalists that Olson’s secondary purpose was to force public revelation of the blogger’s actual identity. In fact, Olson had written the following at Politics in Minnesota:

Anonymous Bloggers Need To Get A Life

Okay, the Blogs of the world have had some impact on politics in the past few cycles, but it’s time that someone begins outing all of the anonymous bloggers. Both sides have them, but it seems as though they have decided to pop-up as the most cost effective (free) ways to anonymously attack candidates. We value free speech, just have the guts to attach your name to your comments.

Realizing that the jig was up after the lawsuit was filed, the anonymous blogger came out of the closet, as it were, with this post on Jan. 4, 2006:

I AM M.D.E.

My name is Michael Brodkorb and I am Minnesota Democrats Exposed.

I had previously stated that I would never reveal my identity. I may have been naive to think I would be able to expose Democrats in the land of Hubert H. Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Paul Wellstone, while keeping my true identity a secret.

In the end, my identity is being unveiled today because of lawsuit filed against me by a prominent Democrat consultant. The Democrat who filed this lawsuit did not contact Domains by Proxy to confirm my identity. Instead, I was served legal papers at my home last evening.

I decided that I would expose myself on my own blog, in my own words, rather than my identity being eventually confirmed in Dakota County District Court documents.

Domains by Proxy is an internet registration intermediary set up to hide domain name ownership information that is normally publicly available through a query of the WHOIS system.

The success of the lawsuit hinged on a number of questions:

1. Were Brodkorb’s statements true?
2. If not, did Brodkorb intentionally try to defame Olson?
3. Should Olson be treated as a public or private person before the law?
4. Is Brodkorb a private individual or a journalist before the law?
5. If Brodkorb is a journalist and Olson is a public person, should the Sullivan precedent apply? That is, if Brodkorb’s statement was not true, did he publish it, as the Dakota County District Court said, with “actual malice” — that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.”

In its March 8 decision, the Dakota County District Court held that:

Plaintiff Blois Olson is a limited-purpose public figure and the statements in question fell within the scope of Mr. Olson’s public figure status; therefore, any defamation by Defendant must stand on clear and convincing legs of actual-malice, knowledge of falsity.

And that:

Without divining the truthfulness of the claimed events and proposals reported upon by Defendant, the court finds there was no reckless disregard, or serious doubts that would warrant further investigation before the alleged defamatory statements were made by Defendant; the multiple-source information and circumstances presented to Defendant before publication objectively and subjectively led to the conclusions made….

In other words, Brodkorb had not knowingly and maliciously made a false statement. But was Brodkorb a journalist? The court said only that it “further notes that there is no expert opinion in this case that the scope of Defendant’s verification efforts violated current journalistic standards.”

It appears then that the court made it clear that the Sullivan precedent did apply to this case. But is Brodkorb, a self-described blogger, a journalist? The Dakota County District Court did not answer this question, but at least one court in California has looked at the journalist defense for bloggers and decided the answer was “no.”

The situation occurred when Apple Computer (now just “Apple”) sued three bloggers, accusing them of making public Apple trade secrets. In that case the court held that the bloggers were not journalists, and therefore had to reveal their sources of information, presumably leaks within Apple. That case, however, did not involve defamation and bore little resemblance to Olson v. Brodkorb, except that the defendants in both cases were bloggers.

The problem with the term “blogger” is that it encompasses a range of writing styles from following pure journalistic standards to putting forth pure opinion, some of which may be distasteful to a majority of readers. Thus, blogging is not a type or genre of writing like journalism, fiction, nonfiction, playwriting, screenwriting, diary writing, technical writing, etc., but more a means of delivering information. In other words, a blog is perhaps more akin to a television or radio station; blogging is providing content for that station, be it written, audio or video.

The courts and lawmakers eventually will sort all this out, but historically law has been fashioned after the fact rather than before. That is, laws are rarely crafted in anticipation of a problem; they almost always come into being only after that problem has arisen.

What this means to bloggers, be they individuals like Michael Brodkorb, whose purpose is political communication more than journalism, or others who hold fast to stricter journalistic ethical codes, is that trying to hide behind existing law won’t be a surefire defense for free speech.

• The Cucking Stool
• Norwegianity
• The Big Question

more insideA google cache from May 19th show viewers that it was orignally to be a prominent part of the MDE website, listed directly under his contact link.

As of August 16th, after Brodkorb had received payment for his research, the link was still displayed on his site.

Although this page did not develop into an attack site, it does raise questions about what Brodkorb intended to do with his research paid for by the Bachmann campaign.

Did Michael Brodkorb ever intend to use his paid work for Bachmann to fill out his Patty Wetterling Exposed page? Did the Bachmann campaign ever expect or ask Brodkorb to activate his Patty Wetterling Exposed page as part of his work? At what point did Brodkorb decide to abandon the Patty Wetterling Exposed project? And finally, why did Brodkorb decide to abandon this project?

Electioneering is an expensive game of self-promotion played over the airwaves, in print, and now on the Internet.  A majority of voters will never meet the person who will be representing them, and instead they must rely on the images filtered through the media.  Credibility is one of the most important assets a media member has.

No one knows that better than long time Republican Party operative Michael Brodkorb, senatorial candidate Mark Kennedy’s press consultant.With a background in opposition research gained in his years as Research Director of the Republican Party of Minnesota, Brodkorb has been able to parlay his skills and contacts into a consulting job that has been referred to in the Pioneer Press as “part-time researcher,”and in other venues as a simple part-time consultant.  According to FEC reports, the Kennedy campaign considers him a “Press Consultant.”  With no clear definition available of what his position as researcher/consultant/press aide is, it seems easier to examine what it is not.

According to Brodkorb himself, it is not a position that involves his personal blog Minnesota Democrats Exposed.  In his announcement about accepting the position with the campaign, he stated, “I am not now, nor have I ever been paid to blog.”  He wrote that it is his responsibility to ensure that running his site did not conflict with his consulting position, and vise versa.

The ultimate responsibility lies with each individual blogger to ensure they operate their blog without an inherent conflict of interest.  As I am a Republican operative who exposes Minnesota Democrats, I am continually aware of my responsibility to disclose any conflict that could tarnish the effectiveness of my blog.

The over-all content of Minnesota Democrats Exposed will not change, but to ensure transparency you may notice a small drop in my coverage of the U.S. Senate race.

Instead, his coverage of the Senate race almost doubled, with nearly 70 posts in the three months since Brodkorb joined the campaign, in comparison to fewer than 40 posts on the race in the preceding three months, a period that included both the Republican and DFL endorsement conventions.

This escalation of coverage favorable to the Kennedy campaign is doubly surprising, given that Brodkorb once stated there would be no campaign that would ever be able to hire him and allow him to blog.

“I couldn’t blog on Minnesota Democrats Exposed and work on a campaign.  No campaign manager or candidate would allow me to continuing blogging on Minnesota Democrats Exposed and work on their campaign at the same time.”

Yet as his work on his personal blog continued and the focus on the Senate race increased, Brodkorb now maintains that it is not a part of his part-time consultancy.  “This is a reminder that I am a part-time consultant to Mark Kennedy’s U.S. Senate campaign. Minnesota Democrats Exposed is not created, endorsed, sponsored, or authorized by any political party, candidate, or candidate’s committee. It’s all me and always will be and I am very proud of Minnesota Democrats Exposed,” states his disclaimer, which he puts on a majority of his Senate posts.

However, despite this disclaimer, it has become apparent that material on his blog has been provided by the Kennedy campaign.  One example of this close coordination between the campaign and the blog involves a  dustup concerning Patrick Timmons, a writer for MNGOPWatch.com and DFLSenate.com (not affiliated with either political party) just last week.

Patrick Timmons, the blogger behind Minnesota Republican Watch and a contributor to DFL Senate, contacted the website vendor of Mark Kennedy’s campaign twice in the last 24 hours and requested information on any updated security features of Kennedy’s campaign website.

Mr. Timmons never identified himself as the blogger behind Minnesota Republican Watch or as a contributor to DFL Senate.

Brodkorb put on the “independent blogger” hat to create the post, but in case there was any doubt that the information had been given to Brodkorb in order for him to write the piece, Brodkorb confirms it himself.  “Mr. Timmons: I’ll be posting the transcript of your voice-mail left at Kennedy’s office later this evening.”

Brodkorb then appeared to be fulfilling his job as press consultant, stating less than three hours after publishing the story that he is shopping the piece to the media.

I have spoken with a few members of the media about Patrick Timmons, the blogger behind Minnesota Republican Watch and a contributor to DFL Senate, contacting the website vendor of Mark Kennedy’s campaign twice in the last 24 hours and requested information on any updated security features of Kennedy’s campaign website.

Exactly how much does a “part-time press consultant” cost?  According to FEC reports, $4500 per month, although a call to Brodkorb confirmed that his pay is actually $4583 monthly. On even a full-time schedule, this would come to more than $25 per hour.  This amount is higher than all but four Kennedy campaign members, including, incidentally, Mark Kennedy’s own (presumably full-time) campaign press secretary.  This is also more than the monthly pay for all but three of DFL senate candidate Amy Klobuchar’s staff.

When a journalist publishes a story, they do so under a newspaper, magazine, or foundation’s mast. Everyone knows who is paying the journalist for that story, and most journalists are bound by a code of ethics.  While analysts and commentators are free to embellish or take sides, journalists are expected to filter out or identify source bias in their accounts. Any reporter covering a “Michael Brodkorb story” should feel obliged to reveal to their audience that Brodkorb is a paid functionary on the Mark Kennedy U.S. Senate campaign.