bump ! bump ! bump ! bump ! ;^)
SPECIAL TO THE STAR-TELEGRAM/JACK PLUNKETT RONNIE EARLE
Posted on 03/26/2004 2:22:23 PM PST by SwinneySwitch
For the past year, the Texas press, including the Houston Chronicle, has vigilantly covered the Travis County district attorney's investigation of possible Republican campaign finance violations in the 2002 elections. Nearly 200 stories have been written in the state's five metropolitan dailies, including more than 20 editorials in support of the DA.
But when the news broke last week that Austin-American Statesman columnist and reporter Dave McNeely had given the district attorney, Ronnie Earle, a series of pre-publication drafts of a long news analysis piece on the investigation, the story was buried in Saturday's papers.
The Houston Chronicle report did not even name McNeely.
In the state capitol, where the news was local, many were stunned that a veteran journalist had repeatedly invited the prosecutor in charge of investigating state government to comment on a story before it went to press.
But so far, the big Texas papers have failed to link McNeely's ethical breach to the larger story.
Earle's investigation began early last year, originally targeting big players in the Austin lobby. It has since expanded to include the speaker of the Texas House, Tom Craddick, and U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
McNeely's news analysis appeared in the July 20, 2003, issue of the Sunday Insight section of the Austin American-Statesman and connected the theoretical dots between alleged improper business contributions to state legislators and the several GOP leaders.
When four drafts of his story were discovered in Earle's office through an open records request, McNeely insisted he had only wanted to make sure the facts were accurate. But the 3,000-word news analysis McNeely wrote included no technical facts that had not already been reported by his paper and others.
The district attorney is presented positively in the story, and the targets of the investigation, Republicans and businessmen, are presented negatively.
After the drafts were released, McNeely feigned balance, insisting he had verbally checked the facts with the Republicans named in his story.
But I called everyone who was mentioned, and not one person said McNeely had contacted them.
Responding to charges that his investigation is partisan, Earle, a Democrat, recently noted that his résumé includes investigations of people from both political parties. But his investigation record also reveals that, even after extensive research, indictments don't always result from his inquiries.
Sometimes his investigations into wrongdoing by public officials end up producing only high-profile media coverage. If that happens in the case of the Texas Republicans and their associates in business, McNeely's news analysis will have played a key role in trumpeting partisan but unproven charges from the district attorney.
If Earle's targets are indicted, McNeely will have inappropriately aided the investigation.
Many of the Texas reporters and editors I have spoken with this week were flabbergasted by McNeely's decision to show drafts of a news story to a source prior to publication. One editorial page editor told me she did not have a policy against the practice because she couldn't imagine anyone doing it.
But Tom Rosenstiel, head of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said last week that he doesn't believe it is always unethical to share advance drafts with a subject in a story if the report is negative.
If they can see the report, it allows the subject to defend himself within the story and can defang criticism once it is published, Rosenstiel said.
But he added that reporters must never raise any questions of objectivity.
The state's big newspapers are right to continue to follow the story of Earle's investigation, regardless of the outcome.
Unfortunately, reporters and editors seem to have no comparable zeal for reporting on an ethical lapse in their own profession, even though many questions about McNeely's relationship with the district attorney remain unanswered.
Instead, McNeely's editor has pronounced that his reporter will not be disciplined as a signal that the incident has ended.
A Houston Chronicle editorial published on March 16 encouraging Earle to continue his investigation ignored the ethical breach.
These failures and others like them extend McNeely's new credibility problem to every Texas newspaper that is looking the other way. How can readers have confidence in their objectivity and motivation?
Sylvester is the director of Texas Media Watch, an Austin think tank.
When four drafts of his story were discovered in Earle's office through an open records request, McNeely insisted he had only wanted to make sure the facts were accurate.
Dave McNeely is a bag of scum. I rarely read any of his garbage, but he leans as far to the liberal left as Molly Ivins. Both are despicable reporters.
bump ! bump ! bump ! bump ! ;^)
SPECIAL TO THE STAR-TELEGRAM/JACK PLUNKETT RONNIE EARLE
There is ONLY ONE GOOD kind of Democrat: One that has just been voted OUT OF POWER !!!Vote GOP !!! ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
