Last year, The Uptake had session-long Minnesota State Senate floor passes. This session, it doesn’t.
What changed? The Republicans took over.
Even though the citizen journalism site webcasts hours of live political video, it has DFL roots and frequently, a left-leaning point of view. Last year, a handful of mainstream journalists raised questions about The Uptake renting Capitol press room office space. (Thursday, The Uptake officially got the space.)
Republicans were only too happy to pile on. A Republican blog, Minnesota Democrats Exposed, announced plans to apply for credentials to protest “the willingness to allow an outright partisan group into the press area.”
Although MDE founder Michael Brodkorb had left the site by then, he has attacked The Uptake for “journalistic malpractice” — and is now Senate Republican communications director and executive assistant to Majority Leader Amy Koch. (Brodkorb is also deputy chair of the Minnesota Republican Party.)
While credentials aren’t needed for Capitol press conferences, floor passes are about access. Conversations are only permitted before or after a day’s session, but the immediacy of interviews before lawmakers scatter is as valuable, as is the candor that occasionally results before marching orders are received.
It’s not the be-all of reportage: Senate Sgt-at-Arms Sven Lindquist says press seats on the cramped floor are frequently unoccupied, except during big votes. Still, it’s a tool for the journalistic toolbox.
Government shouldn’t be in the business of judging speech, but before I could prepare another column defending The Uptake, I got a call from Brodkorb with an unexpected offer:
Would I serve on a working group re-examining the Senate’s credentialing rules?
Brodkorb says his offer is sincere, and represents new transparency in shaping the policy. His plan is to have Senate Republican and DFL staffers, plus me and right-blogger Mitch Berg, chew through the issues and recommend durable standards to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.
I was apparently picked to add a lefty, but also one with experience in the “old” and “new” media. There were no conditions on my involvement — I could write what I wanted at any time.
Talk about your tough spots. One of my goals is to help improve public policy, but journalists typically shy away from direct involvement with those they cover. For example, the state Capitol press corps doesn’t want to credential members, even though that happens in some states and at the U.S. Capitol.
The SPJ ethics code states: “Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.”
But there’s also this: “[R]ecognize a special obligation to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.”
Is part of the special obligation directly trying to change things for the better?
I was pretty sure my bosses would take me off the hook and nix the idea. They didn’t. Editor Joel Kramer said journalism organizations serve on government working groups all the time, though it’s usually executives, not reporters. Still, he didn’t see a problem with being on an advisory group as long as there were no conditions.
I told Brodkorb that if I was to serve, my principles would be maximizing access via objective standards that forbid government review of speech (known in the legal world as “content-based regulation”).
The current Senate rules are objective, but simultaneously vague and over-specific.
“Permanent space” on the Senate floor and gallery is granted to “news agencies that regularly cover the legislature.” There’s no definition of what “regularly” means — but the list is piercingly specific when it comes to defining news agencies: AP, the Pioneer Press, the St. Paul Legal Ledger, Star Tribune, Duluth News Tribune, (Fargo) Forum, Rochester Post Bulletin, St. Cloud Times, WCCO radio, KSTP radio, Minnesota Public Radio and Minnesota News Network.
See the problems? KSTP radio, which is now all-sports, is guaranteed a spot; none of the TV stations are — and they all have Capitol correspondents. Meanwhile, attentive newcomers like The Uptake, or Marty Owings of Minnesota Capitol News, aren’t listed, either.
How did The Uptake get permanent floor passes last year? Like the TV stations, in the breech. But such discretion makes it all too possible for partisans to be partisan.
In a column earlier this year, Berg wrote that the GOP-controlled Senate had denied credentials to “all partisan news outlets.” (Again, the rules don’t make any mention of partisanship.) To me, that standard would include Dan “Ox” Ochsner, a talk show host on conservative St. Cloud station KNSI-AM.
Ochsner told me Wednesday he did get a permanent floor pass. “I pinned [new Senate President] Michelle Fischbach down on the air at 2 a.m. on Election Night.”
Ochsner, who was president of the Minnesota Associated Press Broadcasters before going ideological, had his permanent floor pass taken away in recent years when the DFL controlled the Senate. Former Senate communications director Gary Hill says Ochsner was rejected along with the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, an African-American paper, and Checks and Balances, a DFL-affiliated website.
The grounds? None covered the legislature “regularly,” Hill says.
Ochsner says he was at the legislature five to seven times a year, and the fact that he ran against Tarryl Clark in a 2005 special election probably didn’t help. (Clark won and became assistant Senate Majority Leader.)
Sgt-at-arms Lindquist says the power to review and grant credentials used to be handled by himself and Senate Secretary Patrick Flahaven. But in recent years, Lindquist says the power moved “elsewhere” — to the majority leader’s office, which is, by definition, partisan.
While The Uptake disputes the partisan label, Ochsner embraces it. So it’s hard to deny the former a credential based on the perceived content of their speech. Brodkorb disagrees; he doesn’t consider KNSI partisan (it’s the Central Minnesota home of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jason Lewis and Michael Savage). Instead, he likens The Uptake to Minnesota Democrats Exposed.
Frankly, I think The Uptake has pretty good grounds for a First Amendment lawsuit. This should make for a fun working group discussion.
Should I join the group, it isn’t hard to see the minefields. Theoretically, I’d help shape the rules affecting people I cover. The credentialed incumbents might be pissed (or grateful) if insurgents join (or are excluded from) their ranks. There’d be a doppelganger dynamic for the new media folks. (By the way, Brodkorb says MinnPost would’ve received floor passes had we applied.)
There’s the risk that Brodkorb is using me as a fig leaf for the Senate’s partisan decisions. And there’s also the possibility of fomenting bad rules: instead of getting new voices and perspectives into the mix, enabling thinly veiled party hacks who will make it harder for independent journalists to do their jobs.
Maybe it would be better to have a seat in the front row, not at the table.
As of now, I’m planning to take a leap of faith. I think I can keep my wits, principles, and independence about me and be a forceful advocate for openness. A direct role makes it easier to shed light on the process, allowing you to check my actions and more importantly, the politicians’ work. I will certainly scream loudly if the recommendation is bogus.
But before I sign on the dotted line, I want to know what those who read me (and are covered by me) think. Good idea, or horribly compromised? Comments, please.
Yes please do Dave, and I think we’d all love to read of your perspective of these coming discussions.
Hats off to Brodkorb too, for inviting you in.
I see absolutely no danger in you taking part in this working group. You will provide input, legislators will approve the rules.
I don’t see this as much different from speaking at a convention (those people often have an agenda) or at a community meeting. You are being open with your involvement, and I see it as all positive.
I’m not sure how you could do this without being in a position of lobbying for or against a media organization that you cover. That’s the tarpit.
If the concern is transparency, they should have no problem with allowing you to write about the proceedings and finding someone from academia to be the voice of news organizations on the working group.
***
As of now, I’m planning to take a leap of faith
***
And you must have a LOT of “faith” if you think this process is going to be fair.
Don’t do it; you’ll be a pawn Brodkorb & Co will happily sacrifice.
Don’t do it. If you do, you’re acknowledging that you are the equivalent of Mitch Berg, and that’s a libelous assertion because Mitch is a partisan blogger and radio host who will never cut a liberal an even break, whereas your work is objective, and not driven by liberal politics.
Don’t do it. I could give you more reasons, but they’d boil down to this: Michael Brodkorb would have never made the offer had he not spent time calculating this out. He thinks he can win with you on the panel. That means the panel is fixed, or he wouldn’t have made the offer. You also won’t figure out his agenda until afterwards, after he’s had his way.
Just my two cents worth, and since that’s more than my net worth, my input’s probably not going to sway the day.
David, Were you at the DFL Convention, in Duluth? If so, do you remember the free and open and transparent access given to GOPers, especially Brodkorb & Drake?
Well, here’s a little reminder of the “free and open and transparent” treatment Brodkorb & Co gave me, at the GOP Convention just a little while later – it’s the list of tweets sent yesterday, over the three hours between not getting Media Credentials, getting a “Guest Pass” and the GOPers actually letting me in, using said “Guest Pass”:
You can have all the “faith” you want, David – but IMNSHO, is misguided.
http://mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/6082/fear-and-loathing-in-sloganville-part-1-or
Somehow, I doubt Brodkorb & Co would actually “honor” any “agreement” that “working group” would actually produce; when it comes to “honor” Brodkorb & Co have none.
“Is part of the special obligation directly trying to change things for the better?”
Yes.
Negatives mentioned by other commentators above are all genuine and legitimate, but if those concerns prove well-founded, I’ve no doubt that readers will let you know pretty quickly, and if your own compass begins to waver, get out – and make sure to explain to those of us in the audience why you left.
But the argument for getting involved seems compelling to me. Arguing that a station that carries Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. is “not partisan” is a lie blatant enough that even a Republican should be embarrassed to use it.
When I was a Washington correspondent for the Strib, we routinely set rules for access to the congressional galleries through standing committees of correspondents. Important distinctions: the committees had real authority over the access even while they were subject to House and Senate rules, and their members were elected by correspondents, not hand picked by partisans. The committees set rules barring “journalists” who were engaged in lobbying, doing paid promotional work for political parties,corporations, etc. But that didn’t rule out opinion writers and columnists with a point of view. The key was editorial independence.
Do it. You are not compromising your journalistic ethics and you are smart enough to see through any ploy they might pursue.
I’m also in the “do it” category. One question I would have is whether or not they intend to allow at least an audio recording of the proceedings from start to finish to head off any “he said/she said” second-guessing.
If you don’t do it, then Brodkorb can legitimately say that we invited….but they declined. Too bad for them.
Political conventions or events outside of the State Office Building and/or Capitol are one thing…being able to report on the people’s business is a different creature.
Nothing good comes when journalists are in league with the people they are supposed to be covering.
There’s no commitment to stay through to the end, and no prohibition on what you can say publicly.
Therefore, there should be no issue going into this with your eyes wide open.
Hi David,
I’d urge you to participate. Members of the press should have a role in shaping policies that affect press (and public) access to information about government activities.
Advocating (as you do above) for Senate rules that reflect an even-handed application of the First Amendment will have benefits for all.
I’ll throw my hat in the “why would you want to allow yourself to be painted as the antithesis of Berg?” camp. You work too hard and put out content that is too valuable to be cast in such a poor light.
Dave, I’m surprised that you’re starting down this slippery slope. So you’re the designated “lefty” in the group. How is that going to enhance your credibility?
I’d like to see examples and Kramer’s explanation of “journalism organizations serving on government working groups all the time,…”
I agree with all the other people who have criticized the attempt to put you and Mitch Berg on the same level. Mitch has enjoyed some success in the right-wing echo chamber, but you’d demean yourself by accepting this position.
Even after you “chew through the issues and recommend durable standards to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee,” what guarantee do you have that the standards will be accepted by the MN Senate or applied in an even-handed way?
I’m skeptical, mainly because it’s Brodkorb. Although Mitch Berg doesn’t inspire confidence in me either. Although I don’t agree with their politics, that’s beside the point. Their approach to journalism and the truth at very least verges on unethical.
I have a very hard time believing this will be an impartial process with a non-partisan result, and I think being part of it could compromise your reputation.
Do it.
Best case scenario – there is solid agreement and input about the rules from all sides (left/right and journalist/elected official).
Worst case – you have a special and unique seat to expose the process and new rules.
I’ll join the Greek Chorus – Do it.
But only if you are allowed the unfettered and unedited right to write about every detail of the process.
We NEED good, open access to our political processes and those who participate in them. You are a good choice to help create the rules and guidelines that assure that such access is granted.
And an equally good choice to report why creating such rules and guidelines was not the goal nor the outcome of this process (if that turns out to be the case).
Just be careful not to find yourself so “embedded” with the committee that you are unable to participate in the process without losing your objectivity (which, considering the high moral fiber of Mr. Brodkorb, et al, is likely their aim in including you).
I’m intrigued by the people who write in and say “do it but keep your objectivity.” They might as well be saying, “Go ahead and have sex, but keep your virginity.” Once you become part of the process — no matter how noble the ideal — your objectivity is shot. The people in power will still be the ones making the decisions. You’ve got virtually no chance of convincing them to do something that they believe is contrary to their best interests.
We’re supposed to be covering these people. They are not our friends and we shouldn’t be theirs. We’re not their buddies. We should avoid being part of their machine. We’re not supposed to provide them cover for making some decision. We’re journalists.
One of my editors in Dallas, the late Howard Swindle, had a sign on his office wall that read, “Never wrestle a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” That’s the case here.
Okay, I’m an old flack but a liberal one. My vote is “do it” — much easier to make change from the ‘inside’ and things need to change.
Maybe think of it this way…you will be embedded with; but not necessarily in-bed-with the Brodkorb group; yet, ‘independent’ may just take a little abuse here. Then again, who knows?
I for one will read a reporter-without-borders any day over those who may or may not have consciously or unconsciously qualified their point of view in respect for the group whatever its intentions?
Rubbing elbows in committee creates its own ‘in-proximity’ form of calluses?
Actually, who knows whether one will become the ultimate power broker, trickster/diplomat…or become less open-mined, beholden-to (now there’s an archaic phrase); or compromised in contributing/relinquishing one’s investigative soul to the committee”?
Who can say?
I say inform the whole group that, as a journalist, you are treading a very thin line. So tell them you need to keep 100% transparency and you will feel free to write about any goings on during the process. If they are not OK with that, then walk. If they are, then go ahead and join them. And write about the goings on.
Who better to contribute to a potential solution to this matter than a working journalist — especially one with your perspective on both “old” and “new” media?
Go for it.
David, I think you should have bugged out the minute you were picked as the designated lefty. Get your news the old fashioned way. By observing, asking questions, wheedling, etc. Don’t plunge into the tar pit cuz you might be his fig leaf and then it’s too lat.
Hey everyone –
Belated thanks, deeply, for the thoughts. I’m basically still of a mind with Don (#23), though all of the objections raised are reasonable.
I guess in some ways, this is an experiment in whether the principles elucidated by David Hanners are time-tested true. If so, the scars should be interesting to look at.
I do want to say, to those who worry about me being equated to the other side, or tagged a “lefty,” the latter is pretty much something I’ve always disclosed while still trying to be fair, honest and transparent. As for whether everyone will deal in good faith, the proof is in the meeting.
As Chancy Gardner of “Being There” fame, might possibly say…better to be at the table than stuck in the transom.
I’m still pondering that image of a fig leaf in a tar pit.
Do it David. I’ve met and talked to both yourself and M.Brodkorb. Your both good people.
Don’t get squishy about taking a part in the rules surrounding the govt. I saw how you got involved in IRV in Mpls. Was that the same issue you took a big part in at the 2001 Mpls DFL Convention? Either way, your insight will be valuble. Look at the rules you had a part in drafting over at Mpls Issues. You do good work.
Now lets see if you can work when your not surrounded by an overwhelming group of lefties.
Good Luck
Michael Brodkorb- Play nice with David.
Eric –
Yes, I was involved in the 2001 IRV effort, though the difference then is that I wasn’t really a local journalist. (I started with the Southwest Journal late that campaign season but recused myself from the issue.)
Thanks for remembering Mpls-Issues. That’s a good analogy for what’s happening here; trying to craft politically neutral rules. (You’re always criticized for partisan *application* but the gored never knew how often all ideologies were tagged.)
Mark Gisleson:
“Mitch is a partisan blogger and radio host who will never cut a liberal an even break”
Well, you’re partly right. My blog and radio show are partisan.
But I have a deeper, overriding interest in seeing that the legislature be covered fairly and transparently – *and* ensuring the alternative media gets its nose into the mix alongside the bigs.
David is a journo who’s never tried to hide his point of view under a layer of pseudo-mystical J-school BS. It’s one of the things I respect about him.
I am likewise honest about my point of view. I wasn’t asked to join this process to grind a partisan axe. And so I won’t. I’m going to be completely up-front about whatever I end up bringing to the table; even if I weren’t, I’m sure Mr. Brauer would do it for me.
And that’s really all there is to say about it.
“Their approach to journalism and the truth at very least verges on unethical. ”
Really, ma’am?
Any examples of how myh “approach to the truth” is “unethical?”
Because I’ll bet you say that about all the conservative bloggers. Just a hunch.
Thanks in advance for your prompt and on-point response.
I cut a line from my response to Gisleson, and forgot to re-paste it.
My goal is not to “give breaks” to any media based on partisanship. My goal is to help work out a system to apportion fair, impartial access to the proceedings to mainstream and alt media.
It happens to be the sort of problem I resolve all the time as part of my utterly non-political day job.