Chuck Johnson’s Interesting Edit and More on the Davison Coverage

Written by: PogieAugust 26th, 2006
Comments:1 Comment
Category:Blogs, MT Politics, Senator for Saginaw Chippewas, The Media
Rating:
(No Ratings Yet)

Loading ...

So, the Davison story is hitting the papers today, and one can certainly get a sense of the worldview of the authors when two stories are placed side by side. Jan Falstad’s original story about the Davison story is here, on the Billings Gazette page, while the story with the byline "By JAN FALSTAD - Billings Gazette - and CHUCK JOHNSON - IR State Bureau" appeared in the Helena IR here.

Same story, right? Not so much. The Falstad story, after painting the broad strokes about the allegation, gets to the fact that Davison was a co-chair of the finance committee for Burns in the fourth paragraph. Reasonable, I think; the Burns connection is not the most important part of the story, but certainly the most newsworthy thing that Davison has done recently.

What does Johnson do in the fourth and fifth paragraphs? Talk about John Morrison, mentioning that he lost the Democratic primary for the Senate. No context, no reason, and no logic to this inclusion. So does Johnson deal with the Burns connection? Yes, at the end of the article, and in two sentences.

I don’t think this is media bias. That’s too easy of an answer. It’s just laziness and deference to people in power. I am sure that it is sloppy reporting. What’s the more relevant news story? The entirely absent connection to John Morrison’s failed election, or the fact that, once again, Senator Burns has connections to someone involved in fraud and scandal?

Finally, none of the Montana reports I have read have looked into Davison’s campaign contributions–contributions to Burns and Rehberg FROM THE VERY COMPANY involved in the scam. Doesn’t it bear reporting that Davison made substantial campaign contributions to Burns, using the same company he used to conduct his fraudulent transactions? Shane Mason had this information at 2:30 yesterday, well before the story broke in the papers-and hell, he’s just a blogger. I hear we don’t research what we write.

The final, best twist? Johnson wrote, in this controversial column back in January, about this same magical tool, opensecrets.org, that Shane used to find this information.

I don’t for, or even want, political reporters, to share my ideology. I’d just like them to do more reporting.

Related Posts:

This post was written by:

Pogie - who has written 1059 posts on Intelligent Discontent.

I am an English and debate teacher from Helena, MT.

Contact the author

1 Comments For This Post

NeoMadison Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 11:11 am

It is indeed an interesting edit. Personally, I disagree with both you and Jan (although I think the world of both her and Chuck as reporters). I think the most newsworthy thing Davison has done recently is run for Governor. One might argue that the gubernatorial campaign was two years ago, while the Burns fundraising was one month ago, but when it comes to newsworthiness, I think running for governor two years ago tops raising money for someone else any day. I guarantee you more people know he ran for governor than know he helped Conrad.

But Chuck gets to both the Gubernatorial campaign and the fundraising much farther down in the story. Why?

Well, first let’s turn to the Morrison blurb. That fits in a story that involves Morrison for the same reason you gave for including Davison’s ties to the Burns campaign: It’s the most newsworthy thing he’s done lately.

But it becomes even more newsworthy when put in context of Davison’s volunteer work for the Burns campaign. Then, the fact that Morrison once sought to run against the man Davison was helping is more relevant.

(No. I am not saying the charges are politically motivated. I’m saying the information about Morrison would have been more relevant in that light.)

Had I been writing the story, I would have mentioned Davison’s gubernatorial run right about where Johnson mentions Morrison. Then I would have tacked on the volunteer work for Burns. Then I would have mentioned Morrison’s primary race.

This is where I must admit my own ignorance. Chuck and Jan are both good reporters, and I am not. So perhaps there’s a good reason why they chose the order they did. But I don’t know what it is or would be.

2 Trackbacks For This Post

4&20 blackbirds Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 9:07 pm

Probably the most disturbing thing about this burgeoning scandal is Helena IR’s Chuck Johnson’s coverage of the scandal – again covered by the crack team of Intelligent Discontent – in which he basically edited out Davison’s involvement with Burns. Interesting, eh? NeoMadison valiantly claims that Davison’s most newsworth association is that he once ran for governor, but of course that’s pure horsesh*t. Here’s the chief fundraiser for Conrad Burns – who

A Chicken Is Not Pillage Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 9:41 pm

remiss in not pointing out that for many folks, the story was broken by Justin Rood at TPM Muckraker. The Montana Maven chimes in at Kos. The Dark Lord Markos spreads the word to the hoards. Ken Camp asks the right question at Western Democrat. Pogie tracks the often bungling media coverage. Update 2: Moorcat weighs in. Cece has some information (rumor alert!). Get the point, Conrad. We aren’t fricken amused with the antics of your nice little * men. They’re ripping us off and we don’t like it.

NeoMadison Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 11:11 am
It is indeed an interesting edit. Personally, I disagree with both you and Jan (although I think the world of both her and Chuck as reporters). I think the most newsworthy thing Davison has done recently is run for Governor. One might argue that the gubernatorial campaign was two years ago, while the Burns fundraising was one month ago, but when it comes to newsworthiness, I think running for governor two years ago tops raising money for someone else any day. I guarantee you more people know he ran for governor than know he helped Conrad.

But Chuck gets to both the Gubernatorial campaign and the fundraising much farther down in the story. Why?

Well, first let’s turn to the Morrison blurb. That fits in a story that involves Morrison for the same reason you gave for including Davison’s ties to the Burns campaign: It’s the most newsworthy thing he’s done lately.

But it becomes even more newsworthy when put in context of Davison’s volunteer work for the Burns campaign. Then, the fact that Morrison once sought to run against the man Davison was helping is more relevant.

(No. I am not saying the charges are politically motivated. I’m saying the information about Morrison would have been more relevant in that light.)

Had I been writing the story, I would have mentioned Davison’s gubernatorial run right about where Johnson mentions Morrison. Then I would have tacked on the volunteer work for Burns. Then I would have mentioned Morrison’s primary race.

This is where I must admit my own ignorance. Chuck and Jan are both good reporters, and I am not. So perhaps there’s a good reason why they chose the order they did. But I don’t know what it is or would be.

4&20 blackbirds Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Probably the most disturbing thing about this burgeoning scandal is Helena IR’s Chuck Johnson’s coverage of the scandal – again covered by the crack team of Intelligent Discontent – in which he basically edited out Davison’s involvement with Burns. Interesting, eh? NeoMadison valiantly claims that Davison’s most newsworth association is that he once ran for governor, but of course that’s pure horsesh*t. Here’s the chief fundraiser for Conrad Burns – who
A Chicken Is Not Pillage Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
remiss in not pointing out that for many folks, the story was broken by Justin Rood at TPM Muckraker. The Montana Maven chimes in at Kos. The Dark Lord Markos spreads the word to the hoards. Ken Camp asks the right question at Western Democrat. Pogie tracks the often bungling media coverage. Update 2: Moorcat weighs in. Cece has some information (rumor alert!). Get the point, Conrad. We aren’t fricken amused with the antics of your nice little * men. They’re ripping us off and we don’t like it.

Intelligent Discontent