Michele Bachmann: why did the three most powerful news icons in Minnesota fail on this story?

by: Bill Prendergast

Mon Feb 20, 2012 at 14:00:00 PM CST

...the influence of Bachmann, and other hyper-conservative political characters on events in Anoka-Hennepin, was reported only flatly (by the Pioneer Press, Star Tribune, and Minnesota Public Radio.) There was no drawing of any overt lines of causation... Put another way, our local journalistic icons, treated the over-heated Anoka-Hennepin culture war milieu with studied dispassion and no evident desire to lay out a full and complete context for their readers/listeners.

My suspicion/accusation has long been that the local news media have each separately made an economic calculation that regular and full reporting Bachmann's misrepresentations, activities, alliances and influences becomes counter-productive after the point of perfunctory diligence. Translation: To have aggressively covered her - did I mention, a presidential candidate and the state politician with the highest profile on the national stage? - would be to risk blowback from her intensely contentious supporters, open themselves to invigorated charges of "liberal bias" and possibly/likely suffer advertising/underwriting blowback.

I agree, and this is a tremendously important point to understand about Minnesota politics and media. (The importance of the point that Lambert is making here: is the reason that I've been doing this series of posts about Lambert's piece.)

Lambert alleges that "an economic calculation" by the PiPress, Strib, and MPR led them to avoid "regular and full reporting Bachmann's misrepresentations, activities, alliances and influences."

That's what they failed to print and broadcast, despite the fact that Minnesota bloggers and reputable news sources outside the state--were doing just that.

Think about it: the three news icons that claim to deliver professional, quality news coverage to their audiences--have had a policy of not delivering "full and complete context" for the most important political figure in Minnesota.

As journalists claiming to be professionals, it's their job to print/broadcast "full and complete context" for their readers. And it's their job to do so in a timely fashion--as soon as they learn of "Bachmann's misrepresentations, activities, alliances, and influences." They should have been acquainting Minnesota voters with these, as they were revealed and properly sourced. They didn't.

Lambert opines that they didn't it because these news organizations:
1) didn't want to risk blowback from (Bachmann's) intensely contentious supporters,
2) didn't want open themselves to invigorated charges of "liberal bias,"
3) and didn't want to suffer advertising/underwriting blowback.

All those reasons for not doing full and fair coverage of Michele Bachmann--are related to self-interest on the part of the journalists and editors involved. In my opinion, these professional news organizations (and the editors and reporters involved) allowed their self-interest to determine what facts would and wouldn't be reported to Minnesota voters.

That's exactly what news professionals aren't supposed to do. It's cowardice, and their cowardice contributed to the entry of hateful demagogy into national politics and Minnesota politics.
(CONTINUED)

1) Careerism. I think that individual journalists, editors and news columnists avoid reporting critical facts about Bachmann because they believed that doing so would injure their individual careers.

2) "Access" journalism. A lot of the people who practice political journalism attain influence and reputation because they have "access" to the political figures they are supposed to be covering. Regular reporting of critical facts about Bachmann's career might cost some Minnesota journalists this "access," and some Minnesota journalists depend on this access to "outdo" their competition in "being the first to print the leak or the breaking news."

If a Minnesota news outlet, journalist, or news columnist decides to run embarrassing but true news items about Michele Bachmann: Republicans and conservatives might decide to leak their news items elsewhere: to other Minnesota journalists who don't print embarrassing but true news about Michele Bachmann. They will get the Republican/conservative news leaks first, as a reward for not publishing newsworthy items about Bachmann.

(And needless to say, Minnesota news organizations that publish embarrassing but sourced news stories about Michele Bachmann can lose access to Bachmann herself--the hottest political story in the state. She has a history of excluding press that she perceives as 'unfriendly.')

3)Ideology. We're so used to conservatives telling us that the professional news media are "liberal" that we sometimes forget they are not.

There are indeed news professionals in Minnesota who have a conservative political take on the world. They will spike relevant, accurate news about Bachmann and other conservatives--if reporting that news would diminish the credibility of the Republican Party and conservatives. (If your newspaper prints sourced evidence indicating the leading conservative politician in the state is lying, circulating hate and crackpot paranoid rhetoric--that hurts conservatism in Minnesota.)

This last one's particularly hurtful: how can you claim to be delivering "professional, experienced, and objective" news reporting to your audiences...if you are spiking relevant news stories because they might embarrass conservatives? If you do that, you're not practicing ethical journalism; you're spinning the news for the benefit of conservatives.

So those are three more reasons for the Minnesota media fail on Bachmann--three more reasons I'd add to Lambert's.

All of these reasons suggest cowardice, narcissism, on the part of Minnesota news professionals and pursuit of self-interest by Minnesota news professionals at expense of the truth.

If the Strib, PiPress, and MPR have let self-interest play a controlling role in spiking coverage of Bachmann--isn't it likely that self-interest is playing a controlling role in how they cover other unpleasant but important news?

I think it is. This story about Michele Bachmann's career--is not just a story about Michele Bachmann. It's a story about the decline of the quality of Minnesota's professional media--a demonstrated decline in professionalism, courage, and commitment to reporting the truth.

The decline in the credibility of the most influential media in the state is an important news story in and of itself.