Original WSJ reporter on blogger story apologizes for her colleagues. DFA

Her name is Jeanne Cummings, and a full commentary is posted in blog comments today by Laura Gross, the DFA Communications Director. She was misquoted, apparently, and this is a long write-up by Laura. She said they do not intend to respond (formally)to a non-story.

Here are only two snippets...you can read the rest there in the comments about St. Louis today. BTW, there was such a large crowd to see Dean speak to supporters that they had to move it from a library to a hotel ballroom.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/005807.html
SNIP..."So I got a call Thursday from the Jeanne Cummings, The Wall Street Journal reporter who covered the Dean campaign. By all accounts, she did a fine job -- covered all aspects of the campaign, even met the Web team and wrote a long story on their work. She was calling, she said, on behalf of some of her paper's reporters in Boston who were looking into a story about the campaign and the blogs.

She said she thought she knew what was going on, and we talked "on background" so she could "just clear things up once and for all" -- that is, not for attribution. By the end of the conversation she had confirmed what she thought -- that there was no news, that this was what she called a "dead story" -- and said that she didn't think there would be any article at all, much less one that mentioned Dean. She said that if for some reason she needed a quote she'd call me back."

SNIP.."Next thing I know there appears in the WSJ an article so sloppy and so inaccurate that I spent the morning trying to track Jeanne down to find out what happened. She called me back at 10:30 a.m. -- and actually apologized for the article (written by two colleagues). She said that she wouldn’t work with those reporters in the same capacity again, would only give them on-the-record quotes and assured me that she had notified her editors.

Jeanne's colleagues committed a journalistic no-no: they took her background conversation with me and made up a quote from "a Dean spokeswoman". Their fake quote had this spokeswoman apparently admitting that the bloggers were paid for promoting the campaign. They completely mischaracterized our conversation -- and Jeanne was rightly upset about it. I was, and am, too...."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050115/480/stl10101150121

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news - web sites), who is seeking to be the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites), speaks at a rally for his supporters Friday, Jan. 14, 2005, in St. Louis. Dean is in St. Louis to speak with the DNC Midwest Regional Caucus along with others who are seeking the committee's top position. (AP Photo/Tom Gannam)

I believe Jerome said his wife was expecting a baby at any moment. Not a good time to be so screwed by the media.

Extended Hiatus
by Chris Bowers

If any conservative pundits could be bothered with the truth, here is the link to the entire archives of the old MyDD. And here is a link to what MyDD looked like on February 2, 2004. As any long term follower of the Democratic blogosphere knows, this page shows that Jerome was on an "extended hiatus" from blogging starting August 7, and continuing until March 31. He came by once during that entire time to post a link to a diary he wrote at Dailykos that discussed the netroots in a generalized manner. Even before August 7th, he had been posting very little since April of 2003. Then again, this entire story obviously has nothing to do with truth:

Link to old archives:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mydd.com

Link to February 2, 2004, showing no entrys between August 2003 and Feb. 2, 2004
http://web.archive.org/web/20040202004653/http://www.mydd.com/

the rest of the media jump on it and parrot it...

It just gets worse and worse... :shrug:

The whole forum should be irate. I think it was posted in the comments section because they do not want to dignify it.

A WSJ reporter apologizes for her colleagues...amazing.

The lazy ass reporters..who have been known to prefer sitting in bars rather than expend energy to verify a story.

SNIP..."Jeanne's colleagues not only misrepresented my conversation with her, they also made a sloppy and completely ridiculous analogy to the Armstrong Williams scandal -- an analogy that has been snapped up and repeated ad nauseum by both lazy journalists and the right-wing media machine.

Here's the deal: the campaign paid these guys with private funds to do work that did not include writing content or otherwise talking/writing about the campaign -- and widely disclosed the relationship at the time anyway, just in case. The Bush administration used taxpayer dollars to pay Williams to lace his commentary with praise for a certain policy -- and both the administration and Williams covered it up. Also, it appears that what they have done is illegal.

No journalist with any integrity would be writing about these things in the same story."

right here in River City too but I'm not holding my breath. The propaganda about "Sneaky Dean sites" comes to mind.

That was becoming laughable.

Thanks for giving the thread a kick. My legs were getting tired of kicking.

;)

DUers aren't stupid.

See for yourself. And my points stand unrefuted.

And this comment stands unrefuted too: All Martians are Blue, not Green.

Put another way, and then whadidja dream? :eyes:

Un-freakin-believable.

Teachout's getting roasted on her blog while she blithely chirrups about "transparency." Some of the pissed off notables who aren't buying her handwaving are Atrios, Matt Stoller, and Rogers Cadenhead.

http://zonkette.blogspot.com/2005/01/what-about-where-transparency-isnt.html

never mind.

You're generally against the kind of "transparency" Zephyr advocates, or do you dislike it only when you think this transparency may damage the chances of Howard Dean to become the party's insider-in-chief?

You should read my posts, and you will see that I don't even want him to be chair. I would rather he stay with DFA.

There are many kinds of "transparency". Go to her site and you will see that I am not the only one who disapproves of her kind of it right now.

I hope you feel better.

I'm troubled that many dean supporters seem willing to add another standard to their ethical repertoire just for Howard Dean and his consultants. You know as well as I do that if it came out during the primary that, say, Edwards was hiring blogger-consultants, the Dean supporters would have organized and conducted a frontal assault on the moral high-ground faster than stonewall Jackson could say charge.

2) The WSJ reporter apologized for her colleagues being assholes--attributing second hand, off-the-record comments to a "spokeswoman," not for mis-characterizing the substance of her comments. ON EDIT: The DFA woman does say that the reporters misconstrued her statement, and I suppose each of us can regulate the jaundice of our eyes regarding the "technical constulting" bit.

3) While I have no doubt that DFA would have hired Marcos et.al even if they had no blogs, 'cause they're such powerhouses in the world of Democratic consultants, I read the pile-on-zephyr-fest (who in the interests of transparency, I think I may have met once, if she's who I think I remember she is, and otherwise don't know from adam) as a bunch of people who may, for reasons not hard to imagine, may want it to have been kept a little quieter that they play the consultant game exactly the same way every other consultant does.

4)This is non story,especially when compared to the Williams thing. It is a good lesson to the Howard-is-pure crowd that the Howard-is-the-kind-of-effective-operator-we-need crowd are probably closer to the mark. It's also a useful illustration of the fact that no area of democratic politics is free from the consultant culture that--in its totality--costs our party elections, and our country dearly.

It is best to stop it now.

I can NOT believe I am being attacked in this thread...unbelievable.

This is what it is about:
" they took her background conversation with me and made up a quote from "a Dean spokeswoman". Their fake quote had this spokeswoman apparently admitting that the bloggers were paid for promoting the campaign. They completely mischaracterized our conversation -- and Jeanne was rightly upset about it. I was, and am, too...."

.

My last reply to you on this.

at tackling this issue. It strikes me that Zephyr is asking for much more than transparency, something Kos complied with. He had a disclaimer right there on his blog. You couldn't miss it. He discussed his consultancy work in articles. Armstrong went further; he shut down his blg. Zephyr has suggested not only a more detailed transparency than kos offered, but that bloggers not write about anyone they're consulting for. I hate that idea. Bloggers are not journalists, they're opinionists, if you will, and that's why I read them. Independent bloggers such as kos and armstrong don't represent anyone but themselves. There is a difference between bloggers who represent large media corporations and those who set up shop to express their own ideas. kos and Armstrong represent the latter group.

Kos and Armstrong were right to disclose. Many other consultants and bloggers disclose nothing (see Hansen and friends) My point is that the current consultant culture--disclosed or not-- is costing us dearly, and this little blip of a controversey shows that in our party this culture is the order of the fucking day in every area.

"Well, the rethugs have consultants too, right?" Sure the rethugs have consultants, but they are treated like what they are--the help--not an integral part of the party aparatus. And the results of this difference show in the last 3 major elections.

Yes, I am angry. She knew what she was doing. It is sad because she was close friends with Howard Dean, and very close to many of the supporters. Her family is friends with them as well, I believe.

Please read this post about its possibly being self-promotion...thoughtless. Whether intentional or not, it was harmful and not true.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/15/5125/64871

SNIP..."I think its pretty obvious that Zephyr (who is listed as a conference participant affilliated with the Berkman Center--the host of the conference) engaged in a bit of self-promotion here, asking McKinnon (also a conference participate affiliated with the Berkman Center) to link to her piece because she wanted as wide an audience as possible -- especially among bloggers and those journalists who are concerned with blogging.

(its also pretty obvious that the link provided to the conference is how people found her brand new blog. The link appeared on January 12...)

The conference is turning out to be pretty much of a joke--- a bunch of unethical right wing bloggers, ethically compromised journalists, and now ethically compromised members of the Berkman Center itself will spend two days pontificating on credibility, standards, and ethics of bloggers. And we're all supposed to take it VERY seriously....

I think not."

I mean , I love her ,but she is and has always been a little naive in the ways of the world. This may or may not be true, but she still comes off this way.

Now the problem is this:

I post about a WSJ reporter saying a story was not there, apologizing because her colleagues wrote up a bunch of stuff that is discredited already,.....and the majority of the hits on this thread are going after Dean people.

Something is wrong with that picture.

Being ignored here basically.
http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/2005/1/15/13140/1407/main//

Considering their probable reason for existing here is to bash Dean (I'm not even a Deaniac and even I can see that), I doubt it.

actually claimed his charges went "unrefuted" -- if you can believe that.

I can't quite figure out if he's just delusional, or something actually rather much worse.

NT!

disinformation campaign is damaging the party at a time when that means damaging the country, bigtime. It's not a minor offense.

to deflect bad attention from the bush administration?!?!? why i'm shocked!!!

this should be a major scandal at the WSJ. That terrible story, with an obvious anti-Dean agenda, had no business being in that fine paper (fine excluding the editorial pages).

he very sneakily smeared Dean on "Crossfire", saying, if Dean didn't disclose, etc. etc. this is as bad as Armstrong Williams.

Begala knew very well that Dean DID disclose, he was just smearing Dean and fuck his qualifier.

Btw, both he and Novak AGREED on who should be the DNC chair: Martin Frost. I have no idea who Frost is, but the fact that the two Crossfire fucks AGREE on him, fuck him. :mad:

benefitted us(Dems)to be the DNC Chair..and we already have paul begala's number if we didn't have it by the time Jon Stewert(who got the Entertainer of the Year Award from Entertainment Weekly Magazine) got throught with him and tucker..

Creeps!

This story really has very little to do with Dean and these bloggers. The bloggers will have no place in media unless we can stop a major news media like the WSJ from publishing stuff like this. At least we should force an explanation.


James Bandler
Co-author of the piece
james.bandler@wsj.com

Bill Bulkeley
Co-author of the piece
Bill.Bulkeley@wsj.com

This is the person Laura talked to, and she apologized when the story aired as it did.
Jeanne Cummings (thank her)
Co-author of the piece
jeanne.cummings@wsj.com

Melinda Beck
Marketplace editor, where the piece ran
melinda.beck@wsj.com

Bill Grueskin
Managing Editor
b.grueskin@wsj.com

Jamie Heller
Deputy Managing Editor
j.heller@wsj.com

Terri Cullen
Assistant Managing Editor
t.cullen@wsj.com

Dave Pettit
Deputy Managing Editor
dave.pettit@wsj.com

Jason Fry
Assistant Managing Editor
j.fry@wsj.com

I already emailed my LTTE to the WSJ LTTE editor and the 2 writers of that article. I'll forward it onto the others as well. Below is the LTTE I sent WSJ. At the very least, WSJ could publish another one of Howard's finely written op eds.

I read the Jan. 14, 2005 William M. Bulkeley and James Bandler article “Dean Campaign Made Payments To Two Bloggers.” Immediately, it became clear that these writers and the Wall Street Journal were performing “damage control” for the corrupt and incompetent Bush Administration, and at the same time trying to smear the reputation of the most effective and courageous voice the Democratic Party has today – Howard Dean, candidate for the Chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Because Wall Street, with WSJ serving as its mouthpiece, are eyeing billions of dollars of profit, from Bush’s Social Security Privatization proposal, a proposal strongly opposed by Howard Dean, his followers, and most Democrats, it’s obvious that Wall Street and WSJ suffer major conflicts of interest between Truth and Profits. It’s irresponsible reporting at best or pre-meditated deception at worse to equate the Dean campaign’s legal use of voluntary campaign contributions to hire bloggers, who publicly disclosed their connection to the Dean campaign, with the Bush Administration’s illegal use of taxpayer funds to hire prominent Media spokespeople, like Armstrong Williams, who are bound by ethic rules and didn’t publicly disclose their pay from the Bush Administration, to promote the Administration’s shady policies.

It’s obvious that this article is intended to deflect public and legal pressure from the Bush Administration for operating a propaganda campaign against the American people. If the Williams scandal leads to further discoveries that the Bush Administration habitually purchased prominent Media spokespeople to promote its propaganda, the reputation of the WSJ will be tarnished for years.

The Wall Street Journal owes the American people and Howard Dean a public apology for intentionally misleading the public and smearing Howard Dean’s name.

Note to editor: I’m a member of the Killingly, CT Democratic Town Committee and a former Dean Meetup Host for Norwich, CT and Killingly, CT. I still attend DFA meetups, but in Worcester, MA. I work in Marlborough, MA for a major financial services company and live in Northeast Connecticut, so Worcester, MA is conveniently on my way home from work.

Covered well at his site.

"A spokeswoman for Mr. Dean said the two bloggers hired by the campaign did nothing unethical because both disclosed their connection to the Dean operation."

So what's the problem?

Link to article:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB110566243803425942,00.html?mod=todays%5Ffree%5Ffeature