Scott Thistle: Worst. Reporter. Ever.
The Lewiston Sun Journal today continues its hysterical, over-the-top and inaccurate coverage of The Cutler Files controversy. The lengthy article reports on a memo by the state's Ethics Commission that has found me in violation of state campaign disclosure laws and recommends a $200 fine.
There's absolutely nothing in the story that hasn't been previously reported. Nevertheless, the story gets Page 1 treatment, bumping such stories as LePage's announcement of all the environmental regulations he wants to bury to the inside. But that's what's great about the Sun Journal: you never know on what page you'll see a front page story.
Now, some might suggest that since I'm the focus of this highly critical story, I'm in no position to comment. Actually, since I'm at the center of the controversy, I'm probably in the best position. I know all the details. Thistle obviously doesn't. And anyway, the Sun Journal used to routinely send a questionnaire to the subjects of their stories so they could evaluate their accuracy. I'll just save the paper some postage and fill in the questionnaire right here on my blog. Here goes.
The first paragraph of Thistle's story reads:
AUGUSTA — The creator of the Cutler Files website, Dennis Bailey, a campaign operative and paid political consultant, provided false and/or misleading information on parts of the site, according to the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics.
I love it when the media call me a "paid political consultant." Is there such a thing as an "unpaid political consultant?" Underpaid, surely. How come no one else gets this treatment? "According to a paid police officer....."
So would it have killed Thistle to add two words to his opening sentence to tell the readers exactly what parts of The Cutler Files website were supposedly false and misleading - THE DISCLAIMER? Thistle doesn't manage to get to this point until the sixth paragraph. Instead the opening paragraph and headline likely misleads some readers into thinking that the actual content of The Cutler Files - the part that reported on Cutler and his record - was false and misleading. It wasn't, and no one to date has refuted any specific information contained on the website. In my jaded, biased view (similar to the biased views about this matter that Thistle has revealed on his Twitter posts), I think this was deliberate on the Sun Journal's part.
Second paragraph:
The commission's draft finding is based on its staff investigation into the anti-Eliot Cutler website, launched during the 2010 gubernatorial campaign season. The finding states Bailey was aware his co-author had been researching Cutler's background online as early as 2009.
Usually, in a story like this, the second paragraph is reserved for some revelatory information that helps the readers understand what's at stake and why this is important. This paragraph does neither. The fact that I was aware that the person identified in the report as John Doe 1 or JD1 was doing late night Google searches about Cutler on his home computer back in 2009 is not news. In fact, I wrote about it right here on my blog last month. If there's some significance to this point that merits a mention this high up in the story, it's known only to Thistle.
The third paragraph:
"Neither of them had specific plans at that time as to how the research would be used, but it appears likely that JD1 thought it could be used somehow in the November 2, 2010 general election," the finding states.
Ok. Relevance? I'm missing something. Why is this important?
Next comes this doozy in the fourth paragraph:
The finding also states that it confirmed Thomas Rhoads — who is only identified in the document as JD1 — did attempt to sell the research material to an opposing campaign.
Say what? The finding "confirmed" that Thom Rhoads tried to sell the research material - but the report never identifies Rhoads by name? How is this possible? How could the report confirm anything about Rhoads if it didn't name him? Isn't this a reasonable question for someone to ask? Like an editor?
Thistle isn't the only reporter to make a big deal of this alleged effort to sell the research material. Does Thistle not know that nearly every political campaign buys opposition research on their opponents? I remember leafing through volumes of material in 1994 that then candidate Angus King had purchased from a professional opposition research firm listing every vote that Joe Brennan ever made and every newspaper article he'd ever been mentioned in. This is standard stuff. So what's the implication that Thistle is making, and what's the relevance?
The fourth paragraph continues:
Rhoads is married to Rosa Scarcelli, the one-time Democratic candidate for governor. Scarcelli came in third in a four-way race and was out of the running in June.
And again in the 11th paragraph:
Scarcelli finished third in a four-way Democratic primary in June of 2010 and she was not a candidate in the November 2010 general election.
Um....are there any editors working at the Sun Journal these days? If so, someone should bring coffee and wake them up.
The fifth paragraph:
So far, the commission has failed to identify Rhoads, although his co-authorship with Bailey on the site has been independently confirmed by both the Portland Press Herald and the Sun Journal via multiple confidential sources.
Ok, don't get me started on this one. Just read Al Diamon's critique of the matter. The Sun Journal supposedly has a policy against using unnamed sources in their stories, at least according to Executive Editor Rex Rhoades. When I challenged Thistle on this in a back-and-fourth on Twitter, it was explained that what Rhoades really meant was that the paper doesn't use anonymous sources - sources whose names aren't even known to the reporters and editors I guess. But it does use "confidential sources," people who are known to the reporters and editors but are anonymous to the readers.
This is baloney. Who ever thought the newspaper would rely on sources who are anonymous to the reporters and editors? If someone calls a reporter and says, "City Hall is on fire," then hangs up the phone, does anyone really expect the newspaper to run with the story without relying on authoritative sources?
Anonymous, unnamed, confidential, it's all the same to the reader. Like Diamon, I've got nothing against any newspaper using unnamed sources at times. But if your policy is not to use them, as Rex Rhoades claims, why not stick to it? The paper granted anonymity to these sources who claim to know who's behind the Cutler Files. Why? And why are their reasons for anonymity any more legitimate than the authors of The Cutler Files? In an editorial in December, the Sun Journal editorial board wrote, "The Cutler Files were simply a poison-pen missive issued by people too gutless to stand behind their allegations." Strange position for a newspaper that then relies on sources who aren't willing to stand behind their allegations, and a newspaper that, at least until recently, allowed all sorts of anonymous postings on its website.
It just proves once again that when the news media think it's got a big story, the standard is: there ain't no standard. (I sent an e-mail to Rhoades asking him to clarify this, but apparently he's been too busy to respond. Obviously he hasn't been busy editing Thistle's stories though.)
The rest of Thistle's article just reveals he has a great future as a stenographer. He doesn't get to my denial of the Commission's findings until the 15th paragraph, and then only uses a portion of my statement. (He did post my entire letter to the Commission online.) He doesn't tell the readers that my alleged violation carries a $200 penalty until nearly the end of the article. And despite all the smoke he collects around John Doe 1 for most of his story, he doesn't point out that the Commission determined that JD1 committed no violations of the law until deep into the 24th paragraph.
He does point out that the Commission determined that I'm not a journalist. I think they could probably make the same determination about Thistle.
Seems to me the news media has lost perspective here. Two nerds put together a website that cost about $40 and posted information that they believed was important for voters to know. That's the story folks. Do we really want the state to spend time and money chasing down $40 websites every time a thin-skinned candidate gets his nose out of joint? Do we really think a person should be sanctioned and fined for spending a few bucks on a website saying "Don't vote for Joe Blow" unless it carries the correct government-approved disclaimer? Really?
POSTSCRIPT: In case anyone thinks I'm just being picky about the coverage on this matter, contrast Thistle's mess to this story by Maine Today Media statehouse reporter Susan Cover. It's a straight ahead, factual and balanced piece. Still unanswered is this question: did The Cutler Files have any impact whatsoever on the outcome of the election? And if it didn't, why has Cutler and his lawyers - and the news media - pursued it so doggedly? Seems like a much more interesting question to ask than who wrote it.
There's absolutely nothing in the story that hasn't been previously reported. Nevertheless, the story gets Page 1 treatment, bumping such stories as LePage's announcement of all the environmental regulations he wants to bury to the inside. But that's what's great about the Sun Journal: you never know on what page you'll see a front page story.
Now, some might suggest that since I'm the focus of this highly critical story, I'm in no position to comment. Actually, since I'm at the center of the controversy, I'm probably in the best position. I know all the details. Thistle obviously doesn't. And anyway, the Sun Journal used to routinely send a questionnaire to the subjects of their stories so they could evaluate their accuracy. I'll just save the paper some postage and fill in the questionnaire right here on my blog. Here goes.
The first paragraph of Thistle's story reads:
AUGUSTA — The creator of the Cutler Files website, Dennis Bailey, a campaign operative and paid political consultant, provided false and/or misleading information on parts of the site, according to the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics.
I love it when the media call me a "paid political consultant." Is there such a thing as an "unpaid political consultant?" Underpaid, surely. How come no one else gets this treatment? "According to a paid police officer....."
So would it have killed Thistle to add two words to his opening sentence to tell the readers exactly what parts of The Cutler Files website were supposedly false and misleading - THE DISCLAIMER? Thistle doesn't manage to get to this point until the sixth paragraph. Instead the opening paragraph and headline likely misleads some readers into thinking that the actual content of The Cutler Files - the part that reported on Cutler and his record - was false and misleading. It wasn't, and no one to date has refuted any specific information contained on the website. In my jaded, biased view (similar to the biased views about this matter that Thistle has revealed on his Twitter posts), I think this was deliberate on the Sun Journal's part.
Second paragraph:
The commission's draft finding is based on its staff investigation into the anti-Eliot Cutler website, launched during the 2010 gubernatorial campaign season. The finding states Bailey was aware his co-author had been researching Cutler's background online as early as 2009.
Usually, in a story like this, the second paragraph is reserved for some revelatory information that helps the readers understand what's at stake and why this is important. This paragraph does neither. The fact that I was aware that the person identified in the report as John Doe 1 or JD1 was doing late night Google searches about Cutler on his home computer back in 2009 is not news. In fact, I wrote about it right here on my blog last month. If there's some significance to this point that merits a mention this high up in the story, it's known only to Thistle.
The third paragraph:
"Neither of them had specific plans at that time as to how the research would be used, but it appears likely that JD1 thought it could be used somehow in the November 2, 2010 general election," the finding states.
Ok. Relevance? I'm missing something. Why is this important?
Next comes this doozy in the fourth paragraph:
The finding also states that it confirmed Thomas Rhoads — who is only identified in the document as JD1 — did attempt to sell the research material to an opposing campaign.
Say what? The finding "confirmed" that Thom Rhoads tried to sell the research material - but the report never identifies Rhoads by name? How is this possible? How could the report confirm anything about Rhoads if it didn't name him? Isn't this a reasonable question for someone to ask? Like an editor?
Thistle isn't the only reporter to make a big deal of this alleged effort to sell the research material. Does Thistle not know that nearly every political campaign buys opposition research on their opponents? I remember leafing through volumes of material in 1994 that then candidate Angus King had purchased from a professional opposition research firm listing every vote that Joe Brennan ever made and every newspaper article he'd ever been mentioned in. This is standard stuff. So what's the implication that Thistle is making, and what's the relevance?
The fourth paragraph continues:
Rhoads is married to Rosa Scarcelli, the one-time Democratic candidate for governor. Scarcelli came in third in a four-way race and was out of the running in June.
And again in the 11th paragraph:
Scarcelli finished third in a four-way Democratic primary in June of 2010 and she was not a candidate in the November 2010 general election.
Um....are there any editors working at the Sun Journal these days? If so, someone should bring coffee and wake them up.
The fifth paragraph:
So far, the commission has failed to identify Rhoads, although his co-authorship with Bailey on the site has been independently confirmed by both the Portland Press Herald and the Sun Journal via multiple confidential sources.
Ok, don't get me started on this one. Just read Al Diamon's critique of the matter. The Sun Journal supposedly has a policy against using unnamed sources in their stories, at least according to Executive Editor Rex Rhoades. When I challenged Thistle on this in a back-and-fourth on Twitter, it was explained that what Rhoades really meant was that the paper doesn't use anonymous sources - sources whose names aren't even known to the reporters and editors I guess. But it does use "confidential sources," people who are known to the reporters and editors but are anonymous to the readers.
This is baloney. Who ever thought the newspaper would rely on sources who are anonymous to the reporters and editors? If someone calls a reporter and says, "City Hall is on fire," then hangs up the phone, does anyone really expect the newspaper to run with the story without relying on authoritative sources?
Anonymous, unnamed, confidential, it's all the same to the reader. Like Diamon, I've got nothing against any newspaper using unnamed sources at times. But if your policy is not to use them, as Rex Rhoades claims, why not stick to it? The paper granted anonymity to these sources who claim to know who's behind the Cutler Files. Why? And why are their reasons for anonymity any more legitimate than the authors of The Cutler Files? In an editorial in December, the Sun Journal editorial board wrote, "The Cutler Files were simply a poison-pen missive issued by people too gutless to stand behind their allegations." Strange position for a newspaper that then relies on sources who aren't willing to stand behind their allegations, and a newspaper that, at least until recently, allowed all sorts of anonymous postings on its website.
It just proves once again that when the news media think it's got a big story, the standard is: there ain't no standard. (I sent an e-mail to Rhoades asking him to clarify this, but apparently he's been too busy to respond. Obviously he hasn't been busy editing Thistle's stories though.)
The rest of Thistle's article just reveals he has a great future as a stenographer. He doesn't get to my denial of the Commission's findings until the 15th paragraph, and then only uses a portion of my statement. (He did post my entire letter to the Commission online.) He doesn't tell the readers that my alleged violation carries a $200 penalty until nearly the end of the article. And despite all the smoke he collects around John Doe 1 for most of his story, he doesn't point out that the Commission determined that JD1 committed no violations of the law until deep into the 24th paragraph.
He does point out that the Commission determined that I'm not a journalist. I think they could probably make the same determination about Thistle.
Seems to me the news media has lost perspective here. Two nerds put together a website that cost about $40 and posted information that they believed was important for voters to know. That's the story folks. Do we really want the state to spend time and money chasing down $40 websites every time a thin-skinned candidate gets his nose out of joint? Do we really think a person should be sanctioned and fined for spending a few bucks on a website saying "Don't vote for Joe Blow" unless it carries the correct government-approved disclaimer? Really?
POSTSCRIPT: In case anyone thinks I'm just being picky about the coverage on this matter, contrast Thistle's mess to this story by Maine Today Media statehouse reporter Susan Cover. It's a straight ahead, factual and balanced piece. Still unanswered is this question: did The Cutler Files have any impact whatsoever on the outcome of the election? And if it didn't, why has Cutler and his lawyers - and the news media - pursued it so doggedly? Seems like a much more interesting question to ask than who wrote it.
Posted by Dennis Bailey at 1/25/2011 8:52 AM 
Categories: Maine politics, Maine Politics, Maine governor, government, News media
Tags: news media The Cutler Files Eliot Cutler Scott Thistle Sun Journal
Categories: Maine politics, Maine Politics, Maine governor, government, News media
Tags: news media The Cutler Files Eliot Cutler Scott Thistle Sun Journal
Comments