This Is How It’s Done

/in /by

Tim Walberg is a really awful wingnutty Congressman whose district begins just spitting distance (emphasis on spitting) from my house. One of the local reporters, Susan Demas, had the balls to report that he refused to fire a campaign worker who pled guilty to child abuse, so the Congressman has basically frozen the newspaper out since then. Via the watchblog Walberg Watch, here is what Demas has to say about Walberg now.

U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg doesn’t like me and I don’t give a damn.

Neither should you.

Journalists and politicians often enjoy a testy, if not combative relationship; that’s nothing new.

They’re in the business of making themselves look good, raising cash and getting re-elected.

The press is in the business of reporting the truth about officials’ voting records, platforms, finances and campaign ads.

Naturally,these goals often clash. As a result, Walberg and his staff refuse toanswer my questions, provide information on his votes and inform me ofhis public events.

As an editor, I can’t even assign a reporterto cover something as simple as the Tipton Republican’s earmarks in thefederal budget – as was the case last week – because I’m not privy tohis press releases.

In short, I can’t do my job to inform the public – and you lose.

Whatyou should care about is that the congressman doesn’t much care foryou, either, because he is actively squelching your right to know.

[snip]

Yes, people of all political persuasions pile on the press, but it’salso true that the shrillest voices in the last decades have come fromthe far right.

It’s a surefire way for pols to play to the base -which is how Walberg squeaked into his seat in the first place. Andit’s something journalists often shy away from saying, lest we promptconservatives to belt out another chorus against us.

Well, bring it on.

Withall the time Walberg spends stonewalling the press, you have to wonderwhat he’s doing to earn $165,200 of your money each year and why he’sso tight-lipped about it.

But we journalists will keep askingquestions, because we owe it to you, the public. As your employee, Rep.Walberg owes you answers. Which is something he might want to consider,since he’s up for a big job evaluation next fall.

Exactly. When politicians–including the President–freeze out journalists as punishment for critical coverage, the correct response is to turn around and turn it into a political liability. The Gang of 400 hasn’t learned that lesson, apparently. They ought to take a lesson from Ms. Demas.

image_print
  1. eyesonthestreet says:

    Has there been a paradigm shift in this past week? I really think I blinked and everything has changed. Is it just me, being the optimist that I am?

    Even USA Scott Schools is going home and leaving us here in N CA to deal with our own neighborhood.

  3. zAmboni says:

    Boo creepy MI 7th district representative
    Hooray plucky reporter!^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HBEER!

  7. zAmboni says:

    OK last post:
    Re – paradigm shift…
    I told the wife yesterday that we needed to circle yesterday’s date on the calendar (probably could do the whole week). I just had this weird feeling reading the news yesterday that something has changed with people and their perspectives on this administration.

    Bush looked defeated in that statement over the immigration bill. The Cheney expose laid bare just how he has been destroying the country….and the WaPo did a good job of putting it into terms that everyone can see and cannot deny. The expose also showed how many people that were loyal rethugs are turning on cheney and the administration in an effort to save some face. The Bruce Fein piece in Salon was a pretty good read about impeaching cheney. Also Fein was excellent on the Lehrer report yesterday…he did a good job of shooting down the pepperdine talking head kmeck(?) on air. Then to top it all off, Fox news revealed that their loaded questioning cannot even show the republican party in a good light. There were a bunch of other things that stood out yesterday, but cant remember off the top of my head. (Oh yea, the Senate and House Judiciary looking to have the balls to stand up to the administration over the subpoenas….and they are continuing to stand up today). I guess you can also say that even though the SCOTUS news was bad, it also revealed to all just how far right they have shifted with Alito and Roberts. The SCOTUS is only going to look worse in the future because their decisions will likely counter the prevailing public opinion on the cases.

  8. Mimikatz says:

    The CBS evening news story last night also referred to Bush as a â€dead duck, not a lame duck†in the piece about the death of the immigration bill, and it rightly pined that death on the GOP Senators, 37 of whom voted against closing debate, including, apparently, some who had been involved in negotiating the bill. Reporter said Bush had no clout at all, in part because of the war.

  9. freepatriot says:

    well, I guess that’s how it’s done in polite company

    If I was the editor of the paper in question, the congressman in question would always be refered to as â€Pedophile protecting Congressman Tim Walbergâ€, and his name and title would appear in at least ONE HEADLINE per week, often on the front page

    if this fucker wants to play hardball, I’ll teach him about hardball

    I always throw at the head when I’m playing hardball (and YES, I’d throw at my own mother, if she was crowding the plate …)

    I’m not trying to hurt you, I’m trying to kill you

    but that’s just me …

    now you know why I don’t hang out with the â€polite company†much

  10. joejoejoe says:

    My Representitive in FL-24 (Tom Feeney) doesn’t talk to my local paper and hasn’t for years. I wonder how many more Congressman don’t speak to their local press?

  11. bill in turkey says:

    Hmm – I think I agree with you about this one. But – without wanting to be trollish – haven’t all of the progblogs recently been praising Obama et al for ’freezing out’ Fox as a punishment for critical coverage?

    I don’t think its difficult to make out some significant differences between the two cases – but I do think that a nod in the direction of pointing them out might be appropriate.

  12. Anonymous says:

    joejoejoe

    That’s no doubt why they’re calling for tough investigation of Feeney, don’t you think?

    bill

    Yeah, I was thinking of that–plus the debate coverage. Still, what this does is call attention back to Walberg’s ethically challenged decisions, whereas Obama calls attention to really shitty coverage. I guess to Walberg’s base, that still works out fine, but his base isn’t going to get him reelected in this district, whereas Obama can–will need to–win without Fox, particularly since Hillary is getting all cuddly with Murdoch.

  13. bill in turkey says:

    Yup – fair enough.

    Incidentally – on Hillary getting cuddly with Murdoch: I think its interesting for 2 reasons. First, its evidence that the seriously rich reckon the Republicans will lose in 08. Second, Murdoch’s got a history of getting to be a kingmaker for non-right wing parties when the right is tanking – I’d say it was endorsements from Murdoch papers (esp the Times – the Sun was more relevant to the general election in 1997) that won Blair the labour party leadership in Britain in 1994. Progressives beware – at least if the British experience is anything to go by.