Agendagate: Day 4

NOTE: This post is about media coverage of local politics, and not about the races themselves.
_______________________________

I already knew that Cincinnati’s morning paper doesn’t seem to particularly care if it misses or doesn’t cover political stories that are right under their political reporters’ noses:

• Exhibit A — The June 3 “Values forum” last year during the Second District Primary had 11 candidates give 8- and 2-minutes speeches articulating their positions on values, and occasionally other, issues. The news that night, according to the Enquirer: Pat DeWine wasn’t there. Not one word was written about the specifics of what any candidate said.
• Exhibit B — Again in last June’s Second District Primary, no one at the Enquirer did anything on what the out-of-town candidate had been doing with himself during his 12-year absence until the Saturday before the election (and at nowhere near the level of coverage at the link).
• Exhibit C — In August’s Second District Special Election, we had to read it first in USA Today, The New York Times, and The Washington Post to learn that Paul Hackett was, among other things, calling President Bush a chickenhawk and an SOB.

I could go on, and on, and on.

But now it’s beyond that: It becomes more clear with each passing day that The Enquirer doesn’t even mind that a political story they DO run bears scant resemblance to what actually happened.

The story, by not saying otherwise, leaves readers with the impression that the process at the February 9 Hamilton County GOP Executive Committee endorsement meeting was fair, open, honest, and done by secret ballot. It wasn’t any of those things.

The story, by mentioning a few individual candidates, gives the impression that each race was voted on separately. That did not happen.

The story’s unquestioned inclusion of George Vincent’s quote that “People expressed their opinions on both sides in a most eloquent fashion” about the choice between Ken Blackwell and Jim Petro not only misrespresents how that particular contest was handled (those “people” certainly aren’t in the script), but also leaves the reader with the impression that the other races were handled in similar “eloquent fashion.” They weren’t.

It’s one thing to miss stories. It’s another thing to decide not to report stories you’re aware of. It’s beyond comprehension to actually run a story that later is shown to be largely inaccurate, not lift a finger (or click a mouse) to correct it (at least from all appearances as of 11 AM), and essentially allow yourself to get played by a local party organization.

I don’t see any reason not to believe that we’re a few short days away from knowing once and for all that they just, don’t, care, followed by the convenient catch-all excuse: “Oh, that story’s OLD. Nobody cares about it any more.”

Geez, guys and gals, show some pride.
____________________

ADDENDUM: The paper’s “Politics Extra” blog (I’ll link to them when they link to an independent non-affiliated local blog — ANY independent non-affiliated local blog) could be used for the purpose of correcting the record for items that editors think aren’t “worthy” of making the print edition. It has nothing on Agendagate either. I have to assume Agendagate is being crowded out by items the Enquirer considers more noteworthy — y’know, like who’s head on a cake is figuratively being cut off, and what a former boy-band wonder turned neophyte politician is up to.

ADDENDUM 2: More recently, the paper missed the “Petitiongate” fiasco and was tardy on reporting the indictments of two aides to Ohio governors.