Tribune Reporter Showers Nude

When a reporter wants to write a hit piece, the most effective weapon in his arsenal is called the "Nude Shower Story."  The reporter writes a breathless article and exposes the fact that Sen. Smith showers while nude. The technique is powerful because the article is clearly true and the target is given plenty of opportunity to defend himself.  So Senator Smith is reduced to admitting that he does indeed shower nude but that it's a common practice and although it sounds bad, it's not unethical or illegal. 

The reporter will concede that showering nude is common, legal and ethical but will throw in a lot of wild quotes from people who think showering nude could lead to bad things, or is a symptom of Global Warming and he will point out that some historians believe that Hitler showered nude.

Inevitably, Nude Shower stories are self debunking.  They are like the string games that my kids play; it looks like there is a big knot, but if you pull on it, the knot disappears and you are left with a straight string.   

Nude Shower stories are so flagrantly unfair that they are usually spiked in the editing process, however, one occasionally sneaks through.  That's what happened to Representative Steve Yarbrough when this story appeared A1 above the fold in last Monday's Tribune.   

Lawmaker’s bills aid other job

As a state lawmaker, Rep. Steve Yarbrough has pushed for new laws that bring in big money for certain charities. And as the head of one of those charities, he also has reaped the financial benefits of those laws.

Wow, that sounds really bad.  Tribune reporter Dennis Welch spends 12 full paragraphs discussing the potential millions that Mr. Yarbrough's bills have raised for various charities while Yarbrough attempts to explain that he doesn't have a conflict. 

Then Welch gets to paragraph 13--the key paragraph:

Legally, Yarbrough’s right; there’s no conflict. Under state law, lawmakers are allowed to vote on and sponsor legislation relating to any organizations they are involved in, even if they stand to profit.

That's right.  Yarbrough has no conflict.  So why is there a story?   Welch makes a big production about a huge knot, but when he pulls on it, there's nothing but string. 

The admission that Yarbrough has no conflict is not the end.  After all, the reporter still hasn't reminded his readers that Hitler showered nude just like Senator Smith does. 

Peggy Kerns, director of the Center for Ethics in Government at the National Conference of State Legislatures, agrees lawmakers should be careful when backing bills they could benefit from.

“Nobody wants a Jack Abramoff scandal in their Legislature,” she said, referring to the former Washington lobbyist at the center of a high-profile corruption case.

That is a brilliant journalistic technique.  Welch is a genius.  Kerns says lawmakers should be "careful."  Is there anyone who disagrees with that statement?  Is Welch saying that Yarbrough wasn't careful?  After all, Welch has already admitted that Yarbrough didn't have a conflict. 

The quote gives Welch the ability to bring disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff into the story.  Abramoff  defrauded Indian tribes out of nearly $85 million which he used to give illegal gifts and campaign contributions in exchange for votes and legislation.  You know, just like Yarbrough...

Another feature that makes "Nude Shower stories" so devastating is their lack of context.  Not only does Yarbrough not have a conflict, but his actions are also common.   Arizona has a part time citizen Legislature.  Lawmakers are expected to have other jobs and they are often given Committee assignments that reflect those jobs.  Farmers serve on the Agriculture Committee; Lawyers serve on the Judiciary Committee and teachers serve on the Education Committee.  I'm a CPA and I served on the budget sub-committee that funded the State Board of Accountancy.

Ironically, if Welch had written a fair story about legislators whose votes benefit their jobs, his targets would, of course, have been Democrats.  Republicans work in the private sector, killing baby seals and burning villages on behalf of multinational corporations.  It's the Democrats who work for quasi governmental agencies that rely on government funds to help the poor and down trodden.

Reps. Thrasher and Pancrazi are both teachers who advocate for higher teacher salaries.  Bradley, Lujan, Hershberger, Aguirre, McCune-Davis and Lopez work for social service agencies that receive substantial public funding.  They are passionate about their issues and support them in the legislature just like Yarbrough does with issues he's passionate about.  Just like I did when I was in the House.

The final technique that makes a Nude Shower Story so effective is finding a guy who takes plenty of nude showers who will not only condemn them, but will also offer to prohibit them.   

Even some lawmakers here want to tighten up the state’s conflict-of-interest laws.

“They way the laws are written now, the only court you can prosecute someone for a conflict of interest is in the court of public opinion,” said Rep. Ed Ableser, D-Tempe. He went on to say he was going to introduce legislation next year to guard against future conflicts.

What?  Ed "Margaritaville" Ableser wants to be known as a reformer? 

Ableser's official bio says that he has been "a school-based mental health counselor since 2002, working with families and troubled youth at two schools in Phoenix."  Ableser has also sponsored bills like HB 2541 which greatly expand access to mental health insurance.  I bet that after a few margaritas Ableser even showers in the nude. 

So what's the real story?  Why the hit piece?  It's tough to tell why a reporter picks on someone, but I think we have clue from the story itself. 

The push for school tax credits is part of an overall effort to expand the so-called “school choice” to parents who can’t otherwise afford to send their children to private schools. Opponents argue such measures hurt public schools and their students by taking away much needed money.

So called "school choice"?  Reporters tip their hands when they put "so called" in front of the label that describes the issues.  That's why NPR talks about "so called" partial birth abortion.  They don't like the label because they don't like the way the issue is framed.  Then Welch throws in the gratuitous quote about these measures hurting public schools.  Does that have anything to do with Yarbrough's lack of conflict?  Of course not. 

Yarbrough isn't in the paper because he votes on bills that could affect his employment.  He's in the paper because he votes on the WRONG TYPE of bills that affect his employment.  Yarbrough supports tax credits for school choice. 

If he had wanted to stay out of the paper, he should have supported pay raises for teachers, more money for mental health, additional funds for DES...you know, good bills.  Bills that reporters like. 

Comments

[ron]

Greg, I think this called getting 'hosed'.

[Ann]

I take no exception to your post in its exposing the press and the practice of attempting to affect public perception through the use of “news” that is actually an editorial. However, I respectfully disagree with you on the subject of the story itself.

Mr. Yarbrough actually has the potential to increase his personal revenues by the passage of certain very specifically oriented bills. There is a difference in that the public service employee is a salaried employee; they do not have an unlimited access to income based on the increased use of their service. The farmer and teacher are individuals from of a very large and established group of people providing a service or product; there are a minimal number of them in the legislature in comparison to the actual population in these fields. A legislator, who is instrumental in the passage of a bill that specifically affects the ability to positively increase the income potential of the said legislator’s specific business, offers the appearance to be at least an arm’s length conflict. The expertise of members, such as farmers, educators, lawyers, and small business owners brings a perspective and experience that is important and vital in the development of public policy. The ability of the public to have choices in the decisions that affect their private lives is also a very good thing and his business itself is not the issue. But, it can appear that the “public” is left out when it is a “personal” result.

To be a member with such experience and expertise to offer in committee, caucus, and public debate would be a good thing. Voting for something that specifically offers you, and a handful of others in comparison to most bills, a financial opportunity should be considered a potential perception vs. reality issue. If it is a strong enough concept, why is his vote so important to result in passage, were the votes there anyway, if so let it stand on its merit, if not, why? Abstain, disclose the possible perceptual conflict and make a statement to its merits on the face of the bill in regard to the public good. That would be stronger message than his vote could accomplish.

[John]

I think Ann would also like them to abstain from any votes that they were lobbied on by professional lobbyists. Because, you know, they get contributions from these lobbyists which directly benefits themselves. So, they also should all abstain from any bill they were lobbied on. Right? Please...

This was a hit piece, pure and simple.

[Rory]

So Ann, by your standards, how is a teacher pushing for higher teacher wages not trying to increase his or her personal revenues???? They may be salaried but their income will rise from the passage of a very specific bill aimed ONLY at increasing their salary.

[Ann]

It's all about disclosure nothing more. There are lobbying rules and regs, which of course may or may not really be effective, cases of conflict and impropriety are nothing new. This is about a direct personal benefit and the appearance of possible conflict. No hit, just my opinion. In an age of the scandals we have all been made so aware of, there exists a lack of trust that could be restored by some cautious and conservative approaches to personal involvement and perception.

To disclose and abstain, again in my opinion, makes a stronger case for the merits of the bill. By allowing the bill to stand without the vote of the possible beneficiary attached, it sends a message of both personal integrity and belief in the bill.

[Eric]

Greg asked why Dennis chose to write about this. That's easy, someone came to him with the story and provided some of the "facts". The instigator probably even talked about "school choice" while making the two-fingered quote gesture as he said the words and rolled his eyes. I tried to contact Dennis Welch about the above allegations, but he was unavailable for comment - and we all know what that means.

[rory]

I agree that more disclosure is needed these days, but that is not what this piece is about. It is a blatant hit piece on a Republican legislator who is neither breaking the law nor trying to hide the fact that he has a personal interest in the legislation he is pushing.

[Ann]

Rory,

The teacher scenario is a bit different but not all together different. Some credence must be given to the number of teachers in the legislature versus the number of teachers affected by the bill for increased salaries. Are there thousands of teachers and only one or two legislators, making it a broad benefit and not a narrowly received personal one? Would the bill pass anyway so to abstain would not compromise either the ability of it to pass or the integrity of the individual who might receive a personal benefit? I would say if it is a teacher raise bill specifically and you are a teacher who may receive a monetary gain from the bill, abstain. Make the point that you believe in this bill, impress the need for it upon your colleagues, but do not vote.

There are no cut and dry answers to some ethical questions. Again, this is not anything against Mr.Yarbrough or the business he operates. In a very broad sense, don’t we all receive some sort of possible benefit from many things the government provides and isn’t it the people who elect these individuals to represent them? (Now, we could go on forever on the negative aspects of government involvement in our daily lives…) It is the direct monetary gain made possible by legislation that increases the likelihood that a specific lawmaker will see a financial benefit of narrow scope in availability that raises the issue.

[Ann]

No disagreement on the hit piece but we do need to look at ways we can affect the opportunity to offer positive public perception as opposed to the bottom feeder approach in this article.

Changing the way we have done business in the past, even if it was open, honest and legal, if given a change in public sentiment and possible perception based on that sentiment, may be the time to examine a different approach. Be the lead dog not the follower.

[Billy Barue]

Bottom line: there is no difference from guys like Hershberger and Bradley voting and advocating for $$ for their "non-profit" companies that receive money from CPS and other agencies funded in the budget. That is exactly what Yarbrough is doing. What's the difference?

[Matt]

Great post. You also had to just love the subheadline on that piece, which concluded "but legally there's no conflict of interest." The natural way to read that is that whatever came before that phrase shows that in REALITY there IS a conflict of interest.

Just a sham and a shame all around.

[Bill]

Rep. Yarbrough is an honorable man and all of his votes are public record - as is his employment. Let's not cede any ground to the hypocritical left and even hint that any aspect of his conduct is unseemly. Keep up the great work, greg.

[Craig]

What they have done/are doing/will do may be 'legal', it is still unethical to use an elective office for personal gain.

The piece in question was, without a doubt, a hit piece. But it wasn't unfair in the least.

And to everyone who is going to spout "but it's not illegal" -

I would remind you that elected officials are the ones who write the ethics rules that they themselves are subject to.

Thats kind of like letting John Gotti write racketeering laws.

Greg - I regularly read your blog because you are one of the best writers in the AZ blogosphere (even if you are frequently wrong :) ), but on this one, you are trying to defend people who aren't worthy of your efforts.

Using a public position to aid the profitability of a private business *is* corruption, whether it is done by a Democrat or Republican.

Ann was right; 'disclose and abstain' is the only ethically credible approach here.

[mike]

Craig, you fail to mention or answer Greg's point about AZ's citizen legislature. Conflicts are inevitable with this model and to me with disclosure (Yarbrough didn't try to hide anything) makes perfect sense to take advantage of our legislators' backgrounds to put them on committees where they best serve our state.

And, without addressing or explaining the distinction between the private sector and public entities, you definitively claim this “IS” corruption. That claim is unfair and false. Moreover, no one is claiming that Yarbrough is overpaid for his work or that the work the organization is doing is shoddy.

I wonder what your point of view on the governor appointing close political allies to run the AZ Higher Education Loan Authority is? After all, they contracted to well-connected private groups and paid members with state funds. If we are to believe your claim that corruption is blind to party identification, surely you will respond that our Governor is corrupt.

[Ted]

Greg, you are right on point with this. Yarbrough was a school choice advocate and set up this charity long before he was in the legislature. That is all public information. This was a hit piece.

There is a difference between his case and the case of a schoolteacher voting for a teacher pay raise. The pay raise will directly benefit the schoolteacher legislator. Yarbrough's attempts to expand school choice money may or may not increase the budget of his organization, but whether the board of that charity chooses to raise Yarbrough's salary is completely unrelated. The connection is much more tangential, but Yarbrough is the one who gets hit.

Under the reasoning of the article, personal income taxes could never be cut because it would look unethical for legislators to vote to reduce taxes because they would all benefit personally.

[Craig]

Mike -

Actually, the conflicts that are inherent in having a citizen legislature are covered by the phrase "disclose and abstain."

Disclosure isn't enough; they (meaning elected officials) shouldn't vote on or propose bills that directly affect them or their immediate family members. It isn't difficult to get a colleague to front legislation, and if it's a good bill, their own vote won't be needed to get it passed.

Remember the old saw about 'even the appearance of impropriety...?"

As for the Governor, if you have verifiable evidence that she personally benefited from appointments, then I would say 'yes,' she is.

We, and I include myself in this, can sometimes see issues only through a partisan lens. However, corruption and misuse of office is a non-partisan phenomenon.

Do I think that most of the corrupt politicians in AZ are Republicans? Yup. Of course, most of the elected officials in the state that are available to be corrupt are Reps.

Go to MA. Most of the corrupt pols there are Democrats; of course, most of the elected officials there are Democrats.

Now, this has been a pretty civil conversation so far (everybody's responses, not just ours). Just don't change the topic to Jim Weiers and the lack of regulation of the payday loansharking industry. :)

[NICK]

SNIKER,TITTER,LOL

This is a big deal?

I see a bigger deal. It is all of the
people that have lost their business
do to lite rail.

Now I have to listen to city paid
advertisements begging me to find
a failing business and spend some money
with them.

Sad to say that I wanted to use three
firms that no longer exist.

How many special interests pushed lite
rail?

[SonoranSam]

There is an answer to all of this....Pay legislators a decent salary and ban outside employment.

Until we do that we'll have some legislators who are wealthy enough (or retired) who can afford to work for $24,000 plus tips, and we'll have legislators who are getting into financial trouble because they love the job but don't make enough to cover the cost of living - especially if they have to rent a place in Phoenix for half a year.

I've known legislators who lived in motels where the clerks hid behind bulletproof glass. I know one legislator who, when people go out to dinner, eats chips and doesn't order dinner, declaring that she's not hungry. In fact she's trying to deal with some tough personal issues and a lousy salary.

Then you have people who enrich themselves while they enrich their friends, and yes, you have teachers, social workers and people who work for public agencies during half the year just to cover expenses.

When legislative sessions last six months - and when people deluge legislators with constituent issues the other six months - we ought to pay people a living salary and deny them the opportunity to vote on legislation that enriches them. Period.

[ron]

You get the legistlature (and legislation) you pay for - and Sam is right - we pay for a 'citizen' legislature and we get 'citizen' legislation.

I remember the days when many of the legislature worked as 'government laison' officers for the big companies around town - e.g. Burton Barr worked for Samaritan, etc. I don't remember too many people complaining about that.

[mike]

Craig,

"Using a public position to aid the profitability of a private business *is* corruption, whether it is done by a Democrat or Republican."

Now when you see an example of a Dem doing it, the definition of corruption requires one to have "personally benefited." That is convenient. Apparently your definition isn't so nonpartisan after all.

[Ann]

Sonoran Sam bridges this conversation into a true issue and unfortunately one that the voters seem to deny. Despite opportunities to give raises it is voted down at the ballot box. So, we have members who are rarely middle class and middle aged unless they work for a large corporation, Quest, Intel and others, with the “benefit” of full salary while in public service or a spouse who can support them. The $24K a year before taxes...after taxes that is about $1500 per month, $750 every two weeks, or $375 a week; probably below the poverty level if they have children.

Why doesn’t the voting public accept the reality of a limited pool from which to expect candidates to come from when the salary is so low? Is it a discontent with the legislators, even when so many incumbents are re-elected year after year? Is it the same ol’ story, love yours but hate the others? Or is distrust so present, in part from stories like the one in the original post, that create a sense of “they get what they deserve”…without realizing it is “us” that is “getting what we pay for”?

[Chad]

A highly-paid, professional legislature is worst thing we can do. There is a direct correlation between passing more laws and harming the average citzen's quality of life. Look at what the professional politicians in the CA state assembly have done to the former "golden state."

Geg -- Thanks for pointing out the double-standard the press has when "reporting" on Republicans and Democrats.

[Theresa]

Greg,
I know this blog is a week old, but this story just keeps coming back, therefore I must comment.
I would think you, of all people as a CPA, could appreciate the friction this sort of conflict of interest causes. HB 2396 - The Tax Conformity bill never saw the light of day, because of the Ways and Means Committee Amendment. The amendment specifically added new school tax credit guidlines. One of which extended the contribution date. This approach didn't fly in the Senate and the bill died in the House for the same reason.
To fix the mess, the Ways and Means amendment created, the tax conformity language had to be added to another bill just in the nick of time for tax filing. Although, nothing illegal is going on, it most certainly is not morally right. This is not a partisan issue or a hit piece. This is simply an example of a legislator acting on what could potentially benefit him and it being reported. And, in my opinion, the above example is a bit blatant.
To say this is common and acceptable is pathetic. Even if that is the way some Legislators operate, there are more who actually do the job for the right reasons. To compare a teacher potentially getting an extra $15 in her paycheck to this scenario is joke.
Again, as others have already said, disclose and abstain.

[clubvikram]

thats the standard of journalism now-a-days. its a pity that they have to stoop to this level just to create a story
JWP