« Biting the Hand that Feeds You. | Main | Heart of Darkness »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I read the Sports section, then switch to the funnies ... Sections A & B. :-D




I agree that there has been a lack of coverage in the Republic, and I'm sure some has to do with the fact that Dupnik is a Dem. However, I think the biggest reason is exactly how you stated it in your article. Kyle, Pearce, and Brewer are "prominent politicians", and Dupnik is, well, just a Sheriff. He doesn't make policy, and obviously doesn't enforce it either, but isn't someone that's always been on the radar until his blusterous remarks following the sad event in Tucson. While I know who Kyle, Pearce, and Brewer are, I never heard of Dupnik until his outburst. Then again, I live in metro Phoenix.

Yeah, I'm w/ KT. I think a lot of the non-coverage is due to the fact that his position is insignificant compared to the Governor, U.S. Senator and AZ Senate President.

I was at the downtown Mesa Public Library on Saturday and there were a few people collecting signatures for the Pearce recall. A quick glance at the paperwork showed just a handful of signatures.

Sheriff is hardly an insignificant elected position. There's this fella named Arpaio who has 90% name recognition. And since Dupnik has now become a household word since the rampage in Pima County, the idea that he's a cipher nobody knows is implausible. The papers are covering for his golf-playing butt.

The Republic is no longer a statewide paper, it's mostly a Valley newspaper. As such, its readers are going to be most interested in news about the officials they elect (like Brewer, Kyl and, for those in Mesa, Pearce) and not so much a sheriff from another county.

C'mon, don't be such a Dupnik. Sorry, had to do it.

Doug said it. Dupnik is no longer just some sheriff from another county.

I still subscribe to the dead-tree edition of the Republic and every month consider canceling. Besides editorializing through front page "articles", the paper is poorly written, physically smaller Sunday-Tuesday,and recently went up in price again (and now they are going to add on the sales tax instead of absorbing it). This morning my paper was late (6:06am). One Sunday it had no comics. I wonder what their business plan is.

You're right, Greg. Thank God for the blogs (and a real newspaper like the Economist) where I get my serious news!

Essentially, the Media uses Omission, "if a tree falls in the woods, no one was there, did it really make a sound?" So what "people don't know" will help tilt the argument in the direction LEFTISTS wish....group think, not withstanding...

Doug, I'm not disputing the fact that the Republic is watching out for Dupnik, but to say that's the only reason Dupnik isn't in the spotlight, like Greg's article alludes to, is the same argument that Greg is using to bash the Republic. No, I’m not a supporter of the Republic, but I would hope that one could see a little more of the forest instead of just the trees in front of him.

Also, I'm a big supporter of Joe, but Joe has put himself in the spotlight by being “America's Toughest Sheriff” which has brought him the 90% name recognition across the nation. In contrast, Dupnik was a virtual unknown in the media circle until his rant.

". . . until his rant."

^^^ There it is. Before his rant, this would not be news outside of Pima County. However, in this post-Dupnik-rant world in which we live, it ought to be news.

RgP, why hasn't Dupnik been in the news before his rant? With all the politicos heading to our border, why was he never in the news? With the talk of drugs and death along our border and all the interviews, why was he never in the news? Unfortunately, I think Dupnik is/was/has become a flash in the past that no one really cares about. He had his 15 minutes of fame, and now interest has diminished. He was a hot topic when people needed an outlet and someone to point at, and now the public has shifted to another topic (14th Amendment Rights).

For those of us news and political junkies, we have taken notice of Dupnut before his recent rant. Last Spring he announced his department would not enforce SB1070. The Republic's not covering Dupnut's recall is just typical of their leftist leanings and their very poor journalistic skills. Good post, Greg.

I count 3 articles in the archives talking about the recall, including a profile of the person heading it. I also note there was an editorial condemning Dupnik. I find the premise that the Republic has been ignoring this to be baseless. Combining this with the fact that the editorial went after him in a completely over-the-top manner, I also find it difficult to understand the claim that the Republic has a bias which leads them to sympathize with him. Again, the Republic has always been, and remains, a conservative newspaper.

Greg says Dupnik blamed local conservatives for the shooting. In an earlier post, he said Dupnik blamed "right-wing vitriol" (including the quote marks). Actually, Dupnik blamed vitriol's effect on an unbalanced mind but never said the vitriol came from the right or from the left. So either Greg is a) inaccurate ... though he also has long asserted blogs are more accurate; b) dishonest, intentionally shading Dupnik's comments to help the recall gain steam; or c) is owning up to the fact that the vitriol is the exclusive province of the right. But that also flies in the face of what conservatives tell us about the liberals. So which is it?

Recalling Russell Pearce is the best political idea in Arizona since recalling Pickaninny Meacham.

Russell has some family issues that need some attention. You can read about them here: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/01/russell_pearces_son_joshua_ben.php

Funny, you don't read about it in the AZ Republican. Pederson's son was arrrested on drug charges and the AZ Republic found plenty of space to cover that story. Joshua Pearce's drug and criminal and child abuse issues? You won't find it covered in the mainstream newspapers now will you?

Fine young man, Joshua Pearce. Apple doesn't fall far from the tree, does it?


You make the argument that Dupnik's comments were directed at vitriol in general. Here are the actual comments:

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

I think it's fair to say that this is pointed at right-wingers (do you think it's fair to say extreme liberals want to "tear down the government"?) I understand your point that it doesn't say it explicitly, but it's pretty clear in context.

"The rhetoric about hatred, about mistrust of government, about paranoia of how government operates — and to try to inflame the public on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week — has impact on people, especially (those) who are unbalanced personalities to begin with"

Again, "mistrust of government," "paranoia of how government operates" - these seem to be to be referencinge extreme right-wingers.

The L.A. Times (conservative rag) said that he "linked the shootings to harsh conservative rhetoric." http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/10/nation/la-na-arizona-shooting-sheriffs-20110111

When asked for clarification on his comments, Dupnik gave only Republicans as examples (Angle and Palin). http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/sheriff-dupnik-names-angle-and-palin-as-two-responsible-for-vitriol-video

You are correct in that Dupnik never uttered the phrase "right-wing vitriol." But he did pretty clearly fault vitriol coming from those who distrust the government and want to tear it down (i.e. right-wing). So I think your other comments are a bit of a stretch.

todd: Are you kidding (again)? The "Republic has always been, and remains, a conservative newspaper." Maybe, if you compare it to Pravda. And Robert Woodman, you're just plain sick. To compare Russell Pearce with his son Joshua is beneath contempt. Joshua isn't the first child to fall short of a parent's expectations and to get into trouble with the law. It is inappropriate for the press to dwell on these situations, including Jim Pederson's son, and anyone else's, especially if that child is an adult.

Ron J, perhaps you could offer a reasonable explanation here. The AZ Republic reported on Jim Pederson's son's arrest and prosecution on drug charges. They have not reported the bench warrant for Joshua Pearce's arrest. They have not reported that Joshua Pearce's child suffered a skull fracture, and that the doctors who treated the child stated unequivocally that the injury was not sustained in the manner described by Joshua Pearce. They have not the younger Pearce's long record of drug and drunken driving and child abuse issues. Why RJ?

Beneath contempt to wonder how far from the tree and apple falls? Really now. Yes, lots of young people have drug problems. Lots of "young" people get arrested for driving under the influence. Including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the unarrested headless body currently occupying our governor's office with four more years ahead of her to have did some wonderful things for are state. Fractured skulls and child abuse and quite another matter. What's just plain sick is that the AZ Republic won't report on it. Intimidated by Pearce and his allies, I wonder?

Are you forgetting what the right wing did to Chelsea Clinton? Just plain sick then, too, I'm sure.


James Pederson was convicted of possession of illegal drugs. Joshua Pearce was not charged with child abuse, or even arrested - police said there was no probable cause. Do you think the Republic would have published a story saying that the police looked into the possibility that Pederson had drugs, but ultimately had no probable cause and did not arrest him?

I do agree with you that the arrest/conviction of Pearce for DUI and the arrest/conviction Pederson for drugs are equally newsworthy. And I'm certainly not defending Joshua Pearce (heaven forbid). But I don't think the skull fracture is on the same level - if the police make no arrest and conclude that there is no probable cause (a pretty low standard), publishing a story could end up looking more like a (possibly unjustified) smear.

The comments to this entry are closed.