Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Simply Obsolete

Check out this Tweet from the Star's Tim Steller.  

In legal terms, Sen. Alexander is making a case for "Summary Judgment".  Alexander is saying that even if all the facts are true, the House's case does not meet the legal standard for impeachment.  This type of analysis is common in legal circles.  

Notice how Steller re-frames Alexander's argument?  "the president and his supporters would be really angry." I don't think that Steller is trying to misrepresent Alexander's point.  I think that Tim Steller doesn't understand Alexander's point.

Steller's inability to understand this legal argument is yet another example of why the journalism is failing.  Journalists like to think that their product is too sophisticated for audience tastes.  They claim that in the internet cacophony the shrill arguments crowd out the sophisticated arguments....bloggers and Tweeters crowd out real journalism.

The opposite is true.  Journalists are generalists.  Steller doesn't know the standards for Summary Judgment.  

In fact, Steller doesn't even know how to SPELL "judgment".  

Newspapers are disappearing because reporters are the LEAST qualified to discuss any complex topic.  Tim Steller doesn't understand legal arguments, but he's not alone.  The Republic's Craig Harris doesn't understand charter school economics and Rachel Leingang doesn't understand the intricacies of higher education.  

It's OK to be ignorant.  I don't understand the complexities of civil engineering or professional basketball.  Of course, I don't write about civil engineering or professional basketball.  

Before the internet, it was useful to have a smart person, trained in journalism to cover complex topics as best they could.  Sure, it wasn't sophisticated, but it was all that we had.

Now, I can go directly to the source.  I can follow, say, NASA or the Supreme Court.  If that's too difficult, I can follow scientists who cover NASA or lawyers who cover the Supreme Court.  There's no reason to follow journalists who have no scientific or legal training as they try to figure out what is happening at NASA or the Supreme Court.

Just like there is no reason to follow Tim Steller as he mangles Lamar Alexander's legal analysis.  

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

Laurie Roberts is Blind to her own paper's sexism.

Laurie Robert is rolling her eyes at those of us who believe that the media--and especially the Republic--are critical of Martha McSally's recent CNN dust up because she is a woman.  However, to prove the point, you need look no further than the Republic's treatment of John McCain's temper.  

Not answer questions?  Ha, McCain actually banned Republic reporters from his campaign bus.  In 2000 Republic reporter Kris Mayes had to follow the Straight Talk Express around New Hampshire in a rented Ford Taurus.  

Did the Republic describe McCain's actions as "hissy fits"?  Of course not, he was the Maverick.   but hissy fit is the term that Montini used to describe McSally's response to Manu's question. 

If you want to see more examples of the Republic running interference for McCain check out this portion of Dan Nowicki's eulogy. 

Sure, this can be discounted a bit because McCain had just passed away and your not supposed to say anything bad about the dead (Unless you are Bill Goodykoontz bringing up a 16 year old rape allegation against Kobe Bryant, but that's not sexism, it's the other type of pernicious "ism" that guys like Goodykoontz don't recognize.)

Notice how Nowicki rationalizes McCain's behavior. 

Short temper not seen firsthand

Years later, it was a column I wrote related to McCain's POW experience that caused a rare rift in our professional relationship.

McCain and The Republic over the years often had a rocky, even hostile, relationship. But I believe he realized the newspaper had a duty to perform for its readers and his constituents.

I personally found McCain straightforward, helpful and probably more accessible to me than he needed to be.

When I started covering his presidential campaign in 2007, everybody involved was ready to leave behind the bitterness of the past and move forward, but the relationship remained icy. I remember telling McCain's nascent campaign operation that The Republic just wanted to be treated like any other news organization. They agreed, and the thaw began.

Over the years, I had countless conversations with McCain about almost every political topic under the sun. He would usually address me as "Danny." Sometimes, he would call me a "jerk," but with him, it was a term of affection.

Right on Cue: Montini Switches Narratives.

EJ Montini and his fellow travelers are finding it impossible to maintain the fiction that the allegations against Hunter Biden have been "discredited."

Check out the new strategy as evidenced by this pivot from the Republic's EJ Montini

In 2014, no doubt because of his name, Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company called Burisma.

News reports suggest that he was paid $50,000 a month to offer his advice on finance and strategy. Sure.

The appointment was for five years, ending in 2019. If you do the math it amounts to a whopping $3 million.

Unable to maintain the facade that these allegations are partisan, or have been debunked, Montini now says OF COURSE they are true.  They are all corrupt.  But if you want to see REAL corruption, you have to look at the Trump family.  

Gosh, it's almost like this is an elaborately coordinated show of which Montini is playing a bit role.

 

 

 

The Award for Fiction goes to....

The Republic's EJ Montini likes to repeat this trope. 

Opinion: You’d think that lawmakers in a democracy would want more people to vote. Nope.

Remember how we all used to vote?  In person?  At a specific place? On a specific date?  Between the hours of 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM?

Sure, you could request an "Absentee" ballot if you could make the case that you were going to be, you know, "Absent."--like if you were traveling for business on hospitalized.

Over the last 20 years the Legislature--or as Montini likes to call it "The Republican Controlled Legislature" has systematically made it easier for you to vote.  Now we vote by mail, from home, postage pre-paid, over an extended period of time.  

Montini's fundamental premise is wrong.  The lawmakers in a democracy actually do want you to vote and they have made it much easier.  

 

 

Real Journalism

Check out this tweet from San Francisco Chronicle Reporter Audrey Cooper.

 

 

That's right.  If a public official is required to live in his district and there is evidence that his residence is a sham then real journalists will investigate.  

Meanwhile the reporters, editors and management of the Arizona Daily Star are working to bury the story about former Star reporter Joe Ferguson's sham residence in Precinct 9.  

Recall that Ferguson covered the Pima County Supervisor's race for the Star and then the Supervisors appointed him to a vacant Constable seat.  Ferguson admitted that he had been interested in the position for a year--which means that he was considering the position while covering the people who would eventually appoint him to the position.  

But there was a wrinkle.

The rules required Ferguson to be a registered Democrat and live in Precinct 9.  Unfortunately, he was a registered independent living in Precinct 8.  So Ferguson re-registered as a Democrat and rented a casita near a salvage yard in Precinct 9.  

That might have sufficed.  After all the legal threshold for residence is very low.  If he had simply evidenced a physical presence and an intent to remain he would have been fine.  

That's where Ferguson made a mistake.  When he filed out his financial disclosure form for the Constable position, he listed his residence in his real house...the one that's not in the district.  Oops.  While things like residency are often described as a "legal fiction" you have to actually maintain the fiction in order for it to function.  Joe Ferguson may eventually decide to move to Precinct 9, but he didn't consider the casita to be his home when he filed his financial disclosure form, so he certainly wasn't a resident when he was appointed which means that he wasn't even eligible to be appointed.  

That's where real journalism comes in--or in this case doesn't come in.  The folks at the Star know what Ferguson did.  But Joe is a former Star reporter and it's so hard to cross that thin Helvetica line that keeps  journalists from reporting on each other.  

Joe can live where he wants.  The Star is never going to cover it.  

He's lucky that he never worked for the San Francisco Chronicle.  

 

 

 

 

 

Help Wanted: Conservative Columnist, must understand "Social Media"

Did you see the latest Tweet from Republic Columnist Bob Robb?  Don't worry, no one else did either.  Here it is again.

 

 

Notice that the Tweet is 10 days old and is about yet another obscure economic principle.  Meanwhile, EJ Montini and Laurie Roberts are spewing Democratic talking points every hour on the hour.  

It's time for Phil Boas and the rest of the folks at the Republic to finally admit that the position of Conservative Columnist at the Republic is vacant. 

Shame

In the not so distant future this case of "slut-shaming" will be covered in journalism textbooks.  This is unbelievable in the modern age.  

Bill and Laurie are Right.

Since I am quick to find fault, I also like to point out when columnists give good advice, and with respect to the parking lot dust up between Dennis Welch and Representative David Cook, two journalists have provided excellent advice. 

Republic Media critic Bill Goodykoontz (who thinks he's a political columnist) had a good suggestion here. 

Cook might have taken that route with Welch, as well, but he didn’t. Or he might have remembered the two words that are most effective when dealing with media questions you don’t want to answer:

“No comment.”

Laurie Roberts gave   the same excellent advice. 

Cook could have said no comment.

Indeed.  That's the way that it is supposed to work.  Reporters ask tough questions and politicians would do well to answer them.  If they don't want to answer them, they should politely say "no comment" and move on.  

Journalists should then report that the elected official was given an opportunity to comment and declined to do so.

Wouldn't it be great if that fantasy actually happened?  I don't know what world of journalism ethics Bill and Lauri inhabit, but I would like to book a trip there. 

Back in the world where Dennis Welch has a job the rules are much different.  If you watch the clip, it's clear that Mr. Cook said no comment and the tried to leave.  But his truck was locked and he had to walk back to where Dennis was standing.  Then Cook pointed out that Dennis had repeatedly called him at home and he had not commented.  It was at that point--referring to repeated late night calls--that he asked if Dennis has a substance abuse problem.

This is a pattern for Dennis.  You may recall that he was unable to get a comment from then Attorney General Tom Horne and showed up at Horne's house with a camera crew.  AZFamily thought that was so cool that they promoted the confrontation in promos and on billboards throughout the valley.

Dennis Welch isn't the only one who engineers these at home encounters and then brags about them.

Check out this Tweet from the Republic's Joshua Bowling.

Sure, the Mayor of Goodyear didn't comment so naturally, he went to her house.  Notice that this was a "Pinned Tweet".  That's because he was proud of it.  This is what he wanted to be known by. 

Speaking of bragging.  Check out this bit of braggadocio from Brahm Resnik

"Don't make me knock on his door one more time." If you were writing a skit and called for a line from an arrogant reporter, that would be the line. Unbelievable.

If you are looking for one of the most egregious examples of reporters rejecting a polite "no comment" watch Joe Dana conduct a full interview with an APS spokesperson and then--not satisfied--try to get an interview with an APS attorney.  She makes it clear that she is not authorized to comment and points out the obvious fact that APS has provided a spokesperson.  Joe then follows her until she goes into the ladies room and waits 15 minutes for her to come out.  Then he follows her out of the building and continues asking questions while she tries to get to her car.  For this entire time, she says that she is not authorized to comment.   

 

(I've expressed my concerns about the ethics of these tactics previously and Joe Dana was nice enough to sit down with me and hear me out.  But we agreed to disagree on this particular tactic, so I feel free to bring it up in the context of this discussion.)

I will reiterate that Bill and Laurie are right.  Any of these people should have been able to simply say "no comment".  It would have been great if the reporters didn't then follow them through the parking lot or show up at their home.  It would be even better if journalists would develop a culture in which they didn't also feel the need to brag about these tactics on social media or use them to publicly threaten members of the public.

 

 

Does Joe Ferguson Live in his District?

Last week I pointed out that former Arizona Daily Star Reporter Joe Ferguson covered the County Supervisor's race and then the Supervisors appointed him to a vacant constable position.  Ferguson told the Tucson Sentinel that he had become interested in the position "over the past year."  So by his own admission, Ferguson covered the Supervisors race while he was interested in the job that they would ultimately appoint him to fill.  

But was he eligible?  Here's the website for the application process.

To be eligible to fill the vacancy, an individual must be:

18 years of age or older at the time of the appointment;
Registered to vote in the precinct;
A resident of the precinct; and
The same political party as the person vacating the office, in this case a Democrat.

Ok.  So in order to be eligible for appointment, Joe had to be a resident of the precinct and be a registered Democrat in the precinct.

Last December, Joe rented a small casita in the district and changed his registration from Independent to Democrat. 

Joe didn't actually move into the casita.  The Arizona Independent has great coverage here.

Joe is creating a legal fiction.  Residency is a physical location and an intent to remain.  You can call it a state of mind.  However, legal fictions are tricky things.  You have to keep up the fiction.  

It looks like Joe forgot to keep up his fiction.   

When Joe filed his financial disclosure form he listed an address in the 85711 zip code.  The clerk (illegally) redacted the actual address, but left the zip code.  Here is a Precinct map.  And here is a zip code map.  As you can see, all of 85711 lies east of Precinct 9.   Joe listed his ACTUAL residence....you know, the house that he owns and really lives in.  

So if you are looking for evidence of Joe's "state of mind" or "intent to remain"--he has just provided it. He forgot to maintain the fiction that his residence is a casita on Flores street.  Joe doesn't live in the district.  And he certainly wasn't eligible to be appointed to the seat.  

It will be interesting to see what develops.  It will be especially interesting to see if the Star is willing to cover their own former employee.  After all, Joe spent a year thinking about getting appointed to the as a Constable while covering the race of the very people who would appoint him.   You would think that the Star would have felt obligated to disclose this breach.  You would also think that they would want to cover this story. After all, the media make a big deal about politicians who have sham residencies--at least politicians who are not former reporters that is.  

The Republic Fudges the Numbers

Check out this screen shot of the digital version of the Republic's Women's March story.

Notice the original title to the story?  "Hundreds attend".  The headline writer changed it to "Thousands rally."  When you read the story, you will see that the number is "about 2,000". Hmm, since 2,000 is the lowest number that can count as "Thousands" and since the reporter himself chose "hundreds", we can conclude that "about 2,000" was really "almost 2,000".  That means that the headline writer isn't just spinning the story, he is lying about the numbers.  

Now check out this sentence. 

The event, which initially was planned as a march but was changed to a rally, attracted a diverse crowd, from young student workers to lifelong activists.

Golly, why do "marches" become "Rallies".  Because there isn't enough people to actually march.  

The March organizers confirmed that they didn't have enough participants in order to march and that they were scaling back.

Women's March Phoenix organizers posted on the group's Facebook page Wednesday evening that the event is "scaling back" and will be only be a rally at the Arizona state Capitol, not a march. 

This fact appeared in an online article before the march, but didn't make it into the print coverage of the actual "rally".  

Meanwhile, on the very same day, the Pro Life community conducted the annual  Right to Life March...and it was an actual March.  Meaning that they had enough participants to, you know, "march."

Check out this picture of Governor Ducey addressing the participants. 

 

What?  You missed that story?  You didn't hear about the Right to Life March?  That's because while the Republic was desperately trying to make the Women's March look....shall we say "viable".  The same newspaper was ignoring the Right to Life March.  If you want to see coverage, you will have to follow Doug Ducey, Cathi Herrod or the dozens of Legislators and Congressional representatives on Twitter or Facebook.

You know, the places that have real news.