CLEVELAND (TDB) -- Capitol Hill insiders insist Republican U.S. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette did not pull strings with top newsroom managers at The Plain Dealer to have a Democratic critic in the Ohio blogosphere sacked. The blogger, Jeff Coryell, was ousted from his post Tuesday as a paid contributor to Wide Open. There have been numerous reports saying LaTourette used his influence to have Coryell bounced. Another of the Democratic bloggers on Wide Open, Jill Miller Zimon quit today in solidarity with Coryell and said the fact she had given money to Democrats in Ohio would probably limit her freedom to say what she wanted on the newspaper's site.
Sacking Coryell is generating a blogstorm, with critics (mostly Democrats) lining up to say LaTourette had him dumped. Although the congressman has widely been portrayed as the heavy, sources The Daily Bellwether spoke to all agreed that LaTourette did not ask for a firing, played no role in the sacking of Coryell, did not express anger, nor put pressure on the newspaper or threaten it in any way. The sources do agree that LaTourette spoke to The Plain Dealer's editorial page editor, Brent Larkin, briefly earlier this month about Coryell's work appearing on the newspaper's Web site. Coryell's name reportedly came up when Federal Election Commission campaign finance records were made public, and LaTourette mentioned to Larkin that Coryell had given money to the congressman's Democratic opponent, former Ohio Court of Appeals Judge William O'Neill. LaTourette is supposed to have said something like "what's up with that" during a brief chat, but did not suggest or demand that Coryell be fired, the sources say.
According to the insiders, the seven-term congressman -- whose district includes the eastern suburbs of Cleveland and Akron in a region near the Lake Erie shoreline known as Ohio's snowbelt -- never met formally with anyone at The Plain Dealer about Coryell. They added that he did not send an email or a letter of complaint, nor did he meet with The Plain Dealer's editor Susan Goldberg.
"Absolutely did not ask for anyone to be fired," is how one insider put it, and said the only conversation LaTourette had about Wide Open was with Larkin.
The insiders say that Larkin could back up their accounts, and that they expect and hope he will write something describing The Plain Dealer's handling of Coryell's ouster. They said it should help remove suspicions that the congressman pressured the newspaper.
One source said "there's nothing, nada. He didn't ask to have anybody fired. The only person he spoke to was Larkin and it was just a remark that the blogger had given money to his opponent, something like $200. I don't think that is out of bounds or pressure, to wonder what's up."
These insiders also say that LaTourette never spoke to Jean Dubail, the newspaper's online editor. They contend that anything Dubail told Coryell about the congressman would not have come from the congressman.
So far, LaTourette has not spoken publicly, nor has his office issued any kind of statement. Perhaps he never will. But if the story grows legs -- that a Cleveland area congressman was able to lean on his hometown newspaper and get someone fired -- he'll probably have to speak out and describe his version of what happened.
Fantastic reporting
ReplyDeleteYes. No pressure. Wink wink. Nudge nudge. If you buy that, let's talk about a bridge...
ReplyDeleteAhh... where would bloggers be without anonymous sources?
ReplyDeleteThis is all spin, Bill. Everyone seems to be agreeing on events and now it's just a matter of positioning.
This is a horribly mismanaged situation from start to finish on the PDs part. Time to trim some fat from middle management.
To me the big story is that Sammy was hammering so hard in the past on the Congressman that Jeff's name stuck in his head. That to me is... how they say it in poker?... a tell.
Hi Chris --
ReplyDeleteWell, if Sammy's name stuck in LaTourette's head that is a good thing. That means Sammy was doing his job and raising hell. But I think it was Sammy's real name that turned up on an FEC report this month with his occupation listed as blogger that lead to the question about what was up. The popular theory is that LaTourette pressured the Plain Dealer. But what was the pressure -- a special tax bill, a ban against circulation in Lake County, a crime bill that would outlaw reporting in Ashtabula, no Social Security? What was the pressure? A threat to go public? Nobody I've spoken to seems to have a clue what it was, or could have been.
Maybe the truth is as simple as this: The Plain Dealer just didn't feel comfortable with Jeff's overt political side and decided that it was not remaining in such a relationship. That's not pressure from a Congressman. That's a business decision, nothing more, nothing less. It may be a business decision you might not agree with, but it was their call . . .
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI think you've nailed it. Whether one is a print journalist or a blogger disclosure is the key. No one expects a political blogger to be non-partisan. However, if directly commenting on specific candidates a brief mention of potential conflicts is in order. If someone is running a personal blog then it doesn't matter who he/she has supported in the past. However, once you're taking a check you have other constraints. From what I've read about this situation I don't know if the PD overreacted and neither does anyone else.
Read this. It's clear from what Dubail told the reporter Amy Gahran that LaTourette said he wouldn't talk to the PD anymore unless ... what?
ReplyDeleteDubail insists that they ignored the threat, but there clearly WAS a threat. This insistence by LaTourette's "Capital insider" surrogates that he said nothing but "What's up with that?" is contradicted by Dubail's account.
Also, reporter Sabrina Eaton told me in an email that LaTourette brought up my contribution to O'Neill when she interviewed him about Hobson's retirement. So, it was NOT just one conversation with Brent Larkin. And, she told him to take the matter to people higher up. And we're to believe that he did not do that?
It's spin, Bill. They're seeing what they can get away with as far as denying this and making it all go away.
Bill, I don't see how you could be "nailing it" since Jeff ever wrote about the Congressman on the site.
ReplyDeleteAs for his "overt political side" that makes ZERO sense given the purpose of the site as expressed by the site.
I can't help feeling that maybe you think that the PD needs to hire someone more experienced... less "overt"... a person used to walking the fine ethical line of journalism... someone like... ;-)
In the essay I was working on concerning Wide Open a significant portion of it concerned you are your site. This blog has been acting as a sort of shadow site. An interesting counterpoint to their public efforts.
If fascinated me watching a veteran newsman write unfettered from the traditional constraints of the newsroom. Suddenly his personal passions could be allowed to roam free. How aspects of his personality would surface? In your case it was a mysterious grudge against Connie Schultz. All in all an interesting exercise.
Chris,
ReplyDeleteIt is a fact that you've stood-up for partisan bloggers who blatantly engage in censorship and blog banning (BS Blog, PlunderDUMB, Pho, Psychobilly, Brewed Fresh Daily).
Why can't you support the same sort of decision when it involves the PD rather than one of your friends and/or some sort of blog bashing gang?
Your position on this is simply hypocritical Chris... think about it. This is not a good way to stand up for freedom of speech.
The PD has every right to do anything they want with their blog just like Hughlock, Kurtz, Vessels, Nemeth, Redhorse, Pho and how Russo used to run a blog.
Just because a few people decide to band together to complain on behalf of one of their own, this doesn't necessarily mean that what they're asking for is appropriate and/or correct.
The PD wants a Journalist but Jeff wants to be a Blogger. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Bill:
ReplyDeleteEverything you write here is in direct conflict with what we were told by Jean. You either need to talk to Jean or write that you believe he lied to us. Because I am telling you, what he told us contradicts your sources as you portray their impressions here:
"sources The Daily Bellwether spoke to all agreed that LaTourette did not ask for a firing, played no role in the sacking of Coryell, did not express anger, nor put pressure on the newspaper or threaten it in any way. The sources do agree that LaTourette spoke to The Plain Dealer's editorial page editor, Brent Larkin, briefly earlier this month about Coryell's work appearing on the newspaper's Web site. Coryell's name reportedly came up when Federal Election Commission campaign finance records were made public, and LaTourette mentioned to Larkin that Coryell had given money to the congressman's Democratic opponent, former Ohio Court of Appeals Judge William O'Neill. LaTourette is supposed to have said something like "what's up with that" during a brief chat, but did not suggest or demand that Coryell be fired, the sources say.
According to the insiders, the seven-term congressman -- whose district includes the eastern suburbs of Cleveland and Akron in a region near the Lake Erie shoreline known as Ohio's snowbelt -- never met formally with anyone at The Plain Dealer about Coryell. They added that he did not send an email or a letter of complaint, nor did he meet with The Plain Dealer's editor Susan Goldberg.
"Absolutely did not ask for anyone to be fired," is how one insider put it, and said the only conversation LaTourette had about Wide Open was with Larkin.
The insiders say that Larkin could back up their accounts, and that they expect and hope he will write something describing The Plain Dealer's handling of Coryell's ouster. They said it should help remove suspicions that the congressman pressured the newspaper.
One source said "there's nothing, nada. He didn't ask to have anybody fired. The only person he spoke to was Larkin and it was just a remark that the blogger had given money to his opponent, something like $200. I don't think that is out of bounds or pressure, to wonder what's up."
These insiders also say that LaTourette never spoke to Jean Dubail, the newspaper's online editor. They contend that anything Dubail told Coryell about the congressman would not have come from the congressman.
So far, LaTourette has not spoken publicly, nor has his office issued any kind of statement. Perhaps he never will. But if the story grows legs -- that a Cleveland area congressman was able to lean on his hometown newspaper and get someone fired -- he'll probably have to speak out and describe his version of what happened."
And, by the way, what's the scoop on the Dispatch's assoc. publisher giving $25K to Vote No Casinos? It's okay for editors and publishers to give - even though some may serve as filters - just not people in the newsroom?
No sense at all, Bill. None.
If the PD didn't want bloggers to blog, they could just have continued using their journalists to do whatever it is people want to call OPEN.
Let us know what more you turn up. I think you give your sources way too much latitude.
Hi All --
ReplyDeleteLet me follow this logic:
1. YellowDog Sammy blogs for The Plain Dealer.
2. LaTourette is not happy.
3. LaTourette complains (and you produce no evidence that he did anything but complain.)
4. YellowDog Sammy gets fired.
Then you all say that LaTourette caused the firing? I hate to be the bearer of shocking news but people complain to newspapers every day. They are big targets.
I think that Sammy and The Plain Dealer are solely responsible for the parting of company, not LaTourette.
By the way, I don't think that Sammy/Jeff Coryell did anything wrong. He is a blogger, and the rules that are supposed to guide ethical conduct within a paper probably shouldn't apply outside in an operation like Wide Open. I imagine the whole thing could have remained Wide Open if there was a much stronger disclaimer on the site. Something like this:
"The people who write here are partisans. They use their mouths, their keyboards and sometimes their money to support political parties and political candidates. Keep that in mind when you read what they say. The Plain Dealer does not necessarily endorse or agree with anything they put on this blog. Indeed, we think some of it is pure BS. But in the interest of fostering broad, heated and divergent opinions in the blogosphere we are paying them a small fee to be here and spout off. It's an experiment melding Old Media and New Media and we have no idea, no idea at all what will happen or how things will turn out. So hang on for the ride."
That is something like an informed consent document used in medical research. Upfront, a person would have clear warning that what they were reading was not typical newspaper fare.
And Jill, the idea that Sabrina Eaton was part of a conspiracy to get Jeff is patently ridiculous. She is not management, she is in the Guild, she put Jeff's name in the paper when she saw it on an FEC report. She did her job. If I had seen that FEC report I would have put Jeff's name in this blog.
I am sad that Wide Open did not work -- it was a good try. I am amazed that Chris Baker would say I wanted, or am angling, for Jeff's job. Not true. Besides, they would not want me back. I am not on the reservation any longer.
As for Connie Schultz, I think that some of the same difficulties exist for her at The Plain Dealer -- perhaps even more acute than Jeff's supposed partisan conflicts. I admire Connie's work, I admire her political opinions and agree with many. I just think she put the newspaper -- which maintains it is middle of the road not partisan -- in a tough spot.
And lastly, in early 2006 some bloggers in Ohio who shall go nameless implied that I wrote a story for The Plain Dealer because Connie Shultz used influence on me to advance her husband's cause against Paul Hackett. That was a complete and total falsehood. But the incident demonstrated to me just how careful one has to be in a newsroom environment.
Bill this is just not true:
ReplyDelete"I imagine the whole thing could have remained Wide Open if there was a much stronger disclaimer on the site. Something like this:
"The people who write here are partisans. They use their mouths, their keyboards and sometimes their money to support political parties and political candidates. Keep that in mind when you read what they say. The Plain Dealer does not necessarily endorse or agree with anything they put on this blog. Indeed, we think some of it is pure BS. But in the interest of fostering broad, heated and divergent opinions in the blogosphere we are paying them a small fee to be here and spout off. It's an experiment melding Old Media and New Media and we have no idea, no idea at all what will happen or how things will turn out. So hang on for the ride."
That is something like an informed consent document used in medical research. Upfront, a person would have clear warning that what they were reading was not typical newspaper fare."
Why isn't it true?
Because Susan Goldberg made it very clear in her own words that so long as the PD paid us, she believes that anything we do or say will be imputed to the PD and they can't have that. I don't believe, if we believe what she says to be the truth of the whole matter, that a disclaimer would have done it for her or LaTourette or anyone else.
Did I miss copy and paste something? I don't think Sabrina is involved in a conspiracy, Bill. Where did I suggest or reinforce that? If I did, it was a mistake. I've not even typed her name I don't think. I don't believe it has anything to do with her.
Bill - I appreciate you entertaining this forum, but you didn't answer my question about the Dispatch and the $25K from Curtin to Vote No Casinos.
How does that fit in?
I don't see how, personally, but I am not nor have I ever been on the inside of a paper operation.
As a member of SPJ, it sure doesn't look right to me.
Bill, with all the blood that the old media has regarding the Iraq invasion and you're worried about bloggers and Connie Schultz putting them in a touch spot? I think a little perspective is in order. The rise of the blogs is in direct correlation to the tough spot they've been in for a long time. Old media is a power interest like any other... living up to their father Hearst's tainted legacy. (Except for his love of Krazy Kat, of course.)
ReplyDeleteHi Jill --
ReplyDeleteI wrote Jill when I meant Jeff about Sabrina. Apologies.
I recall that the newspapers were opposed to gambling and execs opposed the measure at some point in time. I think if you go back far enough -- the mid-1990s -- you will find that they helped Voino fund an anti-casino campaign. Tht is my recollection and memory, but I can't say for sure that it happened. Do I think it is proper for news execs to do that -- no. There may even be a newspaper association PAC somewhere, or ANPA PAC or some such. The Guild is part of the CWA and the union gives money, too.
Bill -
ReplyDeleteI didn't accuse Sabrina of being part of a conspiracy, and I didn't question her action in reporting my contribution to LaTourette. I just said that she contradicts LaTourette's "Capitol insider" surrogates on the number of contacts between LaTourette and the PD about me.
Bill, aren't you constrained by the terms of your buyout agreement with the Plain Dealer when it comes to commenting on the newspaper? Is it fair for you to be defending the paper if you are restricted in what you can say?
Hi Jeff --
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I am constrained. I haven't read the agreement since August '06. There might be some such language, or not. Can't say and where I am now don't have access. I will check and let you know, and everyone else (assuming I can find the papers.) If anyone who has taken the buyout knows they are welcome to post the language here. Jeff, you have raised a good point about fairness. If there is a string on me I will either have to attack the Plain Dealer, or shut up I suppose.
I think the Amy Gahran piece is pretty devastating for the PD, and will no doubt drive some further negative coverage, as it should. But I'm still glad they tried the experiment, because it was a learning experience for both sides. And as every parent knows, the only way a kid really learns how to ride a bike is after the parent lets go of the thing and gets comfortable with the fact that they're going to fall and skin their knee. But skinned knees heal in time.
ReplyDelete"Cleveland Plain Dealer Online Editor Jean DuBail raised the matter of LaTourette's displeasure with my participation in "Wide Open" in discussions with the four bloggers on at least two occasions. He told us that LaTourette had said he would no longer talk to the newspaper, although he minimized the impact of such a threat."
ReplyDeleteThat sure sounds like a threat to me. Also note there were at least two conversations, not one.
A politician who is already implicated in other financial scandals lies, imagine that.