Conflict Over Conservative Cookout and Reporting
Jul 17th, 2010 by Timothy Pancoast
… or I may have missed the cookout, but I still got to see the fireworks.
There has been a lot of discussion about the Conservative Cookout on this blog and through the grapevine. Unfortunately, due to a conflict with work, I was unable to attend, but I have heard a lot about it and seen some great pictures of the event. Having over 1,000 people attend is really impressive, and it is great to see how many people are getting involved in the political process. Unfortunately in the process some mistakes are made. What follows is a guest post about what may very well be some of those mistakes.
This has been sent as a letter to the News Journal by one of the attendees. (Let’s see if it gets published and when.) Personally I was not at or involved in the event at all, but I will take it on the word of the attendees that Michele Rollins did not win many fans at this event. The News Journal’s coverage of it, especially the way they made Michele the focal point of the article and front page photo caused additional complications to the way the members of the Delaware Conservative Coalition view Michele Rollins. (At least they didn’t crop out our own David Anderson in the background.) It may play well with people up-state and those who were not there, but this article in the News Journal has drawn the ire of Charlotte Storm and many others that attended. The Journal didn’t do Rollins any favors with them.
With out further ado here is Charlotte Storm’s letter, reprinted by her permission about the event and the reporting of it.
“You all wonder why that no one buys the News Journal. You are a prime example of the reason. You need to learn how to report a story “correctly.”
To begin with Michele Rollins “crashed” the cook-out. She was not one of the sponsors and did not contribute one dime for the event. The candidates who spoke from the stage and had booths are the ones that contributed to the event as “sponsors” and if you had taken the time to read the paper with their names on it you “might” have at least reported something correct, but I do believe with your kind of journalism it is most doubtful. The main candidates were Glen Urquhart – the real true conservative Republican running for the Congressional seat; and Christine O’Donnell – the real true conservative running for the US Senate seat against the Rhino – Castle.; and Colin Bonini running for State Treasurer - to fight against mindless spending.
To add fuel to the fire you had to put Rollins picture on the front page with the article. (- Rollins, the “crasher” - look what the cat dragged in.)
The room where the event was held at the Sam Yoder Farm was not sweltering, but mildly air-conditioned and comfortable.
The keynote speaker, George Allen was there because of Glen Urquhart, his personal friend, and to help support the other true conservatives and NOT Michele Rollins.
Give Delaware voters and residents the true story and reprint your story “correctly” this time and do not hide it on a back page. Start it on the Front Page where it will be seen.”
Charlotte A. Storm
31st District – Dover, DE 19904
Edit: From what I have seen and heard this was a great event and provided a lot of conservative candidates up and down the state some good face time with over 1,000 potential voters. It is a shame that this fact has been overshaddowed, but I want to make sure that it wasn’t completely forgotten.
Update: The author of the News Journal Article responded to Charlotte Storm. I have copied the additional correspondence below.
“Thanks for your e-mail.
Had the organizers of the event made it clear that there were invited candidates and uninvited candidates, I certainly would have pointed out that Michele Rollins was a gate-crasher. I did take the time to read the paper with the names on it, and I carried it with me to the event. It said “sponsors include …” and listed their names. There was no word of any restrictions on which candidates were permitted to attend.
As for the photo, reporters have no control over which photos are used and how they appear. Those decisions are made on the copy desk.
As for the room being “mildly air-conditioned,” I would differ with your choice of adjectives – “inadequately” would be my preferred term — but that’s a matter of personal perception.
That said, I would like to thank you for cc’ing your e-mail to our Letters to the Editor column. I received a number of e-mails similar to yours, but none of the authors apparently have the courage to stand behind their opinions in a public forum. Yours is the refreshing exception.
–J.L. Miller
Staff reporter
The News Journal
“
The room where the event was held at the Sam Yoder Farm was not sweltering, but mildly air-conditioned and comfortable.
Wrong. It was hot, mainly because of the endless coming-and-going through the doors; not surprising, considering how sweltering it was outside.
As I said on another post, Rollins looked lost.
I may not have been the biggest fan of the Rollins coverage when the press releases and invites were from Urquhart’s campaign, but at least the News Journal kept their word and gave very good coverage to the event. It didn’t down play the crowd. It accurately stated what was said. It didn’t misrepresent the group by finding the one wierd person. Outside of that one area, the article was well written and I appreciate it. It will get no complaints from my end. Keep showing up.
I will agree with you about the News Journal articles. The articles that they have printed about the 9-12 Delaware Patriots have generally been fair. However, in the pictures and sometimes the headlines they get in most of their digs. They may do hit pieces about candidates, but their treatment of organizations and private citizens has been more balanced, and less agressive.
The reporters are cool. They are just out to give the real story good, bad, or indifferent. The assignment editors are cool. The copy editors have even been taken to task by the public editor in their own paper at times. I still would rather have a headline that does not quite match the story than no story at all. If I read the story, at least I am getting a pretty good picture of what happenned.
[...] appears these guys were right. [...]
Thanks for the links Kavips.
David,
I don’t think you should want this letter published, as it is the precise sort of ranting that paints a negative perception of the conservative movement. Putting aside its rude tone, let’s think about some facts.
First, so far as I know, and having received several invitations, the event was open to all. The suggestion that Michele “crashed” the event is simply wrong.
Second, the complaint that she didn’t “sponsor” the event is equally misleading. Remember, sponsorships were “closed.” Now, when’s the last time that any political event limited the number of sponsorships? I’ll bet dollars to donuts that sponsorships were never truly “open” to all, but were “closed” precisely so Rollins (and Castle for that matter) couldn’t be a sponsor. That way, the hosts could have a plausible excuse for denying Rollins the opportunity to speak.
If the letter writer wants to complain about people crashing and not contributing, then it seems to me that that charge should be made against almost all who attended.
Finally, as I said at the beginning, a rude and obnoxious tone does nothing to advance the conservative cause. You always catch more flies with honey.
I think the point was to invite conservative candidates.
I received two invitations. The first had a short list of sponsors as well as the DCC’s contact information for anyone else wishing to be a sponsor; I received a second invitation about a week later, with a longer list of sponsors, which stated that “Sponsor Tables are no longer available.” My understanding is that, as each sponsor was to be given a full-sized table along one wall of the building, the organizers simply ran out of space.
The fact is I — a card-carrying leftist — received an invitation, too. So all this stuff about who got invited and who didn’t — when it’s clear the event was rather open — is rather ridiculous. Rollins showed up. Who cares? She’s going to win the primary, as the Greenville elites have shown time and time again their disregard for the Conservative Contingent Below the Canal. The Elites have the money, while the tea partiers have the passion. But, in the end, as always, the money will win out.
Michele Rollins is a conservative. You all can whine all day but in the end, she’s still a conservative.
Let’s look at some facts, if anyone is still listening.
- Rollins was not mentioned until the seventh paragraph of the story, after Allen, Bonini and even Venables.
- As others have noted, this was open to anyone with the entrance fee. It wasn’t a private party. You can’t “crash” a public event.
- The line of questioning the reporter directed to Rollins was entirely legitimate. She was campaigning in the lion’s den, after all. Her relationship with conservatives has been a theme that the NJ’s reporters have examined in several articles. If my memory is working, another reporter wrote a piece about her appearance before the 9/12 Patriots a few months ago.
- Like it or not, Rollins is the frontrunner, leading in money and endorsements, in one of the state’s marquee races this year. That makes her a legitimate topic for a news story.
- The reporters don’t write headlines or pick the photos, so don’t blame J.L. Miller for the general treatment. The photos are selected by page designers who scan the story quickly and make sure the person photographed is mentioned, and the headlines are written by copy editors who have about 100 other things to do that night and who don’t follow Delaware politics that closely. (They also have to edit sports and business stories as well. There’s no specialization.)
- The story was not on the front page, as Timothy Pancoast suggested, but rather on page B1, the front of the local section.
- The event did not begin until 5 p.m. Normal newspaper deadlines are between about 7-8 p.m., so the reporter didn’t have a whole lot of time to spend there and get the “correct” nuances that Ms. Storm would have preferred. An evening event, especially on a Friday night, is the WORST possible time if you want to get the media to cover it.
- If you really care about this issue and want a reply, don’t write a letter to the editor. Those just vanish into a vat of letters on the desks of the editorial page editors, to be plucked from when they need to fill space. No one responsible for the news actually reads them until they hit the paper. Or, rather, do write a letter, but also write one to Jill Fredel, the assistant managing editor/public editor, who takes reader complaints. Her address is jfredel@delawareonline.com.
I don’t have a big complaint with the Journal. I actually think flooding them with complaints would make them less likely to cover an event. It would be counterproductive. The movement really came across well. Why would we tamper with that? If you want to complain then complain to the ones that didn’t cover it.
It is like having to sit in a classroom and listen to someone complain the whole period about people skipping class. It makes you want to join them.
anon, about the picture, it is featured on the front page of it’s section. Where were the photo’s of the other candiates. Online it is the largest and photo and the one featured first. The point remains that, in photographs, the Journal editors chose to feature a self appointed cameo role rather than the event itself. That may make for good news at the Journal but it didn’t sit so well with many of the attendees.
I agree with David, the problem in this case is largely on the editor that chose the tag lines, and the arangement of the photos, not on the writer of the article. While I do think it is appropriate that Michele Rollins isn’t mentioned until the 7th paragraph of the article (since Michele Rollins was not a featured candidate or sponsor at the event) she ends up being featured in 6 out of the last 8 paragraphs. 6 out of 15 paragraphs is pretty good for someone that wasn’t even on the program. Especially when you consider that several candidates, that actually were officially part of the event don’t get any mention. That being said, this is a positive piece for all of the people mentioned.
I don’t know if it is by choice or by assignment, but the Journal seems to have the Michele Rollins beat well covered, so I am happy that at least several of the other candidates also got a little positive coverage in the article.
As to your suggestions on who to write, don’t worry. In her email to me Charlotte Storm said that she did both.
Michele Rollins is a conservative. You all can whine all day but in the end, she’s still a conservative.…misnomer alice
Oz has spoken. We can all relax now.
I mean, who is more qualified to speak of Rollins’ conservatism than ‘quiet alice?’
‘Quiet alice,’ without Googling, who was Russell Kirk?
Like I said, ‘I can see for miles and miles and miles….”
I attended, but was not there for the entire time.
So just an observation:
I don’t know if Ms. Rollins knew of the requirements the DCC had in order for candidates for office to speak. Did she? Does someone know? I doubt she would have gone on stage if she knew in advance she wasn’t going to be allowed to have the microphone. It’s pretty humiliating to be snubbed that harshly–whatever the reason.
I think the Republican Party will remain irretrievably divided and the “moderate” wing outside the reach of reasonable dialogue with conservatives if “moderate” candidates are treated rudely (and vice versa).
The use of the powers of persuasion is impossible if you’ve gone out of the way to make someone an enemy. I’m wondering if Ms. Rollins might have been open to more dialogue if things had gone down differently.
Again, I don’t know all the details.
So I’m just asking if maybe the situation could have been handled more graciously?
“‘Quiet alice,’ without Googling, who was Russell Kirk?”
One of many people, including Burke and Buckley, who knew that conservatism was anathema to dogmatic ideology, something today’s “conservatives,” including you, seem to have forgotten.
Fay,
Very good observations. I think that each side has gone to the dark side attacking each other (the moderates are bad, the conservatives are bad.) If each side would graciously accept the other and form a coalition to beat the Democrats (and they last that I heard, they are the group we want to beat in November) then perhaps we could accomplish this. But with all this fighting and name calling, I have a bad feeling that the Dems will come out the winner in November. Just my two cents.
I think it was handled gracefully. No one was singled out for embarrassment or treated rudely.
When the Republican Party allows non endorsed candidates to speak at a meeting (not saying it should) then we can broach the subject of independent groups. This was not a c (3) candidate night. The public was invited to hear the speakers not to speak. Everyone seemed fine with that but one person who seemed to come out pretty well if her minions would know when to stop.
“the Journal editors chose to feature a self appointed cameo role rather than the event itself. That may make for good news at the Journal but it didn’t sit so well with many of the attendees.”
Did you even READ my comment? The photos are not chosen by an editor, but by a page designer – a glorified graphic artist – whose job it is to turn out a bunch of pages in a limited amount of time.
Anon, it is tough doing a daily paper on these budgets. I gave my opinion. I am grateful that the Journal covered the article and gave accurate coverage to my favored candidate even if it did not give everything I wanted. They covered it. Others didn’t. I hate to bash the guys who are doing their jobs.
One of many people, including Burke and Buckley, who knew that conservatism was anathema to dogmatic ideology, something today’s “conservatives,” including you, seem to have forgotten.
That’s an absurdly incomplete picture, but so be it- my question- what is ‘dogmatic ideology,’ what is your definition of ‘today’s conservatives,’ and how do I fit in with ‘today’s conservatives,’ since I am obviously aware of Kirk’s (and Burke’s)
…of Kirk’s (and Burke’s) writings.
this from the same rick that posted this satire…
:
Who cares what the NAACP says?
They’re still on the plantation, serving ‘Ol Massa up in the big house- and they don’t even know it.
“Where would You be Without Us, Black Man?”…’Ol Massa Socialist-Democrat
NICE ONE RICK – DO YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AT ALL?? SEE BELOW
Do I want to be ‘taken seriously’ by someone who wouldn’t recognize satire (or, sarcasm, if you prefer) if it hit him over the head?
No.
Socialist-Democrat ‘Ol Massa big House = ‘Compassionate’ Subjugation