Things I Wish I'd Asked

I've had quite a few comments about last Saturday's interview with the Strib's Rochelle Olson (which should be going up on Townhall.com sometime today). Most were positive.

The only negative, in fact, that I've gotten is "Why didn't you tear into her for her various evasions? It's a good question.

There were a couple of occasions where I could have pounced. But as the interview unspooled, I thought that the look into the way the Twin Cities' media approaches these things - the assumptions, the evasions, the values - would be a whole lot more interesting than my ranting. And thrashing about in an interview merely puts your subjects on the defensive - and I thought Rochelle Olson's answers were plenty interesting, and going on the defensive wouldn't have helped.

But there are a few things I wish I'd asked:

• Tell Us About Those Donnybrooks With "The Editors": Twice in the interview, Olson referred to long discussions/arguments with her editors on the exact facts to be included in those "35 column inches" devoted to the A1 story last Saturday, October 7. Who were these editors? And...
• Why Did They Decide To Leave The Most Vital Fact About The Story...Out?: As I said early in the interview, I was never much of a reporter. But Bob Richardson and Jim Smorada - the guys who taught me to write news - were pretty clear on the need to get the facts about a story straight. So I'd love to know by what turn of "journalistic" logic Rochelle Olson and/or her editors decided the fact that Alan Fine was completely exonerated of the charges for which he was arrested wasn't part of completely telling the story.
• There's A Pattern Here: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a pattern, here. Rod Grams was pilloried in the Strib for the antics of his son (whom the Strib didn't see fit to tell the reader that Grams had not really raised); Patty Wetterling attacks Michele Bachmann with an ad tying Republicans to the Foley scandal with statements that Eric Black calls "misleading" (because, he doesn't see fit to tell you, they are utterly devoid of fact, and delivered with a malicious intent to deceive the electorate - which most of us would call a "lie"); and now, the Fine case, in which key facts about Fine's innocence - indeed, his exemplary record as a father juxtaposed with his ex-wife's seeming emotional instability, which utterly undercuts the initial charges - were omitted due to...well, see question 2, above. In the meantime, key facts about Keith Ellison - including accusations of domestic abuse that have yet to go to court - go unreported, as the Strib editorial board goes into Scrupulous Overdrive mode...

  ...I'm just asking, Strib editors and Ms. Olson, is there a reason we should not see a pattern of partisan intent for your stories?