Wadhams = Schaffer?

August 21st, 2008

I spoke with Bob Schaffer’s spokesman Dick Wadhams last week about his use of words like “ass” and “scumbag” when talking to the Rocky Mountain News about Mark Udall.

You know that Wadhams has a plan when using language like this, and so you believe him when he says, “I know exactly what I’m doing,” which is what he told me when asked about why he does this. He didn’t get into the details but you know he wants to get more media attention.

It worked Aug. 5, when Democrats objected to his use of the word “ass” (to describe the part of Democrat Mark Udall’s body up which the Schaffer campaign plans to “shove” 30-second ads) and the Rocky wrote a story about it. Here’s Schaffer’s original ass quote from the Rocky in a piece by Lynn Bartels.

You can debate whether Wadhams’ PR strategy makes sense. Will the vulgar language turn off swing voters? Or will it embed his talking points in their minds? I think it’s smart for the Dems to selectively respond to a harsh operative like Wadhams—to spotlight his meanness, but who knows, really.

In any case, from a journalistic perspective, it’s definitely the right thing for reporters to quote Wadhams’ rather harsh language, even if the Rocky won’t spell out the dangerous word in the newspaper. The Rocky also quoted Wadhams May 2 using the word “scumbags” to describe an anti-Schaffer organization.

And when Dems object to Wadhams’ unusually strong language, reporters should cover this, too, as the Rocky did when the Dems objected to “ass.”

But reporters should also ask Schaffer whether his spokesperson, who speaks for Schaffer and presumably is controlled by Schaffer, has his blessing for using words like ass.

A Feb. 22 Rocky story by Bartels pointed out that when Wadhams worked John Thune’s campaign in South Dakota, Thune was asked directly about Wadhams behavior. Here’s an excerpt from the Rocky story.

In 2004, Wadhams went to South Dakota to manage the campaign for John Thune, who was trying to unseat Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. It was Wadhams who went after Daschle while Thune shook hands and smiled.

“Would I have said it that way?” Thune told The New York Times, after one of Wadhams’ responses. “Probably not. But that’s why I hired Dick.”

Below is an excerpt from my interview with Wadhams on this topic. I also quoted Wadhams in my Sat. Rocky Column.

Jason: I’m wondering if Congressman Schaffer approves your language? Wadhams: He approves of the aggressive way we are trying to draw contrasts with Boulder Liberal Mark Udall.Jason: Will you hook me up with the congressman to see if he approves of you using those words, ass and scumbag?Wadhams: You can try calling him if you want.Jason: OK. What’s his number? Wadhams: You know, Jason, you are a liberal partisan. You set yourself up as some kind of objective source. And, Jason, you and I both know you are liberal partisan Democrat.Jason: Not true. I try to be fair.Wadhams: I don’t consider you a legitimate reporter, Jason.Jason: You’ll see. I’m fair. Wadhams: Oh no you’re not. Your columns amuse me, but you are a partisan Democrat. Talking to you is like talking to the spokesman of the Democratic Party. We don’t have to talk to you.Jason: Well, I appreciate your talking to me.Wadhams: I don’t have to. I might as well be talking to the press secretary for the Democratic Party.Jason: That’s not true. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Take that.

Posted in Rocky Mountain News | 1 Comment »

Limbaugh letters

August 15th, 2008

I got more email in response to my column about Rush Limbaugh’s commentary during KOA radio’s morning newscast than any other column I’ve written for the Rocky.

Weirdly, most letter writers thought I was arguing that KOA should hire a talk show host to balance Rush’s three hours on KOA. Actually, I was merely suggesting that KOA find a left-leaning pundit to deliver a one-minute commentary during the newcast, to uphold the basic journalistic value of fairness that KOA claims to strive for on its morning newscast.

I thought it was interesting the Clear Channel executive Kris Olinger said that Rush Limbaugh’s contract with KOA requires KOA to air a one-minute commentary by Rush during drive time, when most people (whether Rush fans or not) are tuned in.

Here’s a few of the letters I got.

From Laura
I agree with Sean Rima, you are a whiny little girl.  I listen to KOA religiously.  The only time we ever turn it over to progressive radio is when the Rockies are playing and KOA isn’t broadcasting over the internet.  After all, it’s good to know what the enemy is up to.  Also, trying to tell Mike Rosen how to conduct an interview is like trying to tell the Pope how to celebrate the Mass, or trying to give tech support to Bill Gates.  Get a life.

 
From Ron Vander Kooi, Ph.D.
I can only agree with you that KOA is way overdue to provide a minimal amount of balance to its talk shows and commentary!
When I was a boy, and as a young adult, visiting relatives in Denver with my parents, I thought of KOA as a high quality station, “the Voice of the West.”
Now at 70 and after 14 years living here, I can barely manage to listen to limited news on that station. 
And Limbaugh is the leading disgrace on that station (competing with others whose bias and lying approach is equally distorted if not outright lying).  His arrogance is so flagrant that I wonder at anyone who thinks of him positively, even as an entertainer.
But he has done so much damage at a time when many citizens would seem to prefer distortions in order to protect their own status.
 He has misled so many people that his behavior can only be regarded as secondary to war crimes, and he will, I believe, be called to accounting in his lifetime…or beyond.  I’ve tried to address him asking, “Have you no shame?” 
Certainly Hiightower, with his own biases, could not begin to approach Rush’s blowhard approach, even with spot promotions that lasted a half hour.
KOA uses airwaves that allegedly belong to you, me and the citizenry.  It disregards its responsibility to be fair in its broadcasting, and I must believe that there will come a time of reckoning -if it does not begin at once to provide an increasing amount of balance.  Or is it only money that controls this democracy?

 
From Genie Blume
I like Hightower but don’t agree he’s the one.  Ed Schultz could do the job.
Wouldn’t it be fun to pit Randi Rhodes vs. Rush considering his obvious lack of success with the ladies. Even without the famous arm tied behind his brain.
What would be even more satisfying is a real debate between Rush or Hannity and Rhodes or Schultz.  No notes, no screeners or producers feeding data to the contestants.
We need to put Rush and company on display.  Perhaps include a new “Rush Room” at one of Jesse Morreale’s events at Mescal during the convention where Rush could consort with members of the Creative Coalition. He’s such a name dropper.
Yes, Denver could be the birthplace of fairness in broadcasting leading to real discourse.
We have more like the “arrogant self delusional” in our midst in the form of Rosen, Caldera, Gunnie Bob and, oh yes, sweet Dan (what ever happened to the righteous protector of human rights and law after O.J.?
I say to you Jason Salzman, you have a lot of work to do.  We’re watching.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Rosen and Gunny

July 22nd, 2008

I’ve been emailing a couple of Denver’s conservative talk show hosts recently.
I had an extremely unproductive exchange with Bob “Gunny” Newman, host of KOA’s “The Gunny Bob Show.” Gunny’s listed me on his website as a “media extremist.”
I simply asked him if he would be glad if one or both of Denver’s daily newspapers were to shut down. His response:
Now now, Jason. I saw your ambush coming last time, just like this time. I find it sad you hold the 1st Amendment in such low regard, but the beauty of that amendment is that you have that right, which I trust, you, too, risked your life to defend.
Hmm. What? Let me know if you understand what he’s talking about. Plus, me, ambush somebody? Never. I don’t own a weapon.
A few months ago, I tried to find out why Cumberland Press canceled Gunny’s book contract, but Gunny never responded, despite repeated phone calls and emails on my part. I guess that constitutes an ambush in his mind.
Oh well. He’s paranoid.
Mike Rosen is much easier to reach. He’s always responded quickly to my emails. Last week, we debated my view that he should have accepted questions from listeners for his interview with John McCain. I mentioned this in my latest column.
He threatened not to respond to my emails again if I quoted him out of context in my column, and I told him I’d paste our entire exchange on my blog. So here it is.
Jason – Hi Mike –I was listening to KOA’s morning news last week and the host asked if you wanted to receive email questions from listeners for John McCain. You said no, adding, “I’ve got my own darn questions.”
Do you really think so little of the intelligence of your listeners? Why didn’t you want to receive their questions? Don’t you think that it’s the listeners, as well as the guests, who make for great talk radio?
For my column or blog, do you have a minute to answer these questions?
Thanks.
Mike – Jason. I’ve found my self-selected audience to be generally more intelligent and politically sophisticated than that of most other talk shows.  I usually invite callers to question a guest, as I did with Steve Forbes who was in the studio for an hour, today.  In this case, the McCain people told us that we had only an 8-10 minute window with the Senator over the phone before he boarded his flight to Denver.  So many topics, so little time. I thought that time would be more productively spent with a few carefully focused questions from me.  Mike 
Jason — Thanks, Mike. Why wouldn’t you have benefited from input from listeners in coming up with your “carefully focused questions?” Jason
Mike — Jason, If you’d hosted a talk show for almost 30 years as I have, you’d understand better.  As Forest Gump might put it, talk radio callers, even when they’re screened, are like a box of chocolates: on the air you’re never quite sure what you’re going to get.  Some are very good, some ramble incoherently and some are abusive.  When you only have a few minutes with a guest like McCain, it’s not worth the risk.  Talk shows aren’t a townhall meeting. Mike

Jason — Thanks.  I understand what you’re saying, but in this case you were asked if you wanted listeners to email you questions for McCain. Jason
 

Mike — Jason, On my a show, I don’t normally respond to live e-mails or instant messages on the air and I don’t ask listeners to help me frame questions to guests in advance.  It’s a call-in show and when I take calls I prefer live voices, it’s better radio interaction. Since McCain was using the Denver event to focus on economic issues, he asked that we concentrate on that during the brief  8-10 minute interview.  I agreed and oriented my first questions on that topic.  I also threw in a couple of questions on drilling for oil offshore and in ANWR, hoping to nudge McCain to announce a policy change regarding ANWR.  That was my agenda (I think he’d be well advised to do that as good policy and as a vote getter) and it would have been national news had he done so.  (He didn’t bite but when I followed up, he at least said he’d consider it.)  Beyond that, there wasn’t time for much else.  Talk radio isn’t always caller radio.  Only a tiny fraction of listeners ever call.  You seem to think a talk radio show is a democracy.  It isn’t and you can’t let callers program your show.  Talk show hosts that fail to understand that, tend to fail as talk show hosts.

 

If I weren’t watching the MLB All Star game (now in the 13th inning) while answering my e-mails, I’d be in bed by now. Mike

Jason – Thanks. April Zesbaugh simply asked if you wanted to get email suggestions. That’s all. You said no. I see this as closed minded, even arrogant, coming from a talk show host. Jason
 

Mike — Jason, “Close minded” and arrogant?”  Please.  Do you suppose you’re overreacting a bit?  I’ve explained my reasoning to you as best as I can. If you don’t understand or see it differently, so be it. 

 

As a man of the left, you seem to have a collectivist view of most things.  The “Mike Rosen Show” on KOA isn’t a commune.  I haven’t asked listeners to write my scripts in three decades and I’ve never asked them to write questions for my guests.  Perhaps you’re confusing my show with that candidates “debate” involving You Tube submissions, like the stupid snowman on global warming.

 

The last time I had McCain in the studio for an interview, I asked him my own questions but since we had more time, we were also able to take questions from callers.  As I explained earlier, there just wasn’t time for that on this occasion.  

 

Since my approach to talk radio is apparently different from yours, I encourage you to put it to a market test and see how well you’d do with your own show.  Your politics would blend nicely with Jay Marvin’s.  Perhaps he’d let you fill in for him.

 

If you use any of this please quote me accurately and in context if you expect me to respond to you in the future. Mike

Jason – Thanks.
I wrote that you were closed-minded in this instance. I know you allow a variety of callers on your show.
You might have benefited from the input of listeners. That’s my point.
I will say that you pointed out the it was a short segment with McCain that you thought would be more productively spent with your own focused questions. I don’t have space for a long response from you. I will add all of this to my blog, however, if ok with you for all to see.
I try to be fair. Jason
 

Mike – ok.

Posted in Talk Radio | No Comments »

Marvin vs. Polis

June 23rd, 2008

Jay Marvin is Denver’s only local progressive talk show host on commercial radio. You can hear him on AM 760 in the mornings. That’s the Clear Channel Station that carries some Air America programming.

The news media love it when progressives fight each other, just like they love it when conservatives fight among themselves. So when Marvin and congressional candidate Jared Polis got into an argument in mid July, it made news. The Rocky covered the spat and subsequent radio interview here and here.

I heard most of Marvin’s interview with Polis, and I liked it. Aggressive questioning makes for good entertainment, and it’s informative. It makes much better radio than an on-air love fest among progressives on AM 760.

But I had this question for Marvin, which I emailed to him last week:

I must say it was odd that you elected to be so aggressive with him, after being so gentle with the others. Do you have any thoughts on this, for possible use in my column or blog?

Here’s Marvin’s response:

“Sure I do. Things would not have gone down the way they did if he had not come on so strong with myself and my producer John Turk. We told his press people three times the time slot was after 9am. They kept badgering us to put him on earlier. We said no. Then, Polis himself shows up, uninvited, to the station and that puts us in a spot. So John goes down to talk to him, and when he tells Polis we were going to do two hours on child poverty in Colorado he reacted in a negative manner about it. Like it was more important we get him on than the subject we were going to do. So when he came on I asked him to apologize to John, and he wouldn’t. In fact he said he was glad to come on and get my show some publicity! So he wouldn’t say he was sorry he just kept going over the publicity line. When I asked him direct questions he wouldn’t answer them. Then when I hit him with the Swift Boat donor information he didn’t say it was wrong. He said he had turned those people liberal. I checked with two other people running for office, and both said they would have returned the money. In fact he tried to suggest that Udall and Pearlmutter had taken money from  people who gave to the Swift Boat campaign. That got him a blast from Congressman Peralmutter and Senator John Kerry. The easy and right thing to do would have been to say he was sorry, and to say he’d return the money given him. Then his press flack Becker tells the Daily Camera I’m in Joan’s pocket and that it’s all political. I don’t even live in that district, and I do like Joan. But I’m not sure who would be better Joan or Will. I do know this: Polis has got an attitude that just won’t quit and an ego as large as his district. I also think he is trying to buy the election. In short, Polis doesn’t care about anything but himself. Sad.
 

Posted in Talk Radio | No Comments »

The Post, the facts, and Schaffer

June 12th, 2008

For my Rocky column Sat., I asked U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer’s campaign Manager, Dick Wadhams, about Schaffer’s accusation that there were factual errors in The Denver Post’s stories showing that Schaffer defended abusive immigration policies in the Marianas Islands, using tactics promoted by corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

In addition to ripping off Native Americans, Abramoff made big money defending the Marianas Islands’ exploitative immigration policies, which may even have resulted in forced abortions. Abramoff spearheaded a successful lobbying campaign to block immigration reform in the Marianas. Abramoff specifically targeted the House Resources Committee, which had jurisdiction over the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and on which Schaffer was a member. Only last month, after decades of oppositin from Abramoff and Congressmen like Schaffer, did Congress finally pass immigration reform for the Marianas.

As reported in The Post, Schaffer visited Marianas, courtesy of an organization with ties to Abramoff, and defended its immigration policies in Washington DC. Overall, Schaffer’s lobbying tactics aligned with Abramoff’s.

An April 22 report by Colorado Media Matters pointed out that Schaffer, in an interview on KFKA-AM (1310), said The Post’s stories contained “egregious reporting errors” and many facts that were “untrue and complete prevarications.

Asked about these alleged errors, Wadhams couldn’t cite any facts that were wrong in The Post’s stories.

He said the stories were ”designed to give the reader the impression that Bob Schaffer was directly involved with Jack Abramoff.” This, he said was “untrue” and “false.”

I regret not giving The Post a chance in my column to respond to Wadhams’ statement. So I asked The Post’s political editor Curtis Hubbard what the purpose of the stories was.

Hubbard emailed me:

The Post’s reporting relied on documentary evidence showing clear parallels between Jack Abramoff’s lobbying efforts on behalf of the Northern Marianas Islands and its textile manufacturers and the actions of Congressman Bob Schaffer, among others.
 
The lobbying effort included arranging trips to the islands for members of Congress as a way to develop goodwill. Abramoff then pointed to those trips as the basis for being able to successfully stymie legislative attempts to reform labor practices there.
 
The strategy also called for discrediting Interior Department advocates for labor and immigration reform on the islands by Republicans on the House Resources Committee. Documents show numerous meetings between Abramoff (and his staff) and Resource Committee staffers prior to two key hearings – hearings in which Bob Schaffer played a major role and in which he largely worked to discredit the witnesses.
 
Schaffer has said he had no direct contact with Abramoff. If his campaign is claiming he unwittingly implemented Abramoff’s strategy (perhaps at the behest of Resource Committee staffers, the committee’s chairman, or other Republicans), he should make that clear.

If the campaign is claiming that the close similarity between Schaffer’s actions and Abramoff’s plan is pure coincidence, they are free to do so. But it is our responsibility to report those congruencies and let the readers decide.

So The Post’s stories simply stated the facts, and left the reader to decide what to make of it all.When I told Wadhams, who has my respect for talking to me about this, that The Post’s stories didn’t state that there was a direct connection between Schaffer and Abramoff, Wadhams said:

 

Oh spare me. Jason, Jason. Don’t give me that. The intent of the stories was to try to give the reader the impression there was a direct connection. They were written that way. The editors wanted them written that way. They directed they were written that way. Give me a break. What are you talking about?

 

I told Wadhams that Schaffer had taken a more extreme position in his radio interview. Schaffer didn’t talk about the impression the stories created but about facts in the stories. Here’s our exchange on this:

 

Jason: [Schaffer] said there were many facts, actually, not just one, that were wrong, that are just untrue. These stories actually asked the question. They never said that there was a direct connection [between Schaffer and Abramoff].

Wadhams: Oh bullshit. Read the stories, Jason.
  Jason: I’ll read those stories.
 

Wadhams: I’m sure you have and I’m sure you took great glee in those stories, because they did your bidding for you because you are against Schaffer and for Udall. But what’s your point now.
 

Jason: My point is, I don’t think the stories lied.
 

Wadhams: Don’t wrap yourself in objectivity here.
 

In my interview, for a brief moment, Wadhams sort of acknowledged that the stories did not contain factual errors. But he didn’t say that Schaffer misspoke or that Schaffer should clarify his position.  Here’s our exchange:

Jason: Well, there are these facts that you say that The Post got wrong?

Wadhams: No, I said that the stories were designed to give the reader the impression that Bob Schaffer was directly involved with Jack Abramoff. That’s patently untrue and false. That’s what I said. And that is absolutely what we said from the beginning. And we haven’t changed our reaction to those stories.

That’s not what Schaffer said in his radio interview. If I were in Wadhams’ shoes, I’d just admit that Schaffer got it wrong and that The Post’s facts were indeed correct. I’d ask Schaffer himself to explain what he really meant when he said The Post’s facts were wrong.

And I’d tell Schaffer to apologize publicly to The Post.

 

 

 

 

  

   

 

Posted in Media Bias, Denver Post | No Comments »

Clarification

June 9th, 2008

In my last post, I provided Rocky Mountain News reporter Lynn Bartels explanation of why she deleted “Boulder liberal” from a quotation from Dick Wadhams, spokesman for Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer.

I should have made it clear that Bartels will not routinely delete “Boulder liberal” from Wadhams’ quotations in which he refers to Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall of Eldorado Springs as “Boulder liberal Mark Udall.”

She will evaluate Wadhams quotes on a case-by-case basis.

 

Posted in Rocky Mountain News | No Comments »

What Boulder liberal?

June 2nd, 2008

If you’ve been following Colorado’s U.S. Senate race, you know that Colorado Republican Chair Dick Wadhams has trained himself to refer to Rep. Mark Udall as “Boulder liberal Mark Udall.”

 

Whenever Wadhams is quoted, which is quite often because Schaffer apparently doesn’t like to talk to reporters, Wadhams spreads his name-calling propaganda.

 

It’s Wadhams’ PR at its slimiest, and it’s the kind of thing we pay reporters and editors keep in check, for reasons explained here.

 

So it was a relief to see “Boulder liberal” apparently removed from a Wadhams quote in this morning’s Rocky.

Here’s the key passage:

Two days after winning his party’s nomination, U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer went back to a necessary chore in politics: raising money.

 

“A lot of it is one on one,” said Schaffer’s campaign manager, Dick Wadhams. “We’re not going to raise more money than (Democratic congressman) Mark Udall, but we are going to raise what we need to win this race.”

I asked Rocky reporter Lynn Bartels, who wrote the piece, whether she responsibly removed “Boulder liberal” and replaced it with “Democratic congressman). She emailed me:

 

Wadhams said “Boulder liberal Mark Udall” and I only had 10 inches so I didn’t have the space to explain to readers that Udall is not from Boulder and has never lived in the city of Boulder so I used parens.

Posted in Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News | No Comments »

Talk radio illusions

May 30th, 2008

The unreal world of talk radio is multi-dimensional.

 

 

The most destructive illusion is that the topics debated on talk radio are on the minds of most people. In fact, talk radio is actually disconnected from most people’s reality—except a narrow band of folks, which includes many journalists and other influentials, who actually listen to it. 

 

Put it this way. If you and your friends listen to talk radio, and you and your friends happen to be journalists or policy wonks, and you talk together about what you heard on talk radio, you tend to forget that talk radio is irrelevant for most people. Issues on talk radio seem more important than they actually are. 

 

Even savvy media consumers sometimes mistake the talk radio world for the real one.

 

Another illusion is that talk radio is somehow a free and open forum for the people’s voice. I addressed this in my Sat. Rocky column. As you know if you listen to talk radio, these shows are really about the voice of the talk show host, not the voice of the people.

Against this backdrop, is the most serious problem about talk radio. Some of the most popular shows are filled with distortions and outright falsehoods. The talk radio debate about immigration is a tragic case in point.

Colorado Media Matters did a great job analyzing how the issue is treated by some talk radio shows in Denver–as well as other broadcast media. Its report on this topic gives you a good framework to understand the methods used to hype this issue, drum up uninformed fear about it, and in the end boost the ratings of the shows promoting the falsehoods and distortions. Yuck.

Posted in Talk Radio | No Comments »

Free Ride

May 19th, 2008

Here’s my review of Free Ride: John McCain and the Media, by David Brock and Paul Waldman.

Overall, the book provides a great framework to understand McCain, even if there’s not a lot of new material. I thought the section on McCain’s testy relationship with the Arizona news media was particularly interesting.

The book should have had an index, to help researchers.

This version of my review is available for full use by anyone.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Breakdown of breaking news

May 9th, 2008

For my Saturday column, I analyzed the breaking-news emails distributed by The Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News from Feb. 1, 2008, to May 6, 2008.

Here’s a breakdown of the Rocky’s 39 breaking-news emails sent during this period:

21%      sports
18%      crime
15%      election
13%      business
10%      traffic
5%       disaster
5%       national politics (Spitzer stories only)
5%       state politics (Garcia resignation; Benson approval)
3%       international politics (Fidel Castro resigns.)
3%       Iraq War
3%       celebrity (Fishbein dies.)

 

Here’s a breakdown of The Post’s 70 breaking-news alerts emailed during the same period:

 

34%      sports
17%      crime
11%      election
7%       business
7%       traffic
6%       disaster
4%       state politics (Garcia resignation, Bruce “peasants” remark, and Benson approval)
4%       celebrity (Fishbein dies; Ledger overdose; Winehouse visa granted)
3%       national politics (Spitzer stories only)
1%       international politics (Fidel Castro resigns.)
1%       editorial opinion (announcement of The Post’s endorsement of Mitt Romney)
0%       Iraq War

(not equal to 100% due to rounding)

 

As I write in my column, there’s nothing about Congress or the President. Other than the presidential election, the only national political story to make breaking news was Spitzer’s sex scandal. The only breaking news from the Colorado Legislature was the Garcia resignation. There was nothing about the passage of bills in the Colorado Legislature providing health insurance to 50,000 kids who lack it or requiring energy companies to credit customers who use wind or solar power to make electricity.

 

 

Posted in Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News | No Comments »

« Previous Entries