* If it hasn’t been obvious to you that Treasurer Dan Rutherford is openly plotting a move up the political ladder in 2014 (likely to the governor’s office), even after reading his endless stream of Tweets about all the towns he’s visited since the start of the year, then this story might help…
State Treasurer Dan Rutherford, a globetrotting businessman during his tenure as a vice president with ServiceMaster, said he’s paying for his own flight to Beijing.
“My 25 years of experience in the private sector working on international business makes me especially optimistic about the benefits of this trip. I will be given several opportunities to represent Illinois to Chinese businesses with the hope of our state’s economy becoming the beneficiary,” Rutherford said in a prepared statement.
The 13-day trip comes as Gov. Pat Quinn prepares to make a similar visit to the Far East with an eye on selling more Illinois products in China and Japan.
Quinn, who will be gone for 12 days beginning in mid-September, will make stops in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong in China and Tokyo, Japan.
Apparently, this is something of a “me too” trip since Quinn is heading to China next month. According to the AP, the Chinese People’s Institute for Foreign Affairs is paying for Rutherford’s expenses, excluding his flight.
* In other quasi-campaign stuff, Fox News picked up a story that has received pretty much zero coverage in Illinois, and for good reason…
Maybe the Fox folks don’t know that this guy is not even close to being a journalist. Or maybe they do and decided to ding Dick Durbin anyway. Either way, kudos to Jim Anderson of the Illinois Radio Network for not giving in to this “activist” during a media availability.
*** UPDATE 2 *** I just talked to Paul Green, who runs these City Club things. The press conferences have not ever been part of the official City Club lunchtime events. They’re mainly informal gatherings at the Maggiano’s bar.
No longer. From now on, the pressers will be held as part of the City Club festivities and, henceforth, the club will require that reporters show credentials. Security will also be present.
The public Q&A, however, will pretty much proceed as it always has.
[ *** End Of Update 2 *** ]
* Meanwhile, Finke says the State Fair political days should be held every other year…
If the state’s two major political parties decided to drop their special days at the Illinois State Fair in non-election years, would anyone care? Would anyone notice?
It’s been a tradition since forever that Democrats and Republicans each gather for one day at the fair. When an election is coming up, those rallies can be mildly entertaining. Candidates for offices will show up to get some face time with the crowd and media. You can generally count on one or more speakers to deliver a stemwinder to rev everyone up to get out the vote. There’s a general sense of enthusiasm around the place.
Compare that to Governor’s Day and Republican Day this year. It was like everyone was just going through the motions. We’ve always gathered at the fair one day a year, and the fair is on, so let’s get it over with. […]
It’s just that last week’s political days were sort of blah. If they were only held every other year, maybe they would seem a little more special.
Yes, this year’s events were boring and mostly news-free (although I found plenty to write about by ignoring the speeches and working the crowds and the receptions). But, as I’ve said before, that’s because we have no statewide election next year (the first time this has happened since 1999). Some of the bigger crowd turnouts I’ve seen have been in the off-years before a gubernatorial or US Senate election, when tons of primary candidates descend on the fairgrounds. So, switching to a biennial event doesn’t really make any sense.
Asked if he’s thinking about running for governor that year, Dillard gave a quick “yes.”
“I’m going to take a swing down to Williamson County, and I’ll be at the DuQuoin State Fair,” Dillard said. He said even if he doesn’t run statewide, he’ll continue to travel because “I love this state.”
Dillard finished just 193 votes behind state Sen. BILL BRADY, R-Bloomington, in last year’s gubernatorial primary, when more than 750,000 votes were cast. Seven candidates were on that ballot, and Dillard said party and business community leaders should try to avoid such a wide open and expensive contest. […]
“What bothers me most is wasting millions and millions of dollars that Mr. McKenna and others made us waste that Bill Brady could have used to win the governorship,” Dillard said.
* This is just one problem that former state Rep. Mike Boland will have to deal with in the congressional primary…
For example, while serving as a state representative, Mike Boland gave scholarships to the daughter of his largest individual campaign contributor.
She gave $15,891 to Boland’s campaign in 2005 and 2006, and her daughter received a free ride to Western Illinois University. After two years, she transferred to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and her scholarship from Boland followed.
Boland, who left the Legislature earlier this year, now is seeking the Democratic nomination for the 17th Congressional District.
* McHenry County State’s Attorney Louis Bianchi says he’s running for a third term. You will recall that two corruption cases brought against Bianchi were both tossed out of court by a judge this year…
During trials in March and earlier this month, the special prosecutors offered so little evidence that Winnebago County Judge Joseph McGraw–appointed to hear the politically charged cases–acquitted Bianchi before he even presented a defense.
But Bianchi said his decision to seek a third term wasn’t prompted by a desire to repair his image following his legal struggles.
“The satisfaction is already there. I’ve been vindicated,” Bianchi said. “I don’t need another four years for that.”
Instead, Bianchi said if he’s re-elected he wants to continue with programs he instituted during his tenure, including stepped up efforts to collect unpaid fines and court costs, as well as a diversion program that allows first-time offenders to clear their records through public service work and education.
Republican Tom Pliura, a doctor and lawyer from LeRoy, is running against state Rep. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, for the GOP nomination in the 51st Senate District, which stretches from McLean County to the Indiana border.
Pliura, who has not previously held elective office, showed his inexperience as a campaigner during a stop at the state fair Thursday. He was wearing a Cubs hat, thus alienating all of the Cardinals and White Sox fans in the district.
Is there a ‘journalist’ card that is issued for toeing the government line and not asking troubling questions of Senators? Does a free press regulate members in an age of multiple media outlets? Mr. Anderson’s actions were thuggish. I’d say, let anyone ask a question at a news conference, and, if you are a real journalist, insist that the politician answer it.
Your statement may be true in a primary, but in a General Election, and against Quinn, do you think the Tea Party would go third-party, or follow the William F. Buckley rule? Buckley said to, “nominate the most conservative candidate that is electable. I would argue that the Tea Party may remember this, and even vote for either guy during the Primary, and certainly would in the General.
===Or maybe they do and decided to ding Dick Durbin anyway===
Yes, I think they know this blowhard and ran with it anyway because well, why not hit Durbin?
William Kelly is a “journalist” in the sense that his journal is all about himself, he is the star of all of his “stories.” He pushed this via Breitbart, Drudge and other fringe outlets, so it was only a matter of time before Fox got on it.
Didn’t he so something similar with Rahm at a parade? It’s pathetic and it dimishes the role of actual journalists who are trying to get a story out that actually informs readers about, you know, news as opposed to the latest turn in William Kelly’s wacky world.
Independent columnists like Kelly destroy the trust that has developed between reporters and politicians, which is based on mutual respect for the nature of the other person’s job. This seems to be a trend in journalism where everybody is becoming a columnist.
Pols can be expected to limit their own availability if reporters cannot guarantee the sanctity of the setting–that the discourse will not devolve into attacks.
“Anybody the Tea Party backs will lose in a statewide election in Illinois.”
Not necessarily true. Any candidate who is 100% Tea Party would lose, but if the Tea Party backs a Republican candidate considered “mainstream” they will elect the most conservative candidate.
Not every Tea Party is ideologue, some are very pragmatic and see their influence as long term, and are not seeking instant gratification.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 2:46 pm:
I don’t have time to wast with the story today; but I am curious to know who; or what is the authority on determining who is and who is not a “journalist”.
Is there a board that sets standards for certification and issues credentials?
Is a columnist i.e. Carol Marin (left), Pat Buchanan (right), considered a “journalist” even though there output is opinion rather than a recitation of the facts?
What about Markos Moulitsas, Arianna Huffington, Matt Drudge, and Rich Miller for that matter? Are they “journalists”?
Who decides?
Are there membership dues; a secret handshake or password required in order to be included?
It seems like the new mass media world could still be in a state of confusion as to what a “journalist” is, and who qualifies and who does not.
===It seems like the new mass media world could still be in a state of confusion as to what a “journalist” is, and who qualifies and who does not.===
You are right and I generally lean in favor of a very open and inclusive policy about who is and is not a reporter. But this guy doesn’t even come close. He’s a political activist masquerading as a journalist. Period.
I’ll probably regret getting involved, but since Jim Anderson - my boss - is on vacation, here goes.
William Kelly’s standing is approximately that of a person who writes letters to the editor or who calls in to talk shows. His online writings appear on the “community” section of the Washington Times’ web site. He has hosted radio shows on a time-brokered basis; he purchases the time and uses it to host a show. Whether that puts him above, below, or even with the likes of Jim I will leave for others to decide.
But what William Kelly is is a gate crasher.
The video is of an event following Sen. Durbin’s speech to the City Club. The event was time for reporters to ask Durbin questions. Kelly’s questioning barged into Durbin answering one of Jim’s questions.
I’ve had some encounters with William Kelly in the past and have no problem with him except for when his actions interfere with me doing my job.
Anderson’s response was absolutely appropriate. It is impossible to treat Kelly with courtesy or respect — or rather, treating him with courtesy only serves to encourage him to be more obnoxious and intrusive. I think that anyone who is committed to bringing information to the larger public counts as a journalist and deserves respectful treatment — and it doesn’t matter whether their end product involves electrons or dead trees. But Kelly is just appalling. He’s trying to do one-man street theater, and he makes it impossible for the rest of the folks to do their jobs, on either side of the podium.
===My understanding is that City Club news conferences are open to anyone who has questions. ===
This didn’t happen at a City Club event.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:06 pm:
{You are right and I generally lean in favor of a very open and inclusive policy about who is and is not a reporter. But this guy doesn’t even come close. He’s a political activist masquerading as a journalist. Period. }
That in part is my point though. Who decides? What about Dan Proft? Ray Hanania? Fran Eaton? How about that wing-nut lady ( I forget her name) that writes the 10th Dem’s Blog?
Defining a “journalist” today is reminiscent of United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for pornography in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
(Oh the irony of that, LOL).
Obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and can therefore be censored.
“ I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [”hard-core pornography”]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.]”
-Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.
In this case the arbiter was the Supreme Court of the United States. Is there any case law which establishes criteria and credentials for who, and who is not a journalist?
Could the Cook County State’s Attorney’s case against Northwestern University’s “Innocence Project” be instrumental in guiding the court to establish parameters of what a journailst is, and who is one, and who is not?
It would seem like in order to address that case, they will have to address that underlying question in some way.
===That in part is my point though. Who decides?===
In some ways, it’s other journalists who decide, as in who gets access to the press room or membership in a press association. But out in the world, people will try to elbow their way in (as I had to do long ago).
The 1st Amendment is very broad. And this guy has a right to speak his mind. But he also should expect that working jouros will push back against such an obvious impostor.
JP, I’ve done the City Club at Maggiano’s several times. When you speak, you’re in the front of the room and usually standing - although once I was sitting during a panel discussion.
This was not at the public event. This was after.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:21 pm:
{In some ways, it’s other journalists who decide, as in who gets access to the press room or membership in a press association. But out in the world, people will try to elbow their way in (as I had to do long ago).
That follows the same logic as those who thought they could decide who can and can not swim at Rainbow Beach. You obvioulsy recognized the injustice directed at you, and persevered and overcame the exclusionary tactics inflicted upon you. Who is to say that this guy is not now doing the same.
Perhaps journalism should become a licensed profession, where certain educational requirements come into play which must be separately tested and validated against established uniform standards.
If you want to be a lawyer, doctor, architect, accountant, real estate or insurance broker, etc., meet the minimum edicational requirements, pass the test, and meet the continuing education requirements ascribed to the profession, otherwise you are not “admitted” to practice by the entity having jurisdiction to grant or deny admission.
For a lone wolf, or a bunch of others to get together and decide who does, and does not belong however, will more likely than not result in discrimination and injustice, and there should be a reasonably easy way to institutionalize the “profession”.
Besides, I have long held that there is a significant percentage of the “journalism” community that should be institutionalized anyway, LOL.
===Perhaps journalism should become a licensed profession===
Sorry, but that’s the dumbest idea you’ve ever had.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:31 pm:
{Sorry, but that’s the dumbest idea you’ve ever had.}
Who there pardner, I’ll readily admit that there is some stiff competiton in that universe of “ideas”, but don’t shoot the messenger.
That is not an “idea” per se, bit rather a suggestion to provoke thought about how this issue of who is, and who isn’t gets decided.
As in the case of pornography, and the “Innocence Project” case, it may well ultimately be the courts that decide, and as we have seen on a wide range of issues, that is not always the best result.
As a consequence, I’d like to hear from you and others as to what is a fair and equitable way to determine who is included, and who is not as a journailist, and who you think is best suited to determine that other than the courts.
Letting the foxc guard the hen house however has already been tested, and that didn’t work out so well for the hens.
Ironic that this right-wing rabble-rouser gets Fox attention, but I haven’t seen them take issue w/ the Rep. Congresscritters who are holding paid admission only town hall meetings to keep opponents from confronting them.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:44 pm:
Let’s use this as a point of discussion:
Illinois’s shield law, located at 75 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/8-901 to 8-909, states in relevant part:
Sec. 8‑901. Source of information.
No court may compel any person to disclose the source of any information obtained by a reporter except as provided in [the other provisions of the shield law].
Sec. 8‑902. Definitions.
(a) “Reporter” means any person regularly engaged in the business of collecting, writing or editing news for publication through a news medium on a full‑time or part‑time basis . . . .
(b) “News medium” means any newspaper or other periodical issued at regular intervals whether in print or electronic format and having a general circulation; a news service whether in print or electronic format; a radio station; a television station; a television network; a community antenna television service; and any person or corporation engaged in the making of news reels or other motion picture news for public showing.
(c) “Source” means the person or means from or through which the news or information was obtained.
On this basis; what about information released in the “subscribers only” section of your site?
Would you expect to be protected from being required to disclose a source of information which was released in that medium?
Wouild the “subscribers only” section qualify as a medium of “general circulation”?
In a case involving information provided by an undisclosed source and released in the “subscribers only” section of this medium, could you reasonably expect to be shilded from disclosing the source of that information, if some party in court was compelling you to do so?
In that instance presumably you would mount a defense based on qualifying yourself as a “reporter”, but if the information is only disclosed in the “subscribers only” section could that disqualify you as being a reporter?
I suspect that this is something that you would want more clearly defined, and I would have to think some of your sources would as well.
Good for Jim Anderson for having the nuts to threaten that loon Kelly with having the cops throw him out - not sure that Anderson could actually summon the cops, but good for him anyway.
Kelly does nothing to advance any sort of a constructive dialogue with public officials. He just shows up where the cameras are, and then attempts to make enough noise to embarrass his target and cause an incident in order to draw attention to himself. Whatever message he is attempting to convey (or superimpose on his target) is secondary to his own self-perceived showmanship.
Perhaps that could be a good measuring stick for determining whether somebody actually qualifies as a journalist: Are they sincerely interested in gathering information for purposes of advancing a constructive public dialogue, or are they merely interested in making a public stink for purposes of drawing attention to themselves? Based on his repeated and consistent actions, Kelly clearly falls into the latter.
Having no prior knowledge of or experience with Kelly, and therefore looking at the video with fresh eyes (and a lack of bias affecting whom the real professional journalists are and who the impostor gadflies are that were asking questions of Durbin) I hope you’ll permit me to offer this observation: It looks really bad for a reporter to be deflecting questions away from a politician to assist/protect him from having to answer another reporter’s query. Why would not any reporter be interested to hear what a pol had to say in response to almost any on-topic question from someone else? Durbin did not come out particularly well, either, in appearing to be willing to have others run interference for him during a “media availability”.
===It looks really bad for a reporter to be deflecting questions away from a politician to assist/protect him from having to answer another reporter’s query===
LOL
First, too bad if it looks bad. It is what it is. A reporter told a self-promoting politician and activist to go away.
Second, said politco/activist was stepping on the reproter’s question, which makes us a bit angry.
Third, he was making statements, not asking questions - and quite a few false statements at that.
Fourth, you should try to educate yourself on him first. “Fresh” eyes can mean uneducated eyes, and I’m not interested in those.
Rutherford has goes to every rinky-dink town he can find and radio station and new interview. He goes everywhere–with the possible exception of his office.
Based on his Facebook and Twitter updates, I would take the food in Rutherford’s fridge anyday over what is probably in Quinn’s fridge. Sure it’s a little corny, but there’s no question that it’s real. Rutherford’s work ethic makes Quinn look tired before 10am. It’s pretty clear that Brady is not going to run. Dillard is a smart guy. So is Rutherford. A Dillard-Rutherford ticket would be nearly impossible to beat, but it has to be based on the future, not just Dillard being Edgar’s former Chief of Staff. Ultimately, the union’s will decide how much they trust Quinn and whether to support him again. I’d say that’s tenuous right now –at best. The field is wide open and if Rutherford can pick up some business for Illinois in China, then God bless him. He’s got a better track record of that than Quinn does.
Rich–you are a very smart man and uber-savvy when it come to politics and political players. That’s why I try to check in here several times a week. Believe me I was not trying to rile you up.
But surely you also realize that there are a whole lot more “fresh” and “uneducated” eyes out there who saw that vid and got an impression from it, than there are Illinois political insiders that profess to know who all the players and batting averages are on the journalism roster. That’s why I think what it “looks like” to regular people does have some relevance both for the media community and for Sen. Durbin. That’s all.
Sure, Responsa, but here’s the thing: Journalists aren’t running for office. The optics of how we do press conferences is not our problem, nor should it be.
@ Dave — you think Lisa Madigan would run again Quinn? Not that I wouldn’t be tickled pink to see a legitimate primary contender against Quinn –and I really do like Lisa too — but it’s seems unlikely. Maybe she should schedule a trip to China too
I’ve been thinking a lot about the LWV lawsuit, esp. in the context of the right of association and effective speech. I think about this scenario. As an R, perhaps I prefer to live where my vote can help elect local R legislators. So, let’s say I choose to live in Kendall county, in a strongly R area. The legislative and political processes could in no way ever force me to move to Chicago. However, for voting purposes they could effectively move me, by gerrymandering my neighborhood, or my block, or even just my house into a district with it’s vast majority in Chicago, accomplishing the same effective outcome.
When I think about the issue like that, it bothers me far more than it ever has in the past. Am I thinking wrong-headed about this?
Fox doesn’t surprise me much any more. Their non-reporting of Ron Paul’s close second in the Iowa Straw Poll seemed really wierd, though I’m not a dyed in the wool Ron Paul fan, and O’Reily sounding more and more like a placator. So, airing this bit simply doesn’t surprise me. They appear to be coming unraveled.
I would have liked to see Durbin more poised and sharper.
Also, Katie Halper did a great job! Loved it!
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:56 pm:
{Also, QTS, this standard has indeed been litigated, all the way up to the appellate level.}
Citations? I’d like to look at those, because presumably those might be the basis for or against the sorce information arguments in the “Innocence Project” case.
Given the foundation of law that exists however, which you believe qualifies you as a “reporter” as defined by the law, can you point to any facts that would exclude this guy as a “reporter” as defined under the law. We already know your opinion, but how does your opinion square with the law?
If it doesn’t, then just your opinion that this guy is not a “journalist” does not make it so.
==If Sen. Durbin won’t answer William Kelly’s question, he has something to hide. Jim Anderson was very disrespectful and inconsiderate.==
I wouldn’t have answered his stupid questions either. I don’t believe that elected officials should have to put up with obvious partisan badgering cloaked as “questioning.” Some people think that public officials have to answer to them just because they are a public official. I am not in that group. If I were an elected official I would ignore the idiots just the same as Durbin was ignoring this particular idiot.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 5:19 pm:
{I wouldn’t have answered his stupid questions either. I don’t believe that elected officials should have to put up with obvious partisan badgering cloaked as “questioning.”}
This approach could substantially eliminate a lot of questions as well as qustioners.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 5:34 pm:
“… I know it when I see it …”
While admittedly on specialized topics, I have a record of publishing several books, editing several other books, and, in a totally different field, for the past 4 years editing / writing an award winning quarterly club newsletter with a paid circulation of approximately 400. None of that was in what would be considered the political arena. However, I get invites to media events and been offered media credentials at certain events.
Can someone explain how a video “has gone viral” while at the same time, people “probably haven’t seen it”? Isn’t the very definition of a video going viral that a ton of people have seen it??
Rich, if you would please indulge me, while we can all stipulate that this Kelley guy was just a buttinski, the event opens up a wider discussion that could be of merit, about how and where the lines are drawn in today’s journalistic world.
I remember when YOU were the man on the outside, looked at askance by the established media, and it took you a while to get credentialed and respected by the press association members, as I recall, because they didn’t “get” this newfangled internet thing. If your words weren’t printed on dead trees, or sent out over licensed FCC airwaves, you didn’t count. But eventually your hard work paid off and without trying to suck up to you, I don’t think there’s anyone around today who would deny what you do is legit journalism, plus some analysis and opinion, clearly marked as such.
What Kelley did is nothing new. I saw a similar thing happen once in Edgar’s capitol building office, where there was a gangbang of credentialed media types asking questions, and a guy from Chicago shows up with a Marantz cassette recorder and a mic, looking like any one of the other guys. But he wasn’t.
He had a mimeographed and faxed (in imitation of you and/or Drudge) community “paper” he bankrolled himself via inheritance money, where he was the editor, publisher, reporter, and delivery boy. If you remember Springfield cable guy Dan Bull, the guy I’m talking about was kind of similar, philosophically. His “paper” was basically a Rush Limbaugh/Newt Gingrich fan club, with an Illinois emphasis. And his deal was to come in pretending to be a journalist so he could sandbag Edgar with pointed “questions” that were worded as accusations and innuendo.
Edgar’s detail quickly escorted this guy out after the second such loaded question. Nobody then thought anything of it, because the kid wasn’t even trying to be “legit” media. Had he posed a few warm-up questions that were fair, he might have been able to stay. He came in with his agenda practically printed on the back of his jacket. He came so he could manufacture a quote later and make it seem legitimate, because he could say he’d actually asked it to Edgar’s face, so everybody knew him immediately for what he was.
These days, you see the technique used more and more on the right and the far right, with tea-partiers practically assaulting pols like Shakowski and Durbin and others. They make even less pretense now at being legit newsgatherers. They actually try to *avoid* getting into an actual dialog with their victims, they just come in to drop a word bomb and get it on tape to take back and replay as a trophy.
Sorry to go on so long to get back around to the question, but here it is: If old media conventions like press associations are no longer as valid or *exclusively* valid of a gatekeeper for legit reportage, what mind of standard can we hold up as a yardstick, to say if this reporter is the real deal, though with tiny circulation, and this other one is a sham? It can’t just be an informal “club” anymore, not in this day and age. Would you say it takes at least a j-degree? What else?
I am about as conservative as it gets. I am no fan of Dick Durbin. However William Kelly has a long track record of grandstanding and this is just another chapter. He once stole a Christmas display from the capitol building. He is always running down some politician and shouting 90 second monologues before he spouts a loaded question. People like Kelly do not help the conservative cause, and most often they are picked up by the media as standard bearers for conservatives instead of the buffoons that they are.
Was my comment/question pulled for being too rambling? I apologize if so. But I’d still like an answer about what *objective* criteria we should apply these days to define a legit journalist from an obvious troll. A Journalism degree at least? Being on the payroll of a recognized journalistic enterprise? And if so, “recognized” by whom? Other journalists, I suppose. What I’m driving at is that the line is very blurry these days: we can tell the extremes pretty easily, but the subtle ones are the most dangerous ones, IMO. Without a defined standard, do we face a world without ANY standards?
@ Dave - so what are your other suggestions for the ticket that would take down Quinn? I’m not being argumentative, just curious to see some expanded info on who you think (either party) could be the better ticket.
There is very little doubt that Dan Rutherford is planning on running for Governor of Illinois. And, Dan will probably make a very excellent choice for one. Bill Brady has tried enough times that voters are veiwing him as another Jim Oberweiss (tries hard but just can’t get the job done).The Illinois Republican Party and Pat Brady will eventually have to realize that they can’t sell a Nash Rambler when the public is actually wanting to buy a Ford Mustang. Dan Rutherford would prove to be a good fit for the Illinois GOP.
WWilson pickett. How many times did rutherford run before he was elected against a very weak candidate. Now he looks like rod blagoofy, he cant refuse a microphone
–Dillard and rutherford do nothing for me-the party needs a fresh break and I can’t see the tea party backing either of them0–
You say that like it’s a negative thing.
The party — GOP — needs to cast out the ignorant yabbos, knuckle-draggers, snake handlers and mouth breathers and take a strong leadership position in the very important issues of war and peace in this country. Lord knows we could use a real GOP.
If Mitt is willing to smack down the chowderheads who’ve hijacked the words”conservative” and “Republican” I’ll sign up and stick around til the last dog dies.
I don;t consider myself a journlaist any more. I was ong ago but since shifted over to commentator, which I don’t classify as a journalist or a reporter at all. Commentators may be former journalists with experience covering politics, as I have. And now I engage in media relations (upfront and above board, nothing hidden there) expressing my honest view of issues with an upfront transparency about my political opinions. I’d gladly return to fulltime journalism 1)if there were any real positions open and 2) if a person could make a decent living. But journalism is for young people who don’t have to worry about paying their bills and older people who don’t care about making a decent living and paying for a family. Sad but tragic truth about journalism today.
Ray Hanania
- walter sobchak - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 1:31 pm:
Is there a ‘journalist’ card that is issued for toeing the government line and not asking troubling questions of Senators? Does a free press regulate members in an age of multiple media outlets? Mr. Anderson’s actions were thuggish. I’d say, let anyone ask a question at a news conference, and, if you are a real journalist, insist that the politician answer it.
- Just Because - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 1:33 pm:
I would like to see Rutherford team up with Dillard. Let dillard run for gov and Rutherford run for LT gov. I would support the TEAM!
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 1:34 pm:
===I’d say, let anyone ask a question at a news conference===
News conferences are for reporters, not for political gadflies.
- Shore - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 1:37 pm:
Dillard and rutherford do nothing for me-the party needs a fresh break and I can’t see the tea party backing either of them.
- Alex - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 1:41 pm:
Any time a journalist says “don’t touch me,” they probably are doing something wrong.
- Cincinnatus - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 1:44 pm:
Shore,
Your statement may be true in a primary, but in a General Election, and against Quinn, do you think the Tea Party would go third-party, or follow the William F. Buckley rule? Buckley said to, “nominate the most conservative candidate that is electable. I would argue that the Tea Party may remember this, and even vote for either guy during the Primary, and certainly would in the General.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 1:46 pm:
===Or maybe they do and decided to ding Dick Durbin anyway===
Yes, I think they know this blowhard and ran with it anyway because well, why not hit Durbin?
William Kelly is a “journalist” in the sense that his journal is all about himself, he is the star of all of his “stories.” He pushed this via Breitbart, Drudge and other fringe outlets, so it was only a matter of time before Fox got on it.
Didn’t he so something similar with Rahm at a parade? It’s pathetic and it dimishes the role of actual journalists who are trying to get a story out that actually informs readers about, you know, news as opposed to the latest turn in William Kelly’s wacky world.
- Its Just Me - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 1:56 pm:
Anybody the Tea Party backs will lose in a statewide election in Illinois.
- Rudy - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 2:01 pm:
Independent columnists like Kelly destroy the trust that has developed between reporters and politicians, which is based on mutual respect for the nature of the other person’s job. This seems to be a trend in journalism where everybody is becoming a columnist.
Pols can be expected to limit their own availability if reporters cannot guarantee the sanctity of the setting–that the discourse will not devolve into attacks.
- Cincinnatus - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 2:02 pm:
- Its Just Me - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 1:56 pm:
“Anybody the Tea Party backs will lose in a statewide election in Illinois.”
Not necessarily true. Any candidate who is 100% Tea Party would lose, but if the Tea Party backs a Republican candidate considered “mainstream” they will elect the most conservative candidate.
Not every Tea Party is ideologue, some are very pragmatic and see their influence as long term, and are not seeking instant gratification.
- walter sobchak - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 2:27 pm:
“News conferences are for reporters, not for political gadflies.” One man’s Mede is another man’s Persian.
- Anonymous - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 2:28 pm:
I wonder what Dillard is going to do in Williamson County? He isn’t going to the state fair in Wiliamson County, that’s for sure.
- Cincinnatus - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 2:35 pm:
Anaoymous,
How about this:
http://www.travelmath.com/airport/MWA
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 2:46 pm:
I don’t have time to wast with the story today; but I am curious to know who; or what is the authority on determining who is and who is not a “journalist”.
Is there a board that sets standards for certification and issues credentials?
Is a columnist i.e. Carol Marin (left), Pat Buchanan (right), considered a “journalist” even though there output is opinion rather than a recitation of the facts?
What about Markos Moulitsas, Arianna Huffington, Matt Drudge, and Rich Miller for that matter? Are they “journalists”?
Who decides?
Are there membership dues; a secret handshake or password required in order to be included?
It seems like the new mass media world could still be in a state of confusion as to what a “journalist” is, and who qualifies and who does not.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 2:55 pm:
===It seems like the new mass media world could still be in a state of confusion as to what a “journalist” is, and who qualifies and who does not.===
You are right and I generally lean in favor of a very open and inclusive policy about who is and is not a reporter. But this guy doesn’t even come close. He’s a political activist masquerading as a journalist. Period.
- JP - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 2:57 pm:
My understanding is that City Club news conferences are open to anyone who has questions. There is no restriction on who can and cannot ask questions.
Durbin doesn’t have to answer the (in this case, rather simple) question, but that is a matter of Durbin being evasive, not a media policy.
- Meanderthal - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 2:58 pm:
I am surprised by the Rutherford bashing. He is the kind of GOPer the media usually likes.
- Dave Dahl - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:02 pm:
I’ll probably regret getting involved, but since Jim Anderson - my boss - is on vacation, here goes.
William Kelly’s standing is approximately that of a person who writes letters to the editor or who calls in to talk shows. His online writings appear on the “community” section of the Washington Times’ web site. He has hosted radio shows on a time-brokered basis; he purchases the time and uses it to host a show. Whether that puts him above, below, or even with the likes of Jim I will leave for others to decide.
But what William Kelly is is a gate crasher.
The video is of an event following Sen. Durbin’s speech to the City Club. The event was time for reporters to ask Durbin questions. Kelly’s questioning barged into Durbin answering one of Jim’s questions.
I’ve had some encounters with William Kelly in the past and have no problem with him except for when his actions interfere with me doing my job.
That’s all there is to it.
- soccermom - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:04 pm:
Anderson’s response was absolutely appropriate. It is impossible to treat Kelly with courtesy or respect — or rather, treating him with courtesy only serves to encourage him to be more obnoxious and intrusive. I think that anyone who is committed to bringing information to the larger public counts as a journalist and deserves respectful treatment — and it doesn’t matter whether their end product involves electrons or dead trees. But Kelly is just appalling. He’s trying to do one-man street theater, and he makes it impossible for the rest of the folks to do their jobs, on either side of the podium.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:05 pm:
===My understanding is that City Club news conferences are open to anyone who has questions. ===
This didn’t happen at a City Club event.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:06 pm:
{You are right and I generally lean in favor of a very open and inclusive policy about who is and is not a reporter. But this guy doesn’t even come close. He’s a political activist masquerading as a journalist. Period. }
That in part is my point though. Who decides? What about Dan Proft? Ray Hanania? Fran Eaton? How about that wing-nut lady ( I forget her name) that writes the 10th Dem’s Blog?
Defining a “journalist” today is reminiscent of United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for pornography in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
(Oh the irony of that, LOL).
Obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and can therefore be censored.
“ I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [”hard-core pornography”]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. [Emphasis added.]”
-Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers.
In this case the arbiter was the Supreme Court of the United States. Is there any case law which establishes criteria and credentials for who, and who is not a journalist?
Could the Cook County State’s Attorney’s case against Northwestern University’s “Innocence Project” be instrumental in guiding the court to establish parameters of what a journailst is, and who is one, and who is not?
It would seem like in order to address that case, they will have to address that underlying question in some way.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:10 pm:
===That in part is my point though. Who decides?===
In some ways, it’s other journalists who decide, as in who gets access to the press room or membership in a press association. But out in the world, people will try to elbow their way in (as I had to do long ago).
The 1st Amendment is very broad. And this guy has a right to speak his mind. But he also should expect that working jouros will push back against such an obvious impostor.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:11 pm:
Meanderthal, nobody is immune here.
- JP - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:14 pm:
Warner Todd Houston has stated this was at the City Club, and it sure looks like Maggiano’s on Grand.
http://www.publiusforum.com/2011/08/11/once-ag
ain-reporters-try-to-decide-who-is-allowed-to-be-the-press/
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:20 pm:
JP, I’ve done the City Club at Maggiano’s several times. When you speak, you’re in the front of the room and usually standing - although once I was sitting during a panel discussion.
This was not at the public event. This was after.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:21 pm:
{In some ways, it’s other journalists who decide, as in who gets access to the press room or membership in a press association. But out in the world, people will try to elbow their way in (as I had to do long ago).
That follows the same logic as those who thought they could decide who can and can not swim at Rainbow Beach. You obvioulsy recognized the injustice directed at you, and persevered and overcame the exclusionary tactics inflicted upon you. Who is to say that this guy is not now doing the same.
Perhaps journalism should become a licensed profession, where certain educational requirements come into play which must be separately tested and validated against established uniform standards.
If you want to be a lawyer, doctor, architect, accountant, real estate or insurance broker, etc., meet the minimum edicational requirements, pass the test, and meet the continuing education requirements ascribed to the profession, otherwise you are not “admitted” to practice by the entity having jurisdiction to grant or deny admission.
For a lone wolf, or a bunch of others to get together and decide who does, and does not belong however, will more likely than not result in discrimination and injustice, and there should be a reasonably easy way to institutionalize the “profession”.
Besides, I have long held that there is a significant percentage of the “journalism” community that should be institutionalized anyway, LOL.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:22 pm:
Also, Houston is absolutely wrong when he wrote this..
===[Anderson’s] status as a reporter is barely more advanced than Kelly’s===
Please.
Kelly is not a journalist. It’s troubling that Houston cannot see through this pretty thin facade.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:23 pm:
===Perhaps journalism should become a licensed profession===
Sorry, but that’s the dumbest idea you’ve ever had.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:31 pm:
{Sorry, but that’s the dumbest idea you’ve ever had.}
Who there pardner, I’ll readily admit that there is some stiff competiton in that universe of “ideas”, but don’t shoot the messenger.
That is not an “idea” per se, bit rather a suggestion to provoke thought about how this issue of who is, and who isn’t gets decided.
As in the case of pornography, and the “Innocence Project” case, it may well ultimately be the courts that decide, and as we have seen on a wide range of issues, that is not always the best result.
As a consequence, I’d like to hear from you and others as to what is a fair and equitable way to determine who is included, and who is not as a journailist, and who you think is best suited to determine that other than the courts.
Letting the foxc guard the hen house however has already been tested, and that didn’t work out so well for the hens.
- D.P. Gumby - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:35 pm:
Ironic that this right-wing rabble-rouser gets Fox attention, but I haven’t seen them take issue w/ the Rep. Congresscritters who are holding paid admission only town hall meetings to keep opponents from confronting them.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:44 pm:
Let’s use this as a point of discussion:
Illinois’s shield law, located at 75 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/8-901 to 8-909, states in relevant part:
Sec. 8‑901. Source of information.
No court may compel any person to disclose the source of any information obtained by a reporter except as provided in [the other provisions of the shield law].
Sec. 8‑902. Definitions.
(a) “Reporter” means any person regularly engaged in the business of collecting, writing or editing news for publication through a news medium on a full‑time or part‑time basis . . . .
(b) “News medium” means any newspaper or other periodical issued at regular intervals whether in print or electronic format and having a general circulation; a news service whether in print or electronic format; a radio station; a television station; a television network; a community antenna television service; and any person or corporation engaged in the making of news reels or other motion picture news for public showing.
(c) “Source” means the person or means from or through which the news or information was obtained.
On this basis; what about information released in the “subscribers only” section of your site?
Would you expect to be protected from being required to disclose a source of information which was released in that medium?
Wouild the “subscribers only” section qualify as a medium of “general circulation”?
In a case involving information provided by an undisclosed source and released in the “subscribers only” section of this medium, could you reasonably expect to be shilded from disclosing the source of that information, if some party in court was compelling you to do so?
In that instance presumably you would mount a defense based on qualifying yourself as a “reporter”, but if the information is only disclosed in the “subscribers only” section could that disqualify you as being a reporter?
I suspect that this is something that you would want more clearly defined, and I would have to think some of your sources would as well.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:48 pm:
Newspapers charge for their “general circulation” newsprint versions as well, so I am obviously covered.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:50 pm:
Also, I clearly qualify under “a news service whether in print or electronic format.”
You’re looking for something that’s not there.
- Coach - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:50 pm:
Good for Jim Anderson for having the nuts to threaten that loon Kelly with having the cops throw him out - not sure that Anderson could actually summon the cops, but good for him anyway.
Kelly does nothing to advance any sort of a constructive dialogue with public officials. He just shows up where the cameras are, and then attempts to make enough noise to embarrass his target and cause an incident in order to draw attention to himself. Whatever message he is attempting to convey (or superimpose on his target) is secondary to his own self-perceived showmanship.
Perhaps that could be a good measuring stick for determining whether somebody actually qualifies as a journalist: Are they sincerely interested in gathering information for purposes of advancing a constructive public dialogue, or are they merely interested in making a public stink for purposes of drawing attention to themselves? Based on his repeated and consistent actions, Kelly clearly falls into the latter.
- Responsa - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 3:53 pm:
Having no prior knowledge of or experience with Kelly, and therefore looking at the video with fresh eyes (and a lack of bias affecting whom the real professional journalists are and who the impostor gadflies are that were asking questions of Durbin) I hope you’ll permit me to offer this observation: It looks really bad for a reporter to be deflecting questions away from a politician to assist/protect him from having to answer another reporter’s query. Why would not any reporter be interested to hear what a pol had to say in response to almost any on-topic question from someone else? Durbin did not come out particularly well, either, in appearing to be willing to have others run interference for him during a “media availability”.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:00 pm:
===It looks really bad for a reporter to be deflecting questions away from a politician to assist/protect him from having to answer another reporter’s query===
LOL
First, too bad if it looks bad. It is what it is. A reporter told a self-promoting politician and activist to go away.
Second, said politco/activist was stepping on the reproter’s question, which makes us a bit angry.
Third, he was making statements, not asking questions - and quite a few false statements at that.
Fourth, you should try to educate yourself on him first. “Fresh” eyes can mean uneducated eyes, and I’m not interested in those.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:02 pm:
Also, QTS, this standard has indeed been litigated, all the way up to the appellate level.
- So. ILL - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:11 pm:
==- Its Just Me - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 1:56 pm:
Anybody the Tea Party backs will lose in a statewide election in Illinois. ==
Totally agree. See Adam Andrzejeweski.
- Louis XVI - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:12 pm:
Rutherford has goes to every rinky-dink town he can find and radio station and new interview. He goes everywhere–with the possible exception of his office.
- dznuts - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:15 pm:
Based on his Facebook and Twitter updates, I would take the food in Rutherford’s fridge anyday over what is probably in Quinn’s fridge. Sure it’s a little corny, but there’s no question that it’s real. Rutherford’s work ethic makes Quinn look tired before 10am. It’s pretty clear that Brady is not going to run. Dillard is a smart guy. So is Rutherford. A Dillard-Rutherford ticket would be nearly impossible to beat, but it has to be based on the future, not just Dillard being Edgar’s former Chief of Staff. Ultimately, the union’s will decide how much they trust Quinn and whether to support him again. I’d say that’s tenuous right now –at best. The field is wide open and if Rutherford can pick up some business for Illinois in China, then God bless him. He’s got a better track record of that than Quinn does.
- Conservative Veteran - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:22 pm:
If Sen. Durbin won’t answer William Kelly’s question, he has something to hide. Jim Anderson was very disrespectful and inconsiderate.
- Responsa - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:23 pm:
Rich–you are a very smart man and uber-savvy when it come to politics and political players. That’s why I try to check in here several times a week. Believe me I was not trying to rile you up.
But surely you also realize that there are a whole lot more “fresh” and “uneducated” eyes out there who saw that vid and got an impression from it, than there are Illinois political insiders that profess to know who all the players and batting averages are on the journalism roster. That’s why I think what it “looks like” to regular people does have some relevance both for the media community and for Sen. Durbin. That’s all.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:24 pm:
Sure, Responsa, but here’s the thing: Journalists aren’t running for office. The optics of how we do press conferences is not our problem, nor should it be.
- dave - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:25 pm:
A Dillard-Rutherford ticket would be nearly impossible to beat
LOL - Lisa Madigan might have something to say about that.
- dznuts - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:28 pm:
@ Dave — you think Lisa Madigan would run again Quinn? Not that I wouldn’t be tickled pink to see a legitimate primary contender against Quinn –and I really do like Lisa too — but it’s seems unlikely. Maybe she should schedule a trip to China too
- steve schnorf - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:36 pm:
I’ve been thinking a lot about the LWV lawsuit, esp. in the context of the right of association and effective speech. I think about this scenario. As an R, perhaps I prefer to live where my vote can help elect local R legislators. So, let’s say I choose to live in Kendall county, in a strongly R area. The legislative and political processes could in no way ever force me to move to Chicago. However, for voting purposes they could effectively move me, by gerrymandering my neighborhood, or my block, or even just my house into a district with it’s vast majority in Chicago, accomplishing the same effective outcome.
When I think about the issue like that, it bothers me far more than it ever has in the past. Am I thinking wrong-headed about this?
- Coach - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:38 pm:
FYI, Kelly published a lengthy rebuttal defending his supposed media credentials …
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighb
orhood/bill-kellys-truth-squad/2011/aug/11/media-c
over-up-durbin-confrontation-reporter/
- just sayin' - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:43 pm:
Rutherford, Dillard or Bill Kelly. Hard to say which face I’m more tired of.
At least Rutherford has the decency to spend some time with the ChiComs.
- Justice - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:54 pm:
Fox doesn’t surprise me much any more. Their non-reporting of Ron Paul’s close second in the Iowa Straw Poll seemed really wierd, though I’m not a dyed in the wool Ron Paul fan, and O’Reily sounding more and more like a placator. So, airing this bit simply doesn’t surprise me. They appear to be coming unraveled.
I would have liked to see Durbin more poised and sharper.
Also, Katie Halper did a great job! Loved it!
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 4:56 pm:
{Also, QTS, this standard has indeed been litigated, all the way up to the appellate level.}
Citations? I’d like to look at those, because presumably those might be the basis for or against the sorce information arguments in the “Innocence Project” case.
Given the foundation of law that exists however, which you believe qualifies you as a “reporter” as defined by the law, can you point to any facts that would exclude this guy as a “reporter” as defined under the law. We already know your opinion, but how does your opinion square with the law?
If it doesn’t, then just your opinion that this guy is not a “journalist” does not make it so.
- Demoralized - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 5:14 pm:
==If Sen. Durbin won’t answer William Kelly’s question, he has something to hide. Jim Anderson was very disrespectful and inconsiderate.==
I wouldn’t have answered his stupid questions either. I don’t believe that elected officials should have to put up with obvious partisan badgering cloaked as “questioning.” Some people think that public officials have to answer to them just because they are a public official. I am not in that group. If I were an elected official I would ignore the idiots just the same as Durbin was ignoring this particular idiot.
- Quinn T. Sential - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 5:19 pm:
{I wouldn’t have answered his stupid questions either. I don’t believe that elected officials should have to put up with obvious partisan badgering cloaked as “questioning.”}
This approach could substantially eliminate a lot of questions as well as qustioners.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 5:34 pm:
“… I know it when I see it …”
While admittedly on specialized topics, I have a record of publishing several books, editing several other books, and, in a totally different field, for the past 4 years editing / writing an award winning quarterly club newsletter with a paid circulation of approximately 400. None of that was in what would be considered the political arena. However, I get invites to media events and been offered media credentials at certain events.
So am I a hobbyist or a journalist?
- dave - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 6:00 pm:
@ Dave — you think Lisa Madigan would run again Quinn?
I didn’t say that. I just laughed at the idea that “a Dillard-Rutherford ticket would be nearly impossible to beat.”
That may be true against Quinn. But there are other possibilities.
- MidGround - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 6:09 pm:
I wonder if the Feds are looking at Mike Boland’s scholarship practice as they look remarkably similar to what Molaro was accused of doing.
- The Captain - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 6:18 pm:
We’ve effectively set a standard here that eliminates John Kass as a credible journalist, and for that 47th Ward has become my personal hero.
- Katiedid - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 7:35 pm:
Can someone explain how a video “has gone viral” while at the same time, people “probably haven’t seen it”? Isn’t the very definition of a video going viral that a ton of people have seen it??
- Newsclown - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 7:45 pm:
Rich, if you would please indulge me, while we can all stipulate that this Kelley guy was just a buttinski, the event opens up a wider discussion that could be of merit, about how and where the lines are drawn in today’s journalistic world.
I remember when YOU were the man on the outside, looked at askance by the established media, and it took you a while to get credentialed and respected by the press association members, as I recall, because they didn’t “get” this newfangled internet thing. If your words weren’t printed on dead trees, or sent out over licensed FCC airwaves, you didn’t count. But eventually your hard work paid off and without trying to suck up to you, I don’t think there’s anyone around today who would deny what you do is legit journalism, plus some analysis and opinion, clearly marked as such.
What Kelley did is nothing new. I saw a similar thing happen once in Edgar’s capitol building office, where there was a gangbang of credentialed media types asking questions, and a guy from Chicago shows up with a Marantz cassette recorder and a mic, looking like any one of the other guys. But he wasn’t.
He had a mimeographed and faxed (in imitation of you and/or Drudge) community “paper” he bankrolled himself via inheritance money, where he was the editor, publisher, reporter, and delivery boy. If you remember Springfield cable guy Dan Bull, the guy I’m talking about was kind of similar, philosophically. His “paper” was basically a Rush Limbaugh/Newt Gingrich fan club, with an Illinois emphasis. And his deal was to come in pretending to be a journalist so he could sandbag Edgar with pointed “questions” that were worded as accusations and innuendo.
Edgar’s detail quickly escorted this guy out after the second such loaded question. Nobody then thought anything of it, because the kid wasn’t even trying to be “legit” media. Had he posed a few warm-up questions that were fair, he might have been able to stay. He came in with his agenda practically printed on the back of his jacket. He came so he could manufacture a quote later and make it seem legitimate, because he could say he’d actually asked it to Edgar’s face, so everybody knew him immediately for what he was.
These days, you see the technique used more and more on the right and the far right, with tea-partiers practically assaulting pols like Shakowski and Durbin and others. They make even less pretense now at being legit newsgatherers. They actually try to *avoid* getting into an actual dialog with their victims, they just come in to drop a word bomb and get it on tape to take back and replay as a trophy.
Sorry to go on so long to get back around to the question, but here it is: If old media conventions like press associations are no longer as valid or *exclusively* valid of a gatekeeper for legit reportage, what mind of standard can we hold up as a yardstick, to say if this reporter is the real deal, though with tiny circulation, and this other one is a sham? It can’t just be an informal “club” anymore, not in this day and age. Would you say it takes at least a j-degree? What else?
- John A Logan - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 8:34 pm:
I am about as conservative as it gets. I am no fan of Dick Durbin. However William Kelly has a long track record of grandstanding and this is just another chapter. He once stole a Christmas display from the capitol building. He is always running down some politician and shouting 90 second monologues before he spouts a loaded question. People like Kelly do not help the conservative cause, and most often they are picked up by the media as standard bearers for conservatives instead of the buffoons that they are.
- Newsclown - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 8:45 pm:
Was my comment/question pulled for being too rambling? I apologize if so. But I’d still like an answer about what *objective* criteria we should apply these days to define a legit journalist from an obvious troll. A Journalism degree at least? Being on the payroll of a recognized journalistic enterprise? And if so, “recognized” by whom? Other journalists, I suppose. What I’m driving at is that the line is very blurry these days: we can tell the extremes pretty easily, but the subtle ones are the most dangerous ones, IMO. Without a defined standard, do we face a world without ANY standards?
- dznuts - Monday, Aug 22, 11 @ 9:58 pm:
@ Dave - so what are your other suggestions for the ticket that would take down Quinn? I’m not being argumentative, just curious to see some expanded info on who you think (either party) could be the better ticket.
- Wilson Pickett - Tuesday, Aug 23, 11 @ 7:23 am:
There is very little doubt that Dan Rutherford is planning on running for Governor of Illinois. And, Dan will probably make a very excellent choice for one. Bill Brady has tried enough times that voters are veiwing him as another Jim Oberweiss (tries hard but just can’t get the job done).The Illinois Republican Party and Pat Brady will eventually have to realize that they can’t sell a Nash Rambler when the public is actually wanting to buy a Ford Mustang. Dan Rutherford would prove to be a good fit for the Illinois GOP.
- foster brooks - Tuesday, Aug 23, 11 @ 8:43 am:
WWilson pickett. How many times did rutherford run before he was elected against a very weak candidate. Now he looks like rod blagoofy, he cant refuse a microphone
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 23, 11 @ 9:21 am:
–Dillard and rutherford do nothing for me-the party needs a fresh break and I can’t see the tea party backing either of them0–
You say that like it’s a negative thing.
The party — GOP — needs to cast out the ignorant yabbos, knuckle-draggers, snake handlers and mouth breathers and take a strong leadership position in the very important issues of war and peace in this country. Lord knows we could use a real GOP.
If Mitt is willing to smack down the chowderheads who’ve hijacked the words”conservative” and “Republican” I’ll sign up and stick around til the last dog dies.
- Ray Hanania - Tuesday, Aug 23, 11 @ 9:41 pm:
I don;t consider myself a journlaist any more. I was ong ago but since shifted over to commentator, which I don’t classify as a journalist or a reporter at all. Commentators may be former journalists with experience covering politics, as I have. And now I engage in media relations (upfront and above board, nothing hidden there) expressing my honest view of issues with an upfront transparency about my political opinions. I’d gladly return to fulltime journalism 1)if there were any real positions open and 2) if a person could make a decent living. But journalism is for young people who don’t have to worry about paying their bills and older people who don’t care about making a decent living and paying for a family. Sad but tragic truth about journalism today.
Ray Hanania