Question of the day
Thursday, Jul 19, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The AP picked up on Speaker Madigan’s attempted refutation of the highly critical series of Tribune stories published last month…
Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan sent a 13-page letter to members of the General Assembly on Wednesday, rebutting a Chicago Tribune series that examined the intersection of his work as a public official and private lawyer.
The series ran in June and examined several potential conflicts of interest. In one case, Chicago’s largest operator of assisted living homes hired Madigan and later benefited from a state program he supported. In another, banks that his firm represented were unaffected by housing activists’ efforts to make them pay more for damage caused in foreclosures.
At the time, Madigan declined to give interviews to the Tribune or provide documents requested by the newspaper. He did provide a statement calling the stories “garbage.”
But now Madigan makes his case in painstaking detail. His letter resembles a report with headers, budget figures and details showing that he went back to sources interviewed by the Tribune to talk about their comments. […]
A Tribune spokesman didn’t immediately have comment on it.
Madigan did the same sort of thing in 2010 after an earlier Tribune series.
In both cases, the Tribune has not yet responded, according to his spokesman.
* The Question: Should the Chicago Tribune respond to Madigan’s criticisms? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
- Anon - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:21 am:
Of course. Either admit they were incorrect, or refute his statements.
- Makandadawg - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:26 am:
Dear Tribune, do not speculate or tell me how to think. Give me the facts and the story if there is one. Other wise move on to something more important.
- johhnypizza - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:26 am:
Refute it after the Speaker is forthcoming about everything. Mike Madigan is not some anonymous little guy on the lower rungs of a corrupt political system, he is the corrupt politiacal system. The Tribune really does not owe him squat. Let him provide all the intersecting information about his clients, campaign contributions, and bills he has backed or buried in committees. Then let the public judge.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:28 am:
I voted yes. I think the Tribune should respond to Madigan. The Boston Globe or some other newspaper recently published a story about Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. The Romney campaign took issue with alleged facts and asked the paper to retract the story. The paper responded quickly and refused to retract its story.
If this is Madigan’s second request, going back two years, the Tribune should respond to him.
- redrum - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:28 am:
Speaker Madigan is an honest man that has done great things for Illinois. All these Republican rags want to do is hang people who try to move Illinois forward. A great struggle lies ahead. Don’t expect Speaker Madigan to roll-over and play dead. The Tribune should be held accountable!
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:31 am:
Sure, that is, if they want to appear to be a newspaper dedicated to providing factual reporting to their readers. Then again, it is the Tribune.
- Shore - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:36 am:
It’s never a good thing when you have to write a 13 page single spaced rebuttal to refute a series of stories against you in your state’s biggest paper.
- Levois - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:37 am:
I say yes, the Tribune should be able to back up what they print. They can’t sit back and not respond to the subject of their expose and then just say nothing when the subject has a response.
- Wensicia - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:37 am:
Yes, if for no other reason than they stand by their editorials.
- Anon - amiss - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:40 am:
“The Tribune really does not owe him squat.”
johhnypizza -
This is not about the Tribune of Madigan. This is about journalism and a newspaper’s attempt to distort facts in furtherance of a political agenda. You state that Mike Madigan is the corrupt political system. If that is so, then the Tribune should be able to report facts rather than print fabricated allegations.
It is stuff like this that has infested our political discourse. If you have the goods to prove hes corrupt, show it. If it’s just a matter of you not liking his politics, then beat him! Period!
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:40 am:
Of course. Madigan has called into question the papers competence, integrity and objectivity.
He’s given them loads of specific and detailed material to counter. Why wouldn’t they do it if they stand by their reporting?
Didn’t the Trib used to have an ombudsman? I can’t recall seeing one for a while.
Many big-time newspapers have one.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:43 am:
I voted no.
The Speaker wouldn’t do an interview, so there’s no need for the Tribune to respond. Afterall, the Tribune can stand behind its reporting on the matter, which while full of insinuation and ominously worded facts, wasn’t terribly inaccurate. Except for the obvious false conclusions the Tribune reached well before the reporters were assigned to the task. Nothing in Madigan’s response will convince the Tribune otherwise.
For the record, I think Madigan’s response is about the finest example of how he closely he sweats the details. The man is thorough and works a lot harder than his opponents. That’s your takeaway people.
- mark walker - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:46 am:
Yes, they should respond, but I doubt they can honestly refute Madigan’s points.
Can the Trib regain any credibility on the facts?
- Allen Skillicorn - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:48 am:
The Trib should respond AFTER Spk. Madigan releases his taxes. What’s good for the goose…
- Very Anon - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:49 am:
He’s given them a potential treasure trove of information with which to skewer him further — more than they would have gotten in any interview — and if they indeed have overstated the case, as he charges, they should own up to it. And maybe both, if they take the time to study it.
Newspapers can take time for long-pending investigative reports, even in the age of the 24/7 news cycle, right?
Right?
- One of the 35 - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:50 am:
I am reminded of a Shakespearean quotation “Me thinks the Speaker doth protest too much!”
- Anon - amiss - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 11:54 am:
“The Trib should respond AFTER Spk. Madigan releases his taxes. What’s good for the goose…”
What does his tax returns have to do with the Tribune’s article?
- soccermom - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 12:08 pm:
You don’t have to publish a correction for insinuendo.
- MOON - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 12:25 pm:
The reason Madigan will not give the Trib an interview is obvious.
The Trib will only publish or print portions of any interview. And, you can rest assured, whatever is printed would not be the whole factual story but rather a biased interpretation to further the Trib’s interest.
Madigan handled the situation in the correct manner. He told his side of the story based upon facts and the Trib does not have anything to refute Madigan’s reply.
- geronimo - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 12:30 pm:
YES! Accountability is always a good thing…….isn’t it? He represents the people, I thought. The (new) Tribune has never backed away from dirt and scandal, so why stop now? Their facts are often skewed but since they started this, finish it!
- JoeVerdeal - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 12:30 pm:
If the Trib is able to prove and defend its assertions regarding Mr. Madigan, it would serve a useful purpose in the process. If it is unable to do so, we may then assume that the anti-Madigan statements are without merit.
Either way, the interests of the public will be served.
- Joseph Medill - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 12:37 pm:
The Journalism School of Northwestern University is named for the Chicago Tribune’s founder.
I should hope that they would WELCOME the opportunity to respond to Madigan.
@Wordslinger -
The response should come from the paper’s Public Editor, whomever that is these days.
@47th Ward -
That’s kind of the point, isn’t it? If the reporters were given a conclusion and then told to go out there and find facts to support it — ignoring and omitting any statements that or facts that contradicted their conclusions — that’s hardly journalism.
Look, they went all the way to Cornell University to find an ethics professor who not only refused to accuse Madigan of illegal activity, but also refused to accuse Madigan of acting unethically. The best he could say was that Madigan’s standards don’t necessarily preclude all possible unethical activity were he so inclined.
Well, “Welcome to the Universe.” No law, rule or standard precludes all possible unethical activity. And, no amount of transparency is a guarantee of ethics. Because, as they say, Character is how you behave when no one is looking, and absolute transparency is impossible.
BTW, you could track down an ethics professor at Cornell but didn’t bother to see that the special legislation Madigan supposedly engineered to benefit himself personally passed the General Assembly unanimously?
If the Tribune wants to argue that Madigan needs to hold himself to a higher standard as an elected leader than the law requires, and that even a higher standard than any of his peers, but the absolute highest possible standard imaginable, I’m actually okay with that.
But then the Tribune needs to hold itself to the highest possible standards as well.
- Lotta Liaison - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 12:49 pm:
Of course they should respond. But will they respond? Probably not. Because it won’t make a good story.
- Anyone Remember? - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 12:57 pm:
Yes.
Why? It’s what real journalists do - stand by their work, make necessary corrections, or withdraw the article(s).
- Just the Facts - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 12:57 pm:
The Tribune should respond. However, because the Speaker Madigan has quite effectively demonstrated that their articles were, in fact, garbage the will not respond because to do so they would have to admit the articles were garbage. Perhaps Kass will write a column or on WGN to give us his “incisive” “analysis” of things.
- Jade Rabbit - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 1:07 pm:
Yes. Absolutely. The response needs to be one that does not address the personal operations, but the leadership of MM. How is Illinois better off than it was when MM first came to Springfield?
There is a reason we have Freedom for the press.
This is a bully pulpit move my MM. Sometimes offense is the best defense.
If I was in his shoes I would do the same thing.
Give the Trib. some of my better actions, point them at my loyal clients and my transparent bills.
If they’re looking at what I want them to see, I can work more effectively on the things I don’t want them to see.
- Circu;arFiringSquad - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 1:13 pm:
Since the Tribbies have not explained why they did not rush down to the USA when they were trying to swap an edit writer for $100 million state giveaway it is unlikely they will truly “respond” here.
Perhaps the ERV allies, Kass and Proft, could rattle around some mumbled defense. Oh wait Proft is busy running one of the GOPer slushPACs so there is no time. BTW can you get a cut from the slushPAC? Is it reported?
- Madison - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 1:40 pm:
Yes the trib should be accountable for what they print. It’s something of a mystery as to why we need to debate this but times have changed, and in this day and age…
- mokenavince - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 1:55 pm:
I would like to see John Kass respond,it would be great.Let the debate begin.
- Crime Fighter - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 2:04 pm:
Yes- I am with Anon @ 11:21am. However, given the Trib editors’ history of patently false allegations and downright bizarre positions regarding public pensions and taxing, it’s hard to believe the paper could honestly respond.
- Responsa - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 2:08 pm:
NO. Investigative reporting is what good newspapers do (or at least most used to do.) Certainly the journalists must be accountable for demonstrating ethical behavior. They should be expected to be thorough, and to the best of their ability and resources try to get multiple sides of any story. At the same time they are just journalists who investigate. They keep their ears to the ground. They sniff out stuff. Their job is to sell papers, raise alarms, and interest people in stories about which they may not otherwise be aware. They do not have to “prove” everything. They are not prosecutors, judges or jury. But many well done journalistic investigations do ultimately result in law enforcement action and prosecutions. Probably people here can remember examples of a few of those from over the years.
- Lakeview Larry - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 2:58 pm:
Yes. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 3:01 pm:
@Responsa -
Let me remind you of this recent post on Capitol Fax:
“Republicans were especially outraged at the zeroing out of money for a juvenile diabetes research program. Members of House Republican leadership, including Cross, have children with the disease. Republicans called the changes ‘punitive.’”
And we’re accusing Mike Madigan of self-interest and conflicts of interest?
I guess when Cross gets glaucoma, we can pass the medical marijuana bill.
As for defending this as good investigative journalism…the Belleville News Democrat, Sun-Times, Chicago Reader are all doing great investigative journalism. The Chicago Reporter’s series on nursing homes, as well as the Tribune’s, led to massive reforms.
I’m all for great investigative journalism.
But anyone can pull the list of clients represented by Madigan’s firm from the public record, the 20,000 or so bill introduced in the General Assembly over the last three cycles, and slap them together with duct tape.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 3:22 pm:
I voted yes because the way modern journalism seems to work the subject (target?) of a story like this doesn’t have a chance to present all the facts because the newspaper filters out any facts that don’t fit its narrative before going to press. Why would any major figure sit for an interview with a newspaper if they don’t think the result will be fair? The speaker obviously felt that way, because he put out a compete narrative of how he views the Trib storyline. Let the Trib dig deeper, work harder, and rebut the Speaker if they are able to.
- Responsa - Thursday, Jul 19, 12 @ 4:49 pm:
==And we’re accusing Mike Madigan of self-interest and conflicts of interest?==
Um, YDD, did I read that correctly? I don’t believe *I’m* accusing Mike Madigan or anyone else of anything on this thread, so what “we” do you mean? I believe the question of the day has to do with a specific Tribune story and Rich asked whether individual commenters felt that after Madigan’s initial refusal to be interviewed the Trib was obligated to respond in print to Mr. Madigan’s later rebuttal. I’m sorry that apparently you do not like either the article or my answer but I don’t always like yours either
I am happy, though, that we do seem to agree that there’s a place for, and value in, solid investigative journalism no matter whose ox is being gored.