|
This is why they can’t have a seat
Wednesday, Sep 11, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller * The Illinois Policy Institute and the Better Government Association both have people who “cover” the Statehouse and have applied for seats in the House and Senate press boxes. So far, neither group has received an approval from the two chambers. Why? Because the groups directly lobby the Legislature. If they were given permission to sit in the press box, then why not AFSCME, or AARP, or the Illinois Chamber? All of those groups (and many, many more) produce extensive reports on the General Assembly’s doings. * I’ve been thinking about doing a post on this for a while now. And a newspaper “column” by the BGA’s Andy Shaw, which recently appeared in the Sun-Times, reminded me why I should…
Look, it’s nice to see a goo-goo group occasionally congratulate individual legislators for the work they do, even legislators who aren’t exactly known as “reformers.” Usually, all we see is angry broadbrush criticism from those folks. But you can’t register with the state, lobby for bills and then heap praise on your sponsors in a “column” and expect to get a seat in the press box. It doesn’t work that way. There’s been some grumblings about a potential lawsuit, but the groups ought to stow their anger and just do what they do and quit trying to be something they clearly are not. Maybe you disagree. If so, I’d love to hear it.
|
- Just Me - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:15 am:
Advocates are not journalists. They advocate for one side of an issue all the time, 100%. Journalists are supposedly unbiased. The problem here is these particular advocates honestly think they are absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong, so to them they are unbiased.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:27 am:
Shaw can’t see the difference in his roles when he was a Channel 7 reporter and as head of BGA?
Why am I not surprised?
If Shaw ever shines a light on Exelon, or the Mayer Brown partners’ curious activities as state bond counsel, or any of the other corporations, law firms, banks and financial firms that bankroll BGA, I might be convinced they’re journalists.
Until then, they’re lobbyists.
- Reality Check - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:33 am:
Right, and the same should go for Watchdog.
- Adam Smith - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:39 am:
Rich, you couldn’t be more correct on this.
The IPI and BGA see themselves as pure as the driven snow because their motives are so just. But both of them get down in the trenches with everyone else when it comes to passing bills and stopping bills.
And IPI has a political arm that is up to its eyeballs in partisan campaigning.
No, they should stick to their knitting and let the press do its job (granted, many in the press could be doing their jobs better.)
- Devil's Advocate - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:47 am:
It’s a question of where you draw the line. What about the Illinois Press Association? What about newspapers advocating editorial positions based on their reporters’ work?
Also, in the electronic age, what real advantage does the press box provide over those without it? Access? Not really. More like the enhanced legitimacy?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:50 am:
===What about the Illinois Press Association?===
They don’t have a seat.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:51 am:
===It’s a question of where you draw the line===
Um, it’s drawn. People who work for lobbyists can’t sit in the box.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:54 am:
Shaw and Tillman will just have to sit in the galleries with the great unwashed masses like the rest of manage to do all the time. What do they think they get from the press box that they can’t get from the galleries anyway?
- Observing - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:55 am:
Only the press is the press.
- Frank - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:56 am:
You’re dead on, Rich. And so is wordslinger. I would love to see Chicago Magazine, the Reader, or some other long-form publication crack open the BGA under Andy Shaw. No other news outlet will because the BGA provides many of them with low-cost or free content…they’re not gonna bite the hand that feeds them.
As wordslinger alludes to, Shaw actively works many of Chicago’s corporate elite for donations. Many of them take stands on public policy issues and political contests…that brings the BGA’s holier than thou “independence” into question. I wonder what kind of salary Shaw pays himself?
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 11:56 am:
–What do they think they get from the press box that they can’t get from the galleries anyway?–
The veneer of objectivity.
- Joe M - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 12:03 pm:
IPI may masquerade itself as writing news articles, but they are always really writing propaganda pieces pushing the same specific predictable points of view. Keep the press box for the press.
- Soccermom - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 12:05 pm:
Rich is absolutely correct. I’m sorry, Mr. Thicke, but we don’t need any more blurred lines. You can’t be a reporter and a lobbyist at the same time. Pick one from column A or one from column B.
- Dan Johnson - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 12:07 pm:
As a lobbyist, I would love to sit in the press box. Hey, I blog right? Why can’t I sit there? It would be a lot easier to talk to legislators on the floor than waiting outside in the hall. And I’ll blog about bills as they are happening. Isn’t that good enough to get those prime seats?
(By the way, as long as we’re on the subject, can we get rid of the dumb rule that prohibits people from using their smartphones in the gallery?)
- reflector - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 12:27 pm:
I cannot disagree with you.You are exactly right.Stick with it.
- Jake From Elwood - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 12:33 pm:
Not only are the BGA and IPI lobbyists, they also pander for donations. They are not media so no seats for you.
By the way, it would be outrageous for you to use your donated funds to try to force your way into the press box.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 12:38 pm:
So do members of the press get to participate in “private bill signings”, (as the BGA did for their mandatory videotaping bill)? They get a pen, they get photo op, they don’t get a seat on press row. Sue away!
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 12:44 pm:
Lobbyists are lobbyists. House and Senate rules prohibit former members from the chambers if they are lobos.
Handout Andy is also fetching cash for his outfit
Tillman is into so many other conflicts that there is not enough space to cover
In 2011, Tillman was listed on the Illinois Opportunity Project 990 as getting paid $476.92 an hour for his “work”.
Usually the media is trashing lobos as bribers and extortionists.
- Northsider - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 12:54 pm:
You’re spot-on, Rich.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 1:01 pm:
Why am I not surprised that Shaw and Tillman would not recognize their own conflicts?
- siriusly - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 1:01 pm:
Go ahead and sue. I know few dozen lobbyists who would start blogging and publishing if it would get them floor access too.
- Michael Westen - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 1:19 pm:
I don’t disagree, but how is the BGA any different than columnists such as Carol Marin who clearly have a partisan, ideological viewpoint then try to put on their journalist hat and pretend they are neutral, presumably from the press box?
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 1:28 pm:
===how is the BGA any different than columnists such as Carol Marin===
When was the last time Carol Marin met with legislators to support a piece of legislation she wrote and endorsed?
- Soccermom - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 1:30 pm:
Michael Westen — Carol Marin is not a registered lobbyist. She is allowed to have opinions (you may have noticed that many newspapers have “opinions” pages.) Being a journalist does not mean being “neutral” — which is a ridiculous notion, by the way. I suppose a “neutral” crime reporter would add lines such as, “On the other hand, the robbery victim did have more money at home, so the action could be viewed as forced transfer of assets with the ultimate goal of a more just economic system…”
- Michael Westen - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 1:33 pm:
I don’t know but it’s beside the point. She urges passage of certain legislation in her columns, the election or re-election of certain legislators or candidates, and then pretends to be neutral. Sort of like the BGA. Not just picking on her, there are others.
And I’m not saying they shouldn’t be for whomever or whatever they want to be. As columnists or commentators, that’s their job. You just can’t put the genie back in the bottle. To paraphrase Rich, columnists and commentators should “just do what they do and quit trying to be something they clearly are not.” In this case, objective journalists.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 1:42 pm:
===I don’t know but it’s beside the point. ===
No, it’s exactly the point.
- Rod - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 1:43 pm:
In general registered lobbyists wearing their IDs are admitted to the gallery even when it is supposedly full as they often are to committee rooms. Andy Shaw is registered and he has an ID just like a lot of other people (see http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/index/lobbyist/lobbyistlist.pdf). Why should he get an edge on the rest of lobbyists when it comes to an issue relating to governmental regulation? I agree with Rich.
- Raymond - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:06 pm:
Opinion writers for news outlets are specifically exempted from the lobbyist registration act. They may advocate for or against a policy proposal without having to declare themselves lobbyists.
The BGA and IPI are advocacy organizations. As organizations, they have dedicated and specific policy agendas. They have registered lobbyists working on their behalf to directly influence the passage or defeat of legislation by meeting with lawmakers, testifying before committee, etc. It’s a very different animal.
BTW, at least with respect to the press box rules in the Senate, I believe they are far more nuanced than simply precluding individuals who work for groups that lobby state government. I believe there is some language in there that relates to the nature of the parent organization.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:07 pm:
Although I agree that BGA and IPI are lobbyists, it should be noted that back in the Colonel’s day the Tribbie reporters were basically lobbyists under the Dome for his interests.
Back in the 80s, Paul Lis worked out of the Tribbies big Capitol pressroom office. Egler and Franklin used to work as his secretaries, taking his phone messages and delivering them to the front of the press room where he was drinking beer and smoking cigars.
- Hans Sannity - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:08 pm:
I’d like to know the advantages of being in the press box versus watching from the gallery or on line someplace near enough to get over there quickly enough to interview a legislator or staff, or hobknob.
- Marty Funkhouser - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:11 pm:
Michael Westen, name one time where Carol Marin has endorsed a candidate in her column.
- Raymond - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:25 pm:
=== I’d like to know the advantages of being in the press box versus watching from the gallery or on line someplace near enough to get over there quickly enough to interview a legislator or staff, or hobknob. ===
Certain lawmakers interested in getting into the news often will wander over to the press box during or following session and make comments. If they’re high profile - say, the Senate president - they likely will have an audience of several reporters, and they don’t have to leave the floor to get that audience.
From the press standpoint, the reverse is true - a reporter may catch a quote from a willing member. Plus, it’s a place to sit and have a bird’s eye view of debate.
From the standpoint of BGA and IPI, I could only speculate. But given the fact that they’re both advocacy organizations with registered lobbyists, it certainly makes sense to exclude them.
- david starrett - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 2:57 pm:
I don’t disagree one bit. I spent years as a goo-goo lobbyist for Common Cause, IVI-IPO and others, and a pretty successful one.
I would never have even considered trying to get access to the Press Boxes.
- Anon - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 3:23 pm:
So if a news organization is owned by, say, a conglomerate corporation that does other, non-media-related work, which includes lobbying, are they also excluded?
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 3:32 pm:
Mr./Ms. Marty Funkhouser:
Does the slobering all over Forest Claypool, the GOPie import who the whack jobs ran against Madigan or Juan “reform Cicero Town President” Ochoa count?
- 4 percent - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 4:01 pm:
I think that members of the press should have to PAY for their Capitol offices. They work for FOR-PROFIT entities. Any lobbyist would pay for those great suites.
Secondly, the Policy Institute is the MOST hypocritical group out there. They complain about lobbyists and then employ about 10 according to the SOS website.
- Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 4:01 pm:
I generally agree with Rich that there is a meaningful distinction here. But since nobody is presenting the BGA perspective (I can’t speak to IPI), let me just guess at their thinking.
BGA does “investigative journalism.” They have an IL Appellate court case that found that BGA is a “news organization” for definition purposes under press shield protection stories. Ergo, they are press and belong in the press room/press section.
I’m not saying this is right, but I’m pretty sure this is their argument.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 4:06 pm:
===those great suites===
You apparently never visited the old press room.
- Marty Funkhouser - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 4:15 pm:
Circular,
Slobbering is one thing. Writing, “You should vote for …” is another.
But I know the speaker and Joe Berrios and his payroll full of family members are close to your heart.
- Kyle Hillman - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 4:36 pm:
I would want a seat just to be able to surf internet in the Senate on my phone.
- walkinfool - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 5:29 pm:
The difference between lobbyists and the press is clear and obvious to the legislators, and they communicate differently to each.
One is viewed as a source for fundraising and detailed arguments for or against a specific issue, the other is a potential channel to distribute information to the public.
Amazing to me that some commenters here don’t see the clear difference — which is valuable not to blur.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 5:44 pm:
I agree with Rich, it’s either / or. You can’t be both.
Heck, I probably have a more legitimate claim to press credentials than those organizations. As editor / publisher of a small award winning speciality newsletter, I’m accredited with press passes to the major events in the industry I cover. But I’d never think of applying for a press box seat since my State government interest is primarily personal re the pensions.
Better to let one of the limited number of seats go to a full time reporter, preferably one without a pre-ordained agenda.