As today’s story on the descent of Duluth test scores shows, no amount of schmoozing will win over a reporter in the end. A good reporter can only let so much soft soap pass before they wake up and remember their professional obligation to tell the truth.
While I was in California sketching out things I wanted to include in the book I hope to finish by October I just about filled out a page of what I consider to have been front page news stories that were overlooked since I began fighting the Red Plan. For each individual story I can justify its exclusion or its downplaying but the totality is alarming.
Critics of the Red Plan have had to rely on this blog – and blogs are always a dodgy and dubious source of info – and letters to the editor or the rare Let Duluth Vote ads or mailing. And of course, there is the rumor mill with lots of word of mouth complaints. Good news coverage dampens this but in its absence public doubt inflates. That’s the situation in Duluth.
Both the LDV and Dixon loyalists spin the press. The most recent example is the laughable complaint by the District’s attorneys that genuine cash is a poor substitute for a bond. Maybe the District’s attorneys are unaware of all the bond holders who lost money last year when the world teetered on Depression. I’d prefer cold cash any day. I’m sure JCI feels the same way.
Until the last few months I worked hard to stay on Sarah Horner’s good side. I learned from her first call to me that she could be a formidable reporter and I had to earn her trust after joking around with her in that first call. Since then I’ve had her chuckling on many occasions because I can be quite a cut up. So far I have no complaints about my personal portrayal in any of her stories. I spend my time to explain myself which is how I’ve always operated and that’s my best guarantee of fair treatment. A couple of times an Editor has put an unflattering headline over a story Sarah has written and last week the story of my fundraising activities was surrounded by an asinine story comparing LDV’s Plan B unfavorably with the Red Plan. It looked like the Trib was saying: “look at Harry – He’s trying to raise money to saddle Duluth with a crappy school system”. But in all these cases it was an editor not Sarah that burned me.
My entente however has gotten more testy of late as regular readers can appreciate. Its the constant rah rah in Red Plan stories that has begun to grate – that and the absence of serious stories casting some skepticism at the Red Plan.
That first phone call from Sarah was a wake up call. I had just started complaining about the absence of a referendum when she called and, as is my want, began joking around. After a stony silence from the other end I quickly realized Sarah was not amused. I sobered up and gave her the best most rational explanation I could of my objections. Later that day I had to bring something to the Trib and as I walked in asked to have Sarah pointed out. I walked over and introduce myself. I told Sarah that she gave me the toughest interview I’d ever had (something many Red Plan opponents have endured) and told her that I appreciated her journalistic skepticism. I then asked only that she apply that skepticism equally to proponents of the Red Plan. I’ve seen little evidence of this over the past two years. That may explain my growing testiness toward the Trib in my blog posts because all Sarah’s superiors rush to her defense whenever LDV complains about the lack of a level playing field.
I’m not much of a charmer outside of the spin I put on reporters. I had dotty old aunts that fawned all over a couple shirt tail male cousins who excelled at the gentlemanly art of flattering women. That’s not me. Dr. Dixon however is a pro at such enchantment and I found this anecdote from our last LDV meeting interesting.
LDVers at the last week’s Committee of the Whole watched Dr. Dixon closely as he staged the bad mouthing of Plan B. At one point in the proceedings Dr. Dixon turned toward Sarah and gave her a knowing wink along with his triumphant grin. My personal reaction to hearing this was, “ick.”
When I started running for the School Board Anne Bretts was the Trib’s education reporter. The School Board hated her because she regularly wrote tough and unflattering stories. Anne did me no favors either but she was honest. A whole succession of ed reporters followed Anne while I served on the Board for eight years. I believe they appreciated my candor even while most of them would probably tell you I wasn’t your typical politician. That would be a little like a person telling an artist that his painting was “interesting.”
Dr. Dixon knows what he’s doing. He knows people are watching him at Board meetings and he’s far too calculated to think no one would notice that wink. That wink said, “OK LDV, I’ve got Sarah in the palm of my hands and see how she’s smiling back at me? You’re going to get your butt whipped in the Trib tomorrow.”
For those of you who think my analysis is a little fevered – its not. Ask yourself if Brandon Stahl would appreciate having the Mayor wink at him at a City Council meeting or if John Myers would appreciate it if Rep. Reinhart winked at him during a hot and heavy debate at the State Capitol with lots of witnesses. That wink may not have made a whit of a difference to Sarah the reporter. It was meant to assure the audience, both supporters and critics, that Dixon had a fix in at the Trib. In short Dr. Dixon’s wink was meant to cast doubt on the Trib’s integrity.
I would never wink at an reporter with my opponents watching me. It would imply that the reporter was biased. Well, frankly, maybe its true.
