So Joan Vennochi wrote a column about the Deval and the one-man Killer Coke crusade yapping about his role with Coke. David wrote a thorough critique of the column.
In the column she..
1. Points out the SwiftBoat vets against Kerry as an example to help the reader understand what Killer Coke is.
2. Paints a fair and accurate picture of Rogers’ operation.
3. Describes the allegations and fairly gives Deval’s side of the story.
4. Favors exposing who is financing his organization. Deval’s opponents may be the source of a sudden influx of cash allowing him to come to Massachusetts.
5. Sums up issue and voters’ attitudes as follows:
“The truth about most people is almost always somewhere in between. But political attack campaigns care less about truth and light — and more about generating enough heat to burn and destroy.”
6. Concludes: “Patrick is running as a populist who will stick up for the little guy. So, yes, Democratic primary voters must decide which best represents Patrick’s true heart and political gut: his current rhetoric or his corporate experience with the likes of Coca-Cola, Texaco, and Ameriquest. He should be held accountable for any inconsistencies in his story or positions. He was an advocate for civil and human rights in the early years of his legal career; from there, he obviously moved onto a more lucrative private-sector practice.”
David’s Post is fair in reporting what Vennochi wrote. His analysis however is bias and , i am afraid to say, petty.
1. Boasts about other bloggers making the obvious comparison of Killer Coke to the Swift Boat Vets.
2. He complains the Vennochi should have mentioned BMG because “the local blogs played a role in getting this story to this point?”
Says who, David? What about the Deval camp? What about the unions? What about the Killer Coke guy himself? What about Joan just doing her weekly columns like she has been for years? She don’t need no stinkin’ bluemassgroup. Or badges.
3. David’s biggest complaint is Vennochi’s conclusion on how voters will see Deval. David’s analysis is that it sets up a false choice. He is right. But that is what she says most voters decide upon. False choices. She is clear about that.
Blame the messenger?
So David is falling victim to his own biases. We must help save him. He went through her column with a microscope and found her to be bias against Deval.
Who is bias here David?
He does not like Vennochi and he loves Deval and the same rules don’t apply to his candidates that apply to the opposition and that HEY, WE ARE BLUE MASS GROUP! WE ARE IMPORTANT!
Update – Check out Adam Reill’y take. Fair criticism of Deval, ize think.
I dunno, Ernie, nothing seems to light your fire quite like a perceived slight of Joan. Are you carrying a torch?
Kool Aide drinkers in denial.
How….eccentric.
We meet in a warehouse in Brockton on Sunday nights where we can make all the noise we want. I’ll put you on the mailing list.
I would like to add an option to your poll: “I only read BMG for Ernie’s insightful commentary and his polls.”
If you add that, that is one I will pick.
You rated my comment “0” Ernie. What did I say? I meant that genuinely, I have said many times before that your polls are the best. I am hurt.
self deprication.
<
p>
thanks
<
p>
It’s good to get zeros. I get them all the time
Again, I ask: did you actually read the post? I liked a lot of what was in that column and I said so. I also criticized part of it – and you yourself said I was “right” to do so. So what’s the problem?
<
p>
You’re upset about my comment on the role of the blogs in this story? Sorry, but it’s just reporting facts. Ryan was first on the “swift boat” thing. We were first to publicly lay out some basic facts about Killer Coke (facts that the Globe could have, and should have, but didn’t, lay out), the first to actually meet with the guy, and the first to lay out the OCPF arguments that the union letter picked up on. So again, what’s the problem? When the Globe reports a story and we pick up on it, we give them credit. Why does it hurt you so much to acknowledge the obvious: we actually did some original reporting on this one?
<
p>
Finally, can you point me to where, exactly, in my post I declared that Vennochi was “biased” against Patrick? Answer: no, you can’t, because I never said that. Actually, I think her column is clearly pretty favorable toward Patrick. Doesn’t mean I give her a free pass when I think she gets something wrong – now that would be bias.
<
p>
I’m starting to think that any time an analysis doesn’t agree with your world view, it’s “bias.” That sounds like “bias” to me.
You are so wrapped around Deval you criticize Vennochi stating the obvious challenges and flaws in Deval’s campaign.
<
p>
In fact you say” It’s too bad that she played right into those “sad extremes”
<
p>
You also say, “Vennochi’s broader point that working for big corporations and wanting to help people are basically incompatible is, IMHO, erroneous.”
<
p>
Nooo she did not say that. She never said that. You see what you want to see.
<
p>
Now David, as for my crying wolf about bias; how often have you seen me say that. Just about every comment I have made is in disagreement with someone. How many times have I claimed bias?
Is this one of those lefty attempts to demonize by continuously misstating facts until a reputation is made. Are you trying to start the ball rolling here? I accuse you of bias, so respond that I accuse everyone of being bias. Puleeeeze.
<
p>
I am claiming you are bias. Bias in favor of Deval, and bias against Vennochi.
<
p>
I stand by that.
<
p>
I’m watching you, David.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!
like you. Show me who else I disagree with I say is bias.
From your undisclosed location, no doubt.
You are beginning to sound like Nixon.
“I need to know who Ernie is so I can put him on my enimies list”
Frank Phillips.
“Killer Coke or Innocent Abroad?” Some facts about Ray Rogers there dated 2006 Jan 23
<
p>
Coca-Cola: Classic Union Buster 2006 Jun 26
<
p>
Bob points to The Nation article
<
p>
Stop Killer Coke! This article talks about Ray Rogers and his strategy. Dated 2003.
<
p>
You added to the facts to be sure but you weren’t the first to lay out facts about Killer Coke. Maybe that is what Ernie is referring to? Ernie does seem to “watch you a lot” though David, are you concerned? Your post here doesn’t seem to have a bias so I gotta say Ernie is his usual crazy self. I actually think your post was right on the money.
<
p>
I have a quesiton about reporting. Most people, including you, seem to be upset that the Globe didn’t do the investigating you did and I am still debating whether they had to. The frame of the article was about the organization’s opposition to Patrick. Why would the Globe need to report that the group is a corporation instead of a non-profit? How would that fact add or detract from the story? I am in agreement with you that the Globe should have done a better job reporting this angle in subsequent stories about the political motivations and how they would be effected by campaign finance laws but I don’t see how it needed to in the first article. What am I missing?
You praise above and say I have “insightful commentary” then in this post you say..
<
p>
“so I gotta say Ernie is his usual crazy self”
<
p>
Ya all a bunch of frauds.
I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that we were the first to talk generally about the Killer Coke campaign. Obviously that’s not the case. But I do maintain that no one else had squarely established that corporate funds – specifically, those of Corporate Campaign, Inc., Rogers’ private consulting business – are used to fund Killer Coke’s operations, specifically including its anti-Deval Patrick campaign. That’s the basis of my subsequent OCPF post. Most of the articles you linked to don’t even mention Corporate Campaign, Inc., and the ones that do don’t really talk about how its relationship to to Killer Coke.
<
p>
As to what Ernie’s talking about, I have no idea. You’ll have to ask him.
<
p>
As to whether I’m “concerned” that Ernie’s “watching me”: no.
Ernie apparently views you as a “Kool-Aid drinker in denial.” And since nothing quite lights Ernie’s fire, by his own admission, like Kool-aid drinkers in denial, you may find yourself bundled into the trunk of Ernie’s 1981 Olds Toronado, speeding down Rte. 24 to some vacant Brockton warehouse where Ernie–and men like Ernie–gather for a carousing night of “noise.”
<
p>
If that happens, whatever you do, don’t drink the Kool-Aid they offer you.
Men and women. (Mostly woman.)
<
p>
You hetero-phobic s.o.b.
My comment should read:
<
p>
<
p>
Whoever the “mostly woman” individual is, I’m pleased “she” has found a social circle that is so accepting and open-minded. Good on you, Ernie!
PS – I’m the vote for the Herald!
Seems to me he’s given huge praise to her over her coverage. The fact that she didn’t source him seemed to be an annoyance and whether or not she got a lot of the Ray Rogers info from BMG or not, there’s a good chance she got it from a place like the state news service or bonifaz’s email – which both sourced David.
<
p>
Regardless, she’s been deservedly given a LOT of praise for her research and tenacity for finding the truth in this story. Personally, in all my years, I’ve NEVER seen such great reporting done by a columnist.