Well Heck, We All Knew About the Sutton Deal!
I find it interesting that now that Pagegate has broken, some of the blogs are saying, "yeah, well, we knew about this." Ok, but you didn't report it. That's your prerogative. But P.P. had the ya-yas to break it as far as he felt comfortable, which, I am sure, spurred on the "real press" in South Dakota to finally report what they knew.
These are serious allegations. Should they have been brought forward sooner to the people and the press? Yes. I think it is not out of line to ask why did the "real press" sit on the story. I'm not wild about serious allegations being made against a state senator from my party who I think has done a pretty good job and as far as I know is a decent person. My dealings with Dan have always been very positive. But the press has an obligation to report what it knows and can support via the facts (the Argus' pre-GOP convention hatchet job on Bill Sahr notwithstanding.)
As a former working journalist, I know that sometimes you get part of a really good, juicy story but can't run with it because you can't completely confirm important details. But to deliberately sit on a story--to "spike it" as it's called in the business--is just wrong.
By law and elections we can do something about the lack of open government in our state. What might be the tougher assignment is establishing transparency of the mega-corporations that control our state's newspapers and air waves. As a former political insider, I can tell you that there are always agendas at work. Sometimes they are in the public interest, sometimes not. But in my opinion, It is not a Democrat leaning blogger's obligation to reveal something like this unless they wish to be both completely independent from and ostracized from the party. That is what the 4th and 5th Estates of our state (the press and the electronic media) are supposed to do.
This whole episode with Sen. Sutton, the high school aged page, and the legislative leadership will play out in a very important drama. Hopefully, it will play out with openness, fairness and respect for due process. But the other issue may be the trickier one--did our state press sit on this story and if so, why?
Todd Epp
My webstats show 8 hits today from Flandreau already. Hmmm.
3 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (3)
However, as one who has been and still is involved in journalistic matters, I must also say that the state's laws and customs regarding access to information that should be public pretty well have the journalistic ya-yas in a vice. It is near universal that public officials should not release information relevant to an ongoing investigation. However, in South Dakota that excuse is used to suppress and withhold all information. It is used to keep the public from knowing what its agencies and officials, who are supposed to be working at the people's behest, from knowing anything about what they are doing. So, in this state, I have a deep understanding of why the press may not be able to obtain sufficient verification to publish a story for which it has some, but not enough, information.
I will not chide the blogs, either, because they are not journalism. In the fact-checking process of the Press Project for the 2004 election, the analysts found that more than 85 percent of blog posts contained outrightly false or erroneous presentations of facts. Bloggers tend not to know or use the rules.
In this case, the Senate Leader says he did not get the complaint until last week. Not until the minority leader sent copies of his correspondence to his caucus did the story emerge. SDWC gave us teasers a few nights ago and played the titillation angle full tilt.
The latest version one can put together is that the complaint was made to the Attorney General's office last spring, but the complainant did not push it until the Foley affair in D.C. became so prominent and this inspired him to push the complaint further. If the AG had this story since spring and has had it under investigation, what took so long and why couldn't the press get some leverage on it? I suspect that the AG's office had other things, like an upcoming election, on its mind and did not feel compelled to take timely action as long as it did not have to account to anybody for the operation of its office under the rules by which South Dakota government operates.
If the press had wind of this, it surely should have had its newshound noses testing the air. But as my own nose is somewhat flattened from hitting the brick wall that protects state and local agencies from any public scrutiny, I can also understand why no one could uncover where the scent was coming from.
In this case, the AG and Denny Hastert seem to have a lot in common. But let's blame the press. It will keep we voter-citizens from having to confront what we have allowed government to become in South Dakota.
As for the failure of the media to report on this, my understanding is that it was all rumor and innuendo until the last couple days. I think it would have been very irresponsible to report on this without any facts - and none were available.