Mobile Press-Register gets twofer in Editorial

After yesterday's "precious little reason to believe "garbage from the B'ham News, the Newhouse paper in South Alabama got in their obligatory defense of those who prosecuted and jailed Don Siegelman. And they also managed to get a hit in on The New York Times for mistreating St. John McCain. I do understand that some people aren't thrilled with not just the NYT but also other sources for suggesting a sexual relationship with Vicki Iseman. I also wonder if there's more to the story or if maybe that part could have been culled. But the story wasn't about sex. More on that to follow.

My question is how the Mobile Press-Register can claim CBS show guilty of bad journalism? They write:

Let's go over their "journalism" ... It was perversely fitting that "60 Minutes" fired a wild shot at Mr. Rove just a few days after The New York Times tried to out-tabloid the tabloids with a story suggesting a romantic link between Republican presidential candidate John McCain and an attractive blonde lobbyist.

Following the lead of the Gray Lady, "60 Minutes" used sex to promote a weak story that rounded up a high-profile Republican suspect and then failed to present convincing evidence of corruption. The CBS program's descent into tabloid journalism consisted of uncorroborated and mostly repackaged charges about the prosecution and conviction of Mr. Siegelman on bribery charges.

"Perversely fitting" for a "wild shot" at Karl Rove? Damned if the Mobile P-R doesn't make the B'ham News look almost fair. At least they had the decency to give some credence to the many, many questions raised by this saga. "Failed to present convincing evidence of corruption" is the standard for printing? Aren't serious questions enough, especially for a politician that has repeatedly claimed to be above such unseemly behaviors? Is "uncorroborated" always forbidden?

Let's also back up for some background on the NYT story that Kevin Drum supplies. Once again, who cares about the sex! He might be cheeky ... yet it's not about him being randy but rather bold to claim he's St. John the Maverick. Even Faux News has reported some differences with St. John's recollection and Paxson Communications in that period of FEC activity. Here's some more. And I do ponder why Don Siegelman goes to prison for perhaps getting something from somebody and then perhaps helping them out when Senator John McCain did a favor for Bud Paxson who gave money and plane rides and ... to St. John.

Like I posted in my reponse to the B'ham News, Dana Jill Simpson had told Congressional aides that Karl Rove had wanted her to document Don being naughty. They correctly avoided that testimony. Ms. Simpson has testified under oath to Congress. Has anyone on the other side of this story? Providing lots of advice to 60 Minutes on being "diligent" and asking "pertinent" questions, the M P-R closes with:

Nothing presented by "60 Minutes" changes the basic facts of the case. The former governor was prosecuted by career federal prosecutors who were spurred on by stories in the Press-Register. Mr. Siegelman was found guilty by an Alabama jury. He is now pursuing appeals in the court system -- the proper venue for resolving questions about the case.

Mr. Siegelman will not be exonerated by a politicized campaign in the press to convict Karl Rove of pulling the strings of dozens of puppets, including career prosecutors and other court officials. This sort of conspiracy-mongering hurts the reputation of journalists much more than it hurts Mr. Rove or helps former Gov. Siegelman.

Mercy if that's not rich. Spurred on indeed. Larisa Alexandrovna certain is right to remind us of the M P-R's reporter Billy Curran's stake in Don's conviction. She writes, "... his entire career now rests on the very notion that he was either used to launder lies or that his own lies are about to be exposed."

Also, a main role of the press is I thought to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Don Siegleman is in prison and denied bail. Don wasn't even given time to get his affairs in order before being hauled off to prison in shackles. This seldom if even happens in a white collar case. Being treated this way is certainly afflicted I'd argue. If Don Siegelman weren't incarcerated (and waiting months or so for a transcript!) then perhaps we'd have not seen this story. 60 Minutes is smart enough to see serious questions about this case. More and more Americans, even in Alabama, are smart enough to suspect some monkey business has gone on.

Finally, Larisa has even more to offer on the way this case is being handled by the Alabama GOP and major media. I'm outraged that Don Siegelman can't at least get out pending the appellate process running its course. The M P-R knows journalism is about connecting the pieces of the puzzle. For them to claim those that are concerned about justice aren't doing good journalism is beyond belief. They surely know better. Their approach is what is doing harm to their profession. John Gunn