APME Board Member on Fournier: “I Will… Look Into This Further”

...when the organizer, having researched and prepared a battle plan, blows the bugle that announces "let's get to work," hears a pregnant silence, and waits to hear the sound of galloping hooves.

I sent an email to my member of choice a little bit ago. I'll let you know if this person replies.

when I get home from work. I have a copy of the above letter printed out to use as a guide. The calvalry is coming!

Hey Al, this is my first time on your blog but I've read you on Kos.  Maybe you want to cross post there as well.  I am sadly unequiped to help in this matter being a citizen of the world an all.

Philly - I'm not crossposting this anywhere. It's super important that the first contacts be from well-informed disciplined letter writers, instead of knee-jerk emails that say "you effing AP troll, you're the reason the sky is falling!"

Thus, the days of walking folks through the facts, and refining our arguments, here, first.

Dear Mr. Sanford,

I am writing you today in your capacity as a APME governing board member & by the way, congratulations on your election to Vice President.
I am very concerned with the reputation of AP and it's reporting in regards to the 2008 Presidential Election. As the Vice-President of the board,
I believe you have an obligation to investigate Ron Fournier's biased coverage under the banner of AP. He has clearly violated the Ap's "Statement of
Ethical Principles".

As has been documented by the media watchdog organization Media Matters and others, Mr. Fournier’s coverage of the presidential campaign (and that of other reporters and analysts that work for him) has been demonstrably one-sided.

Last Saturday, the AP’s Fournier problem was underscored again. 
A very deceptive story by Fournier and Trevor Thompson cited a poll – commissioned by AP (whether it was Fournier himself that negotiated the methodology of the poll is not disclosed) – that used derogatory terms against African-Americans (“lazy,” “violent,” “responsible for their own problems” were three used by Fournier in his lede).

That story (and the methodology of the poll itself) was racially incendiary and, additionally, written so as to mask the real results of the poll.
Mr. Fournier’s argument was that white voters wouldn’t vote for Senator Obama for president, when the poll itself showed Obama in the lead (a key fact withheld by Fournier).
You cannot and should not underestimate how that story – in the context of the previously disclosed conflicts of interest of Mr. Fournier – has made AP a laughingstock among journalists and deeply wounded many with its race-baiting.

Here are three reasons Ron Fournier has violated Ap's Ethical Principles.

1. Fournier's email to Karl Rove revealing his partisan bias ("Keep up the fight") requires his removal as AP Washington bureau chief.

2. Fournier's negotiations to become a "senior advisor" to the McCain campaign require his removal.

3. Fournier's September 20 report on an AP-commissioned public opinion poll that, distorting the results of that poll, inflamed race relations in the United States, absolutely requires his removal.

As the new vice-president of the APME, I ask you to take action to remove Mr. Fournier from coverage of the presidential campaign and to take corrective action on his superiors, and those in the
Corporate Communications office, that have covered up for him to the detriment of AP’s reputation.

Sincerely,

Peter Kovacs, The Times-Picayune, New Orleans

(i probably) gave the wrong email. pkovaks@timespicayune.com

should be: pkovacs@timespicayune.com

The Field Hands are testing the waters and seeing how deep the pond goes!

Obama 51 McCain 44

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2008/09/colorado-poll.html

I've run into liberal, Obama supporters who are only too ready to believe the state findings of the poll -- that enough white voters will be turned aside by racial prejudice to at least make the vote narrower than it might otherwise be if not block Obama from the WH. Along with that sometimes comes an argument that focusing on Fournier amounts to "shooting the messenger."

It strikes me that talking points specifically anticipating and knocking down those arguments would be especially helpful.

Anonymous - To anyone that thinks that critique of Fournier's distortions of the racially incendiary AP poll is somehow "shooting the messenger," simply ask them to compare the way AP handled racial issues in its poll with the way ABC polled - in a much more even-handed, less inflammatory, and more substantially revealing poll - American views on the presidential contest by race and other demographics.

The tone, the spin, the adherence to the facts, and the measured focus - without adding bigoted buzz words to the polling methodology - is like night and day. ABC did it right. AP did it wrong, and, worse, Fournier distorted those results by withholding the most important piece of data: that Obama was still winning in the AP poll.

Also, if as I suspect, the "messenger" (Fournier and AP's Washington bureau) commissioned the poll (and thus shaped the "message" by tailoring it toward the spin he wanted), he's more than just a messenger here. Regardless, he couldn't even deliver the message accurately.

karen.peterson@thenewstribune.com


Dear Ms. Peterson,

I am writing to you as a governing board member for Associated Press due to my concern with Mr. Ron Fournier’s incendiary article on racial preferences in the current presidential race.  This article, when combined with other items from Mr. Fournier’s history, seems to be in direct contravention of the AP’s ethics code. 

The code, as I understand it, expects the reporter to be free of bias, obligation or conflict of interest and to report facts honestly and free of distortion.  Mr. Fournier has not lived up to these expectations in the following instances:

1.    In 2004 he wrote to then Republican advisor Karl Rove an e-mail ending with the exhortation “Keep up the good fight.”

2.    In 2006 he negotiated at one time to become a senior advisor to the McCain presidential campaign.

3.    On September 20 he wrote the race-baiting story based on
AP’s inflammatory poll, which referred to African Americans as “lazy” and “violent.”


On July 22, 2008, the media watchdog organization Media Matters, in a story titled “The AP Has a Ron Fournier Problem,” found a clear relationship between the political partisanship that Fournier had expressed to Rove and his reporting and analysis published under the banner of AP:

“The Fournier revelation came as no surprise to anyone who has read his recent campaign work, which has routinely been caustic and dismissive of Democratic contenders. In two "Analysis" pieces and a column, Fournier questioned whether John Edwards was a "phony," announced the Clintons suffered from "utter self-absorption," and claimed that Barack Obama was "bordering on arrogance." That's the right of a pundit. But at the same time, Fournier avoided raising any doubts about Sen. John McCain, and in fact rushed to his aid in print during the senator's time of campaign need.
That ethos seems to have been adopted by the larger AP political team, which, honestly, writes as if it's completely in the tank for McCain.”

The recent article he wrote on AP’s race poll completely distorted the results and failed to mention that Obama actually came out ahead in the poll.  He left out important information and wrote about the ugliest points he could find.

As statistician Nate Silver wrote of the AP poll on "race based voting":

"It is irresponsible to cite this study without fully disclosing its methods or making it subject to peer review, particularly as it appears to use a rather convoluted soup of statistical and inferential techniques."

For these reasons I urge you to consider removing Mr. Fournier from his position covering this historical presidential race due to his proven inability to follow AP’s ethical code.  AP has long been an example of impartial reporting of news facts, and it would be a shame for one reporter to destroy all that.  Thanks for your attention.

Dear Mister Miller,

I am writing you to express my shock at the behavior of your organization's current Washington Bureau Chief, a Mr. Ron Fournier. I have been a daily reader of Associated Press content for many years, and generally I have been quite satisfied with the tenor of the reporting, and the factual content presented... But this election cycle things have changed for me. Let me start by saying this is not an isolated incident - Mister Fournier's behavior and obvious bias have come to my attention at various times throughout the year. I will briefly illuminate for you several areas of concern:

At the start of the year, Ron Fournier was in confirmed negotiations with the McCain 2008 campaign to become a senior media advisor - and he has admitted publically that it is an offer that he seriously considered. This alone is an indicator of bias - though we all have our political views and ideas, Mister Fournier has consistently demonstrated that he does not have the ethical stamina necessary to stand in the face of his opinions and speak only the facts to his audience. He demonstrated this in his continued and at-length correspondence with Karl Rove, one of the GOP's most celebrated (and consequently most reviled) strategists. Fournier even encouraged Rove's tactics in public, declaring that Karl should 'keep up the fight' against his Democratic opponents - an expression of solidarity that is most uncomfortable to read when it comes from a supposedly impartial observer like Mister Fournier is supposed to be.

To make matters worse, Mister Fournier appears to have been behind a devastatingly incorrect and racially inflammatory piece written on September 20th. Your Washington Bureau Chief not only described African Americans as 'violent,' and 'lazy' in an effort to make his preferred candidate's floundering in the polls seem inconsequential.

Please look into this matter - if you consult such organizations as Media Matters and other fact checking organizations dedicated to safeguarding the fourth estate from bias, you will see that Mister Fournier has a track-record a mile long when it comes to neo-conservative bias and illegitimate reporting. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to have him removed from his position immediately, as his actions are in direct violation of the Associated Press' own code of ethics.

William "Joey" Thompson

Columbus, OH

Sorry about the error in the email address, it was probably my mistake as some of it I copied and pasted and other I just transcribed over myself. It should be fixed now, and I'll be doing an update later. I am at work right now and we're not supposed to do 'partisan' work here, it being a government funded community health center and all, so I will get back to it on my own internet connection later.

Cross-posting from a few threads back, feedback is appreciated!

---

Should we be linking back to the original Fournier post? The 'draft a letter' post has different info and the original has a slightly inflammatory title (although I 100% agree with it).  Rewriting my letter now...

I hope Al doesn't mind that borrowed a few paragraphs somewhat liberally from his own letter (I hope it wasn't too long as well - about 50 words longer than Al's):

To: Kurt G. Franck, Managing Editor, The Blade, Toledo, Ohio

Dear Mr. Franck,

First, I'd like to congratulate you on your recent appointment to the APME governing board. Second, a bit of disclosure: I am an Obama supporter and a neighboring Michigander (but I swear I'm not a Wolverine).

The reason I write to you is for a concern that goes beyond bitter political (or athletic) rivalries. My purpose is to call your attention to serious violations of the APME Statement of Ethical Principles by AP’s Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier. While I am sure you are aware of the controversy surrounding him in recent months, there is one recent incident which has caused me to act and write to you, the nearest APME board member.

Last Saturday, a very deceptive story by Mr. Fournier and Trevor Thompson cited a poll – commissioned by AP that used derogatory terms against African-Americans (“lazy,” “violent,” “responsible for their own problems”). While it has not been disclosed whether Fournier himself negotiated the poll strategy, he telegraphed the three insulting terms in his lede.

Both the poll itself and Fournier's story were racially incendiary - hardly the product expected from a responsible news organization. Even worse, Mr. Fournier's story made the argument that a substantial number of white voters would not vote for Senator Obama for president, while purposely masking the truth that by every major preferential piece of data in the poll, Obama wins the November election. Statistician Nate Silver (founder of fiverthirtyeight.com) reviewed the poll and stated, "It is irresponsible to cite this study without fully disclosing its methods or making it subject to peer review, particularly as it appears to use a rather convoluted soup of statistical and inferential techniques."

On the APME website, your board candidate profile says the following about what the APME should do:

"Never give up on building a diverse staff and diverse coverage to better reflect our communities."

I respect and admire this goal, yet it seems the tactics used by Mr. Fournier are in direct opposition to this goal by highlighting strife and division between our diverse communities, even where it may not exist.

As you may be aware, there are more documented cases, by the media watchdog organization Media Matters and others, where Mr. Fournier’s coverage of the presidential campaign (and that of other reporters and analysts that work for him) has been demonstrably one-sided. When, in July, a Congressional investigation revealed that Mr. Fournier had sent a letter to GOP operative Karl Rove stating his partisan bias (“Keep up the good fight,” he wrote), and a subsequent report in Politico.com revealed that he had negotiated for a possible “senior advisor” job with the McCain campaign, the old APME board should have taken immediate action to remove Mr. Fournier from covering electoral politics and particularly the presidential campaign.

Mr. Fournier's recent actions have made the political reporting of the Associated Press the punch-line to many jokes, and have severely undermined its credibility in this regard.

As a new governing board member of the APME, I ask you to take action to remove Mr. Fournier from coverage of the presidential campaign. AP is presently in violation of its own Statement of Ethical Principles by leaving Mr. Fournier in the position to inject his stated partisan biases into the campaign coverage. It is especially incumbent upon those of you who are the 15 newly elected APME governing board members to declare your intentions to maintain journalistic integrity within the Associated Press.

Please reply to this email and let me know your thoughts and intentions. If I don’t hear back from you via email I'll soon follow up with a phone call.

Thanks for your attention to this urgent and important matter.

Respectfully,

Jason Young

 

Sent.  I just did a hybrid of the emails others have already posted above:

Dear Mr. Bowden,

First, I'd like to congratulate you on your recent appointment to the APME governing board.  I'm a supporter and volunteer with the Barack Obama campaign (and spent many exciting but freezing days and nights canvassing the streets of Cedar Rapids and Lisbon for the caucus), and have been emailed repeatedly about the recent AP/Yahoo News poll about race in the upcoming Presidential election.  The poll's main author was Ron Fournier, who covers the Presidential race for the Associated Press. Mr. Fournier is a McCain supporter who was briefly considered for a senior role in his campaign's communications staff. This is no secret, and has been the subject of much debate and complaint from Democrats and liberals throughout the course of the campaign.

The renewed concern around Mr. Fournier is driven by what appears to be a deliberate attempt on his part to reframe the entire race in Senator McCain's favor. By "revealing" what appear to be deep-seated anxieties and misgivings about black people among white Democrats, this latest poll would seem to force a conversation about race and racism that both campaigns have (for the most part) been careful to avoid, as it has absolutely no bearing on either candidate's qualifications for the job of President of the United States.

Specifically, the polls, which was commissioned by AP (whether it was Fournier himself that negotiated the methodology of the poll is not disclosed), used derogatory language against African-Americans ("lazy," "violent," "responsible for their own problems" were three used by Fournier in his lede).

That story (and the methodology of the poll itself) was racially incendiary and, additionally, written so as to mask the real results of the poll.  Mr. Fournier's argument was that white voters wouldn't vote for Senator Obama for president (I know many Iowans who would rebut that claim), when the poll itself showed Obama in the lead (a key fact withheld by Fournier).  You cannot and should not underestimate how that story – in the context of the previously disclosed conflicts of interest of Mr. Fournier – has made AP disrespected among journalists and deeply wounded many with its race-baiting.

Here are three instances in which Ron Fournier has violated AP's Ethical Principles:

1. Fournier's email to Karl Rove revealing his partisan bias ("Keep up the fight").

2. Fournier's negotiations to become a "senior adviser" to the McCain campaign.

3. Fournier's September 20 report on an AP-commissioned public opinion poll that, distorting the results of that poll, inflamed race relations in the United States.

I know that you are part of the APME, and would implore you to address these concerns.  You and your Board members will decide if these allegations and Mr. Fournier's apparent motives are enough to have him removed from the campaign beat.  At the very least, his personal bias must be exposed if this poll is to be seriously considered and understood in proper context.

Polls as significant and potentially incendiary as these shape the course of campaigns more than they reflect their status.  If they are to live in the public consciousness, the clear partisan motives of the individuals responsible for them must be made clear.

Please help - not for the sake of the Obama campaign, but for the sake of your former newspaper's and the Associated Press' reputations.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Dear Mr. Broadbooks

I am contacting you (as an APME member) regarding the reporting that has been coming from AP's Ron Fournier.  The triggering report that prompted this email is his article on the AP’s Racial Views poll.  I was struck by the tone and the narrowness of his reporting and I was furthered troubled by what others had to say in response to his article.  My assessment didn't sit well with me, so I decided to do additional research regarding Mr. Fournier.  Frankly, what I found was shocking. 

Are you and the other board members aware of the type of interactions Mr. Fournier has had with Karl Rove and if so, how do you justify that someone who has exposed such blatant partisanship is entrusted with the position that Fournier holds?  Please understand the nature of my question.  I am perplexed that AP would retain someone who has expressly confessed such a clear bias toward one candidate in the position of Washington bureau chief.  I don’t see how this could be in AP’s best interest, and as a daily reader of AP reporting, I am certain that it is not in my interest.

In light of my recent education on Mr. Fournier‘s biases, I have realized the value I have placed in the straight reporting I have always assumed I would get from AP.  It's a classic example of the old saying “ you don't know what you have until its gone.“  Unfortunately, unless AP demonstrates it is able to uphold its own Statement of Ethical Principles by removing Mr. Fournier, it will not be possible for me to continue to fully trust the reporting done under the AP banner. 

If requested, I can provide you with a summary of my research on Mr. Fournier's activities that I believe clearly violates the AP's ethics.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.

Best Regards

from the email already sent:

Clearly the poll's findings do not favor Senator Obama and could very well be construed as attempting to slow the momentum of his campaign.

I thought the poll showed Obama winning????  The racist 'push' was not enough to overcome the strength if one read the poll results?

Hi all-

first, i've drafted letters to 3 editors (new orleans, knoxville, missouri). let's keep them coming!

second, i found a friend on facebook who knew one of the editors and did an introduction! (which got me to a 'real' email address. so, it's worth clicking on those facebook links. first real good use of facebook i've found.

third, i found this article from Politico: Is Fournier saving or destroying the AP?

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=1DA639E4-3048-5C12-0010F30E4...

Some quotes from his "mentor" Sandy Johnson: “I loved the Washington bureau,” said Johnson, who left the AP after losing the prestigious position. “I just hope he doesn’t destroy it.”

“The only thing he ever managed is a startup that he ran into the ground,” cracked Johnson when asked how her former protégé would handle overseeing the Washington bureau.

Looks like there is some real weirdness there. The AP looks like a real mess from what I could "google".

Dear Mr Fail,
Thank you for all you have done to bring the Knoxville News Sentinel into the 21st Century. As an older white retired woman, I’ve enjoyed keeping  up to date on the Internet. Congratulations on your selection as an AP Managing Editor.

It is because of this selection, and your long-time activity with the SPJ, including being the Regional representative on the ethics committee, I call to your attention this 9/20/08 release: http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race .

“Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama
By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles.”

As I read through this article, I began to scratch my head. Halfway through I read: “The findings suggest that Obama's problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.”

Then: “Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.”

The most blatant problem is Fournier distorted those results by withholding the most important piece of data: that Obama was still winning in the AP poll.

This Presidential race has captured my attention more than any other in my 75 years. I have followed it very closely. After Iowa, I made my decision to support Senator Obama.  Long before this article by Mr Fournier, I became aware of his links to Carl Rove, the McCain camp, and his appointment as an AP bureau chief.

The AP has a long and storied history of gathering news for the public. Factual reporting, without bias, is essential for open discourse and informed decision making. I implore you to look at the offerings of Mr Fournier in the light of the ethics statement of both the AP and the SPJ.

My review of these professional ethics finds Mr Fournier to be sorely lacking. His September 20 story describing African-Americans as "lazy" and "violent" is beyond the pale. His slanting of information is apparent.

You and the AP Board members will decide if Mr. Fournier's apparent biases are enough to have him removed from the campaign beat. I hope your review will result in an urgency of immediate action for the sake of the reputation of the AP, professional journalists, and the reading public who depend upon accurate information.

Thank you.

I have already received a response from Kurt Franck of the The Blade (Toledo, OH):

 

Jason:

 

Thank you for your e-mail and your congratulations on my appointment to the APME board.

 

As far as Ron Fournier’s story goes, I am not in a position “to take action” to remove him from covering the presidential campaign. That’s not my call.

 

However, I am forwarding your letter to several editors at the Associated Press, so they can be made aware of your complaint.

 

Again thank you for taking the time to write.

 

Fondly,

 

Kurt  

 

Kurt Franck
Managing Editor
The Blade, Toledo, Ohio
Winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting
419-724-6163

 

my apologies if this is 'old news' but i did some googling and got at least a little more context for Fournier. It looks like he is spearheading a push to make the AP more "in your face" and to "cut through the bullshit" by calling a spade a spade. From the conservative renew america: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huston/080715

He calls it "accountability journalism"

http://www.poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=12666

It looks like his goal is to just turn it into an editorializing machine. He feels liberated that after Katrina, they could finally call out Bush on his BS. (Like there was no other way to factually report on Iraq). He's done things to knock Bush, Hillary, and Obama on several occassions, mostly on what I'd call trifling things. He's pissed off every group I can find except for McCain's supporters.

He seems to embody the worst side of the new media and the old. It's like he woke up one day and realized there was spin and he doesn't have to report it. I appreciate his desire for accountability, to avoid spin, and report "what needs to be said" rather than simply the traditional style of two sides (in particular the whole 'moon is made of cheese' thing, but it doesn't look like anyone is happy with his result.

At any rate, on response I got back was that "Fournier isn't in the tank for McCain," and from what I've seen, he seems more simply reckless and self-serving -- although like I said he has done hatchet jobs on everyone *but* McCain. These are the "toughest" article I could find on McCain Palin... and given the number of lies he's told repeatedly, that seems a bit odd.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_veepstakes_analysis

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iElN_Fxq1lEsVF2Z5haqYzv2kqcQD92VDK7G0

And a good Gawker roundup

http://gawker.com/5048998/can-we-stop-with-the-ap-in-the-tank-for-mccain...

Sure makes a nice foil to authentic journalism, a much more noble pursuit, I'd say.

Anyway, it looks to me like a profitable line of attack could be focusing on the push polling and how the journalistic integrity of the AP is being run into the ground.

I'm not sure if my subject line was any good: "APME governing board action needed".

What subject lines did you all use?

Franck is being less than honest with his claim that it's the job of the AP corporate board of directors to fix journalistic ills in the news organization. Quite to the contrary: the supposed "separation of Church and State" between newsrooms and owners applies at AP as well. The corporate board is made up of corporate types - Rupert Murdoch and Steve Newhouse among them - that is, newspaper owners.

If, for example, at the Toledo Blade the owners came in to make staffing calls (like, who will be the bureau chief in Washington?), you would see outrage from the likes of Franck. Owners are supposed to restrict their influence to the editoral page, period. (Yes, it doesn't always happen that way, but he'd never admit that in public.)

Asking people to instead contact totally unreachable billionaires like Murdoch and Newhouse is like asking them to write the president of the United States: the emails won't even get opened.

But guys like Franck are supposed to be the journalistic eyes and ears of the corporation: If they don't blow the whistle on unethical practices (the APME board, and not the corporate board, is who developed and wrote and approved the Statement of Ethical Principles), nobody will.

You can feel free to copy and paste these comments and send them to Franck. I think he's being grossly negligent of his own ethical responsibilities here as an APME board member. Calling out staff conflicts-of-interest on journalistic issues is precisely the APME's responsibility and supposed area of expertise.

The corporate board, on the other hand, is solely concerned with generation of revenue and budgetary matters and, as is supposed to occur in newspaperdom, should stay out of editorial decisions. Franck's disingenuous passing-of-the-buck to a board that is not supposed to intervene in editorial calls ought to be worrisome for every newspaperman and newspaperwoman in the country: the last thing we want is the corporate side meddling in the reporting side.

I will construct a response to Franck as soon as I am able with that information in mind. I'll be sure to remind him of the APME's Statement of Principles and its function.

Question, though, Al: Is the Board of Directors the same as the "editors at the Associated Press" of whom he speaks? I only see one person on the board with the title "Editor." It seems possible to me he is sending my letter to other managing editors with the APME - perhaps I am misinterpreting, however.

Jason - Franck is speaking about staff editors - those hired to run the news agency - not board members.

And, to be fair, Franck didn't actually say that this was the corporate board's responsibility, but it's the only possible inference from the claim that the APME has no place in assuring compliance with the APME Statement of Ethical Principles.

Beautifully written letter. 

In the APME contact list document there's a blog listed for Michael Days which I don't think is actually his. The blog is by someone called Michael Day. I can't imagine that someone would intentionally remove the last letter from his surname on his blog?

Not as well written as many of the others I've read above but all I can manage at the moment. Will let you know if I get a reply.

Dear Mr. Dennison,

I am writing to express my deep concerns over the ethics of your Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier.

The AP provides a necessary link for rural readers to the greater world. Because of this role the AP has a tremendous influence over people's view of the world. This carries with it great responsibility and the reporters and chiefs should reflect that in their work.

Mr. Fournier has failed to follow the AP's own code of ethics on more than one occassion.

1. Fournier's email to Karl Rove revealing his partisan bias ("Keep up the fight").

2. Fournier's negotiations to become a "senior advisor" to the McCain.

3. Fournier's September 20 report on an AP-commissioned public opinion poll that, distorting the results of that poll, inflamed race relations in the United States.

Because of his control over what comes out of the Washington Bureau and the grave importance of this upcoming election and the need for voters to have facts without spin as they decide what direction our nation will take I am requesting that you take the time to look into Mr. Fournier's actions and take appropriate steps to ensure that the AP provides comprehensive, fair and impartial coverage to its readership.

Thank you for your attention.

Martin Reynolds, Editor
The Oakland Tribune
7677 Oakport St. #950
Oakland, CA 94621


To Mr. Martin Reynolds, Editor


As a former resident of Oakland and Berkeley, let me first say how delighted I am to hear that you have been elected to the board of the Associated Press Managing Editors.  Second, I should disclose that I am a supporter and volunteer for Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign. 

I am writing to you to call attention to serious violations of the APME Statement of Ethical Principles by Ron Fournier, head of AP’s Washington D.C. bureau.  While the APME Statement insists that good journalism “avoids practices that would conflict with the ability to report and present news in a fair, accurate and unbiased manner,” Mr. Fournier has, on several occasions, made it clear that he is interested neither in fairness nor in accuracy, and furthermore, that he is very much a biased actor.

I have followed Mr. Fournier’s reporting throughout the present presidential campaign, and I have often felt that there was an indistinct line between his reporting and his editorializing.  What Mr. Fournier calls “accountability journalism” has often read less like journalism and more like political endorsement — from his calling Obama and his wife “arrogant” and oozing “a sense of entitlement” (“Obama walks arrogance line,” Mar 17, 2008) to his contemptuous dismissal of the Democratic candidate’s choice of Joe Biden as the vice-presidential running mate (“Biden pick shows lack of confidence, Aug 23, 2008).  This is a radical shift on the standards of reporting that must surely give journalists everywhere pause. 

More alarming, however, has been his recent piece, “Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama” (Sep 20, 2008), co-written with Trevor Tompson.  In this article, Mr. Fournier and Mr. Tompson emphasize the negative attitudes of some voters towards African-Americans, using in the lede such charged language as “lazy,” “violent,” and responsible for their own troubles (the last of these phrases occurs, strangely enough, without quotation marks, making ambiguous the source of the statement).  The report does not explain the poll’s methodology, which would have been more useful information in gauging the overall significance of its findings.  Nor does the report ever mention that the poll found a four-point lead in favor of Obama among the voters surveyed.  Instead, what Mr. Fournier’s report does is to use inflammatory language to make the unsurprising point that racism still exists in America. 

In light of this summer’s revelations that Mr. Fournier had once written a message to Karl Rove that concluded with the eyebrow-raising line, “Keep up the good fight,” and in light of Mr. Fournier’s own interest in joining the McCain campaign as a senior advisor (reported by Michael Calderone, Politico, July 29, 2008), it is becoming increasingly hard to take Mr. Fournier as anything but a political partisan — one who astoundingly continues to enjoy the privileged position of Washington bureau chief at the venerable Associated Press. 

Already, numerous journalists have called attention to the impact of Mr. Fournier on the reputation of the Associated Press.  It seems past time to remove Mr. Fournier from his prominent position as bureau chief and, just as importantly, to address these serious concerns in the pages of the Oakland Tribune.  As an elected member of the APME, it is in your power to raise these concerns.  As an admirer of the Oakland Tribune, I hope that I will see a fair and accurate accounting of Mr. Fournier’s actions in the pages of your splendid newspaper.

I am sending one copy of this letter by email; the other will be sent via U.S. post.


Sincerely,


Jack W. Chen

but not nearly as well-writen as Allen's.

Dear Mr. Reynolds,

I have chosen to contact you from the list of APME members as I live in Alameda and read The Oakland Tribune on a regular basis.

I am contacting you regarding violations of the AP Code of Ethics by AP's Washington Bureau Chief Mr. Ron Fournier.

From the AP Statement of Ethical Principles:

"The newspaper and its staff should be free of obligations to news sources and newsmakers. Even the appearance of obligation or conflict of interest should be avoided."

and

"The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation."

Mr. Fournier is in violation of additional principles but these two alone could be grounds for his removal. Consider the following:

1. Mr. Fournier's partisanship was revealed in his 2004 email to Mr. Karl Rove regarding the death of Cpl. Pat Tillman, in which he urges Mr. Rove to "Keep up the fight." He characterized his statement as "breezy" when in fact it seemed more "earnest fan" than anything else.

2. I have read Mr. Fournier's pieces and the pieces of those who report to him with growing concern, but the racially inflammatory September 20 report on an AP-commissioned public opinion poll was what prompted me to write to you.

Two excerpts:

"Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word 'violent' strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with 'boastful,' 29 percent 'complaining,' 13 percent 'lazy' and 11 percent 'irresponsible.' When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment."

A basic premise of the poll was that those polled view all blacks as a group, rather than as human individuals. That is insulting and racist towards both the subjects of the poll and those being polled.

"Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama."

Tellingly, Mr. Fournier has skewed the results and decided this is a problem for Mr. Obama despite the fact that those who cited a negative adjective about blacks in general, 58 percent were backing Mr. Obama anyway. Perhaps those polled have an ability Mr. Fournier seems to lack, seeing black people as individuals and not as a homogenous group.

I no longer trust AP stories covering the U.S. Presidential election. It is my hope that the APME Board, as the keepers of the Statement of Ethical Principles, will be taking action to improve AP's reputation.

I would appreciate a reply to this email regarding any action you plan to take and if you will be taking no action, an explanation as to why.

Thank you for your time and attention.

(Me)

Alameda, CA

Dear Sir,

I write to bring to your attention serious violations of the APME Statement of Ethical Principles by AP’s Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier. On September 20, 2008 Mr. Fournier and Trevor Thompson’s story “Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama” appeared widely in print and online media. This study cited a poll designed by Mr. Fournier himself that in addition to its factual distortions used derogatory stereotypes of African-Americans (“lazy,” “violent,” “responsible for their own problems”) in its lede. The poll questions used further racially incendiary language.

Mr. Fournier and Mr. Thompson distorted the findings of the poll, which contradict the claims made by them in their story. This poll and Mr. Fournier and Mr. Thompson’s story violate the APME’s stated principle to “Never give up on building a diverse staff and diverse coverage to better reflect our communities.” In addition, statistician Nate Silver (founder of fiverthirtyeight.com) reviewed the poll and stated, “It is irresponsible to cite this study without fully disclosing its methods or making it subject to peer review, particularly as it appears to use a rather convoluted soup of statistical and inferential techniques.” This story does a great disservice on two counts to the American people on whose behalf journalists write: 1. It gratuitously uses racial stereotypes and in so doing distracts from the issues at hand. 2. It violates journalistic ethics to accurately and objectively reflect data.

Mr. Fournier’s ability to report the election objectively can be further questioned due to an email he sent to Karl Rove on April 23, 2004 ingratiating himself for “access” due to his personal politics. He explicitly states his partisan bias (“I’m on your side,” he wrote to Rove) against the “liberal” media. A subsequent report in Politico.com revealed that in 2006 Mr. Fournier had negotiated for a possible “senior advisor” job with the McCain campaign.

The APME board should take immediate action to remove Mr. Fournier from covering electoral politics and particularly the presidential campaign. His reporting has caused the AP to become a laughing-stock.

Lastly, I write to you as a teacher. This election has created a wonderful opportunity for students to talk about race, gender, and national identity regardless of personal politics. Many of my students would like to become journalists because they recognize the importance of facts and rational public discourse. I can no longer point to the AP as an example of journalistic integrity.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, 

I thought HE actually wrote "I'm on your side."

Mr. Reynolds may well regret opening his email today! I believe mine is the fourth on to Mr. Reynolds; It's nice that each of them are somewhat different both in content and detail.

BTW, Al.. re:Maceo Parker -- he's amazing, and had the audience on their feet through his entire set... I believe he and Herbie Hancock were the highlights of a great weekend. Herbie introduced an African guitar man, slung his keyboard over his shoulder like a guitar, and the two drove the crowd wild (it appears there is a form of African music with 17 beats). No one wanted to leave even though it's outdoors at 11:30 on a typical Monterey night... cooooold.

 
Dear Mr. Reynolds,
 
While I am writing to you in your position on the governing board of the APME (congratulations on your election!), I first want to thank you for your commitment to the City of Oakland. Oakland (Fruitvale) is my home, and it has been painful to see her lifeblood being lost to violence. I especially appreciated your article in response to the murder of  Kennah Wilson and her unborn child and your challenge to Oaklanders to stop decrying the violence; to stop waiting for the Mayor, the police, the administration to fix the problem… and do something. You quote Arnold Perkins, “We want things stopped without stepping in to help stop them. We do not want to actively contribute.” As you discuss ways that citizens can become involved in changing our beautiful but deeply injured city, you end with, “So put down that coffee and let's get to work. I've got some books and some time. Do you?”
 
Mr. Reynolds, that admonition is not only applicable to our city, but to our country, and we have some work to do. Your position on the APME governing board is an important and critical one. The ethical standards of the APME as delineated in the Statement of Ethical Principles have been seriously violated by AP’s Washington Bureau Chief, Ron Fournier.
 
While Mr. Fournier is bound to uphold journalistic ethics, as well as require that those who report to him do the same, he has exhibited a startling lack of attention to the ethical code. I grew up in a rural area and my father was chief engineer and eventually vice president of the local television station. I was versed from a child as to the difference between “commentary” and news reporting as well as the serious nature of non-biased reporting. Mr. Fournier is the conduit through which passes “news” to many for whom AP is a major source of information and guides the formation of political opinion for many.
 
Last July, a congressional investigation revealed a letter Mr. Fournier sent to GOP operative, Karl Rove, stating his partisan support and saying “I’m on your side.” It was later revealed that he had negotiated for a “senior advisor” position with the McCain campaign. Both incidents reveal conflicts  of interest, and should have disqualified Mr. Fournier from covering the presidential campaign. Editor & Publisher posted an internal memo from AP’s Corporate Communications slamming “left leaning” bloggers for raising these issues.  No disciplinary action was taken, nor was any recommended by Corporate Communications. While these incidents are critical, I was not moved to action until this past weekend.
 
On September 20, Mr. Fournier and Mr. Trevor Thompson cited an AP commissioned poll that was racially incendiary and used derogatory terms to describe African Americans. The poll and commentary suggested that “one third” of Democrats believed such things about African Americans. The story and the methodology of the poll was written to mask the underlying intent of the article and the poll: to suggest, and thereby give credence to the idea, that white voters would not vote for Senator Obama. What Mr. Fournier deceptively neglected to mention, is that the same poll showed Senator Obama in the lead.
 
You and I are both committed to a city that appears to be under siege. You and I both know how powerful the media is in crafting the perception of the public.  Polls have the ability to shape as much as reflect the campaign, and the inappropriate use of this particular poll demonstrates Mr. Fournier's partisan reporting.  Mr. Fournier's actions are not only unethical, but in absolute violation of all principles of authentic journalism. I ask you to support the removal of Mr. Fournier from his position in Washington, as well as corrective action against his superiors, who have allowed this conflict of interest to continue in clear violation of  AP’s own Statement of Ethical Standards. Not only has Mr. Fournier's action distorted vital information in way which some would call race baiting, but his has severely damaged AP’s reputation.
 
Please respond  to this email address as to your willingness to address this critically important issue. I will follow up by telephone if I don’t hear from you. I appreciate you taking the time to read this letter and for the admonition to “do something!” rather than simply complain.
 

No response yet from Mister Miller. 

Do you think perhaps these APME Board members are all calling and emailing each other about our letters and trying to figure out how to respond?

Though maybe the four letters sent to him were something of an overload?

Sent: Ron Fournier's coverage

Dear Ms. Best,

I'm writing to you in your capacity as a member of the Associated Press Managing Editors Association. I'm concerned about the recent AP/Yahoo News poll about race in the upcoming Presidential election. The poll placed undue weight on the question of race and propagated negative perceptions of race in a manner similar to the practice of "push-polling".

Ron Fournier, the principal author of the poll is a public supporter of Republican political consultant Karl Rove and was considered for appointment as a senior advisor to Senator McCain's campaign before being appointed as AP's Washington Bureau Chief. A previous article by Mr. Fournier was described by the Washington Monthly as repeating "the Republican line with minimal variation".

Mr. Fournier is entitled to his personal opinions, but I hope that you will agree that would not be appropriate for him to use his position to unduly influence the national debate. I hope that the Associated Press will seriously discuss whether Mr. Fournier's performance in covering the presidential campaign adequately reflects the AP's principles of neutrality and disclosure.

Thank you for your consideration,

Riley Lynch
Seattle

Received: Re: Ron Fournier's coverage

Riley,
Thank you for your note. I have forwarded it to the AP bureau chief in Seattle.
Here at The Seattle Times, we evaluate every story that moves on the wires -- from AP, the New York Times, McClatchy, the Los Angeles Times and other sources -- very carefully for accuracy and fairness. And we will continue to do so for the remainder of the campaign.
Thank you for your note.
Kathy Best
Managing Editor/Digital News
The Seattle Times

yesterday. likewise no response as yet. Mine was the brief one I posted in the drafts blog.

Heather aka gratitude

Not a word...

Nothing from C. Stovall.

His voice mail message says he's "back from vacation" so perhaps he's still digging himself out.  I left a msg asking him to take a look at my email and respond at his first opportunity, either by email or phone.

I doubt we overloaded him. As the editor of a newspaper I'm sure he's used to receiving multiple emails about the same thing. He could even just send brief ACK emails if he was too busy to respond in detail. The vacation sounds like the reason.

So I have come to realize, while waiting for his response, that I am uncomfortable posting his verbatim email. Is it just me? Is it typical for an editor to expect that their response might be shared with the larger world, as part of their role? Does it come with the territory of the position? I've never posted a personal email (just generic blasts, like from the campain) on the web before and wanted to check in about this. I would be comfortable posting a summary of the response, no problem. And if everyone assures me it's par for the course, I'd be fine with posting the verbatim response. Assuming, of course, I get one. :-)

Anyone in position of "public trust" as we would expect leaders of the media to be, should have no problem were their emails to be published, nor should you feel you are posting a "personal" email. You wrote in the position of a concerned citizen about an issue of great public importance, and Mr. Reynolds should not expect that his email response would be confidential unless there was an express agreement between you that it was. Al addressed this issue to some extent in the early days when publishing emails from the owner of the blog which was former home to the Field. And publishing Mr. Reynold's response is quite different than publishing email between you and a friend, lover, spouse or some other person who by the very nature of the relationship would have every reason to consider the email confidential.

That's my take...for what it's worth.

Thanks for responding. You're right, of course, and I do remember Al's thread about this from The Field's former home. And I felt silly asking in the first place, since Al said to post 'em and he has the highest integrity. It just felt funny to me. The work I do is highly confidential (alternative medicine, so patient privacy, HIPPA, etc.) so I guess I'm just sensitive to it.

Hi All,

AP is at it again. So, who was responsible for deregulation in 1999? It was the Democrats! Check it out:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/27/23816/3139/32/612196