Remove Fournier: Draft a Letter to an APME Member
By Al Giordano
Field Hands are almost finished with the impressive job of compiling the email addresses, other contact info, and profiles of the Associated Press Managing Editors Association governing board members.
You can see your spreadsheet, which so many of you participated in building, here.
Shortly, we will begin contacting these APME board members - first, by email and snail mail only (later, to any that do not respond, we will reach out in more direct ways) - to inform them of the reasons why they should very much want to take immediate action to remove Ron Fournier as AP Washington bureau chief.
After exhaustive review of all that has been reported and written by and about Mr. Fournier, I recommend that we focus on three clear and basic points - any one of which, by itself, requires his dismissal -and exclusively so (at least until he perpetrates his next predictable violation of journalistic ethics in his coverage of the US presidential campaign).
The three points are, summarized:
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.
Today we will use the comments section to create draft letters (or at least some good lines and phrasing for one), each to a single APME board member (pick one, any one, because our contact with them will be as individuals, person to person, for that necessary human touch).
Please don't send them email or letters yet. What we're going to do is coach each other to help find the best ways to communicate and convince each of them of the necessity of taking action to remove Mr. Fournier.
We are not trying to create a single "form letter" here, but, rather a set of arguments that each of us can put in our own words to begin this conversation with the APME governing board members.
Our tone will not be adversarial - if you look at the biographies of many of these people, there's no reason to presume they (some of them of quite impressive accomplishment) won't see the wisdom and self-interest of their organization in changing course - rather, we will be friendly and respectfully persuasive.
Here, I will offer a dry summary of the facts at hand on the three points that, together, make the most effective argument to remove Mr. Fournier.
Statement of Facts:
Ron Fournier is the Washington bureau chief of the Associated Press.
As such, he writes much of the wire agency's coverage of the US presidential campaign, but also assigns stories and "analysis" essays to others, and administers a budget of undisclosed size to do so.
The necessity that the APME board immediately relieve Fournier of his post was underscored on Saturday, September 20, when Fournier distorted the results of a survey commissioned by AP: Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama.
Brandishing racially charged epithets to describe African-Americans ("lazy," "violent," "responsible for their own troubles," in Fournier's lede), the AP-commissioned polling agency utilized "push polling" techniques on white respondents (it did not, correspondingly, ask similar questions of African-Americans or other minorities to inquire about their views on whites: It is not known if it was also Fournier that, on behalf of AP, commissioned and negotiated the inflammatory methodology of this poll).
Furthermore, Fournier withheld from his report (coauthored with Associated Press writer Trever Thompson) the important fact that the same poll he cited showed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama at least four percentage points ahead of Republican nominee John McCain. Fournier never disclosed that Obama was winning in that same poll.
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."
Such lack of disclosure was especially irresponsible due to the potential and real incendiary effects the AP report has on race relations in the United States, particularly as the November presidential election campaign heats up.
This is the third major revelation about Fournier in the summer of 2008 that reveals his gross lack of ethical practice as a journalist.
On July 14, 2008, the US House Oversight Committee unearthed an April 23, 2004 email from Fournier, while he was an AP staff writer, to Republican political consultant Karl Rove. Fournier titled the email, "H-E-R-O." That document can be read, here, on the Congressional committee's website.
Fournier wrote:
"The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight."
The media watchdog group Media Matters interprets that statement as having said, essentially: Karl, you might think the media are liberal, but you can trust me. And give me access and return my emails. Because I'm on your side.
Fournier's clear declaration of partisan favor is in direct violation of the Associated Press Statement of Ethical Principles.
Among its provisions are:
The good newspaper... avoids practices that would conflict with the ability to report and present news in a fair, accurate and unbiased manner.
The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation....
The newspaper should strive for impartial treatment of issues and dispassionate handling of controversial subjects...
It should not give favored news treatment to advertisers or special-interest groups...
The newspaper should deal honestly with readers and newsmakers...
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...
Involvement in politics, demonstrations and social causes that would cause a conflict of interest, or the appearance of such conflict, should be avoided.
The statement, "I'm on your side," to the person who is arguably the nation's top Republican political operative violated multiple planks of those stated principles.
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.
It should be noted that the clear bias of AP's presidential reporting in favor of McCain and in opposition to his electoral rivals comes, in a large part, from reporters that serve under Fournier, who presumably has a bureau chief's authority to hire and fire them.
Fournier has brought his own team of virtually unknown underlings into AP's slanted and "in the tank" campaign coverage and analysis. And even veteran AP staffers are now exercising a disturbing level of self-censorship and partisanship apparently to curry favor with Fournier, their direct superior.
The Associated Press has become both laughingstock and a source of legitimate outrage by millions of Americans - and no small number of professional journalists - that see through its claims to fairness and objectivity.
Fournier's partisan statement of support to Rove was not an isolated case.
Two weeks after the Fournier-to-Rove email revelation, journalist Michael Calderone, media critic for Politico, reported that, in 2006, Fournier's partisanship led him to negotiate a possible "senior advisor" role in the campaign of presidential candidate McCain:
Fournier spoke about the job possibility with members of McCain's inner circle, including political aides Mark Salter, John Weaver and Rick Davis.
Salter, who remains a top McCain adviser, said in an e-mail to Politico that Fournier was considered for "a senior advisory role" in communications.
In response to these revelations, MoveOn.org asked its members to email Fournier and his immediate superior, AP managing editor Mike Oreskes, to complain about the biased coverage. Clearly it has had no impact whatsoever on Fournier's reporting. And if Oreskes was ever going to place some responsible supervision or oversight upon Fournier's partisan "reporting," he would have done so long ago.
That's why we're going to appeal to a higher power: The AP Managing Editors association governing board. That's the group that has the ultimate power - and responsibility - to correct the unethical practices of AP's staff and editors.
The response from Associated Press senior staff to the complaints about Fournier was to stonewall, combat and distort the facts. It was positively Nixonian in tone and scope.
An "internal" set of "talking points" sent by AP staff to APME board members, regional vice presidents and bureau chiefs was obtained by Editor and Publisher and placed on the Internet on September 1:
Here are some key paragraphs from that document, which begins with ad hominem descriptions of Fournier's critics. It also launches into an unconvincing defense of behaviors by Fournier that are, sadly, in violation of the organization's own Statement of Ethical Principles:
As many of you know, some political groups and left-leaning blogs have aligned to organize a newspaper letter-writing campaign against AP Washington Bureau Chief Ron Fournier. The campaign started this weekend with an email writing push aimed at Kathleen Carroll and Mike Oreskes, but has now moved on to urge newspaper readers to write their local editors.
Below you will find some talking points to help guide you as this issue plays out. Please feel free to use them in talking with editors and readers and forward to other AP staff you think might find them useful. In addition, later this week, Corporate Communications will go live with a robust new Elections page on ap.org that will provide some real estate to deal with these issues. It will highlight our Elections Team, include an archive of Ron's political analyses as well as those of other AP journalists and also have a FAQ that expands on the talking points below. This will be in addition to the elections and vote count background we normally post on the site.
Ellen Hale
Corporate Communications.
On Fourniers conflicts-of-interest, the AP statement said this:
--The blogs and political organizations have made much of an email from Ron to Karl Rove that surfaced soon after Ron was named acting bureau chief, and which involved the death of Pat Tillman. The email exchange between Ron and Rove occurred in 2004, while Ron was a correspondent for AP -- long before he was named bureau chief. Ron has widely publicly said that the tone of the email was unfortunate, but that the contact with Rove was in the pursuit of a story. Ron has written both columns and articles that are critical of Rove. Here's what Ron said publicly about the email: "I was an AP political reporter at the time of the 2004 e-mail exchange, and was interacting with a source, a top aide to the president, in the course of following an important and compelling story. I regret the breezy nature of the correspondence."
--Blogs also have made much of Ron's discussions with the McCain campaign regarding a position in it. These discussions occurred before Ron returned to AP. he also was considered for employment by Politico.com, the blog. Here's what AP said about it, and what we continue to say in response to queries: "It is not uncommon for journalists to be approached by political campaigns, elected officials and government agencies about possible job opportunities. Ron Fournier was approached by the McCain campaign and turned them down, months before he rejoined AP in March of 2007." (Paul Colford, Corporate Communications) The McCain campaign has made it clear that Ron was not interested in the position and that they never had any idea of his political leanings.
These are completely inadequate explanations that reveal behavior by AP much like that of governmental and corporate officials when confronted by reporters with their own wrongdoing.
If this weren't such a serious matter, it would be laughable: Using what "the McCain campaign" said, that it "never had any idea of his political leanings" as justification makes AP Corporate Communications spokesperson Ellen Hale both dupe and accomplice.
AP Corporate Communications spokesperson Paul Colford's suggestion that because Fournier was hired as bureau chief after his negotiations with the McCain campaign (and, by extension, after his "Keep up the fight" email to Rove) is not credible: AP did not know about either of these revelations before hiring Fournier for such an important job. Those facts came to light this summer, and merit Fournier's immediate removal.
Unfortunately for democracy in the United States, the controversy over Fournier's email to Rove and negotiations with the McCain campaign came before and during the two week marathon of Democratic and Republican National Conventions, with the choices of vice presidential nominees and other major stories eclipsing the clear story about the unethical practice of the nation's most important news wire agency.
However, the latest distortions and attempts to inflame race relations in America by Fournier last Saturday compel us to place "the Fournier story" back in the public sunlight.
The election, earlier this month, of fifteen new officers and board members of the APME also provides an opportunity for the new governing board members to step in and remove Fournier from his powerful position and instruct the senior staff at AP to fix its coverage of what is arguably the most important story in years - the election of a new president - so that it will adhere to AP's own Statement of Ethical Principles.
There are three points we will raise to the APME board members:
1. Fournier's email to Rove that stated "Keep up the fight" should disqualify him from reporting on electoral politics in the United States. It created a conflict of interest that is ongoing. It also created the widespread appearance of conflict of interest - also a violation of a basic journalistic ethic - which will only grow larger as the presidential campaign heats up. The defensive and false statements by AP Corporate Communications spokespersons only compound the violation and make AP and its governing board complicit in the conflict of interest.
2. Fournier's negotiations to join the McCain campaign as "senior advisor" create legitimate suspicion that he determined that he could aid its partisan agenda better through journalism and, this year, through Associated Press. The partisan and unfair nature of his reporting and analysis - and that which he has contracted out to others - confirm this violation of the AP Statement of Ethical Principles.
3. The AP's commission of an inflammatory survey that used derogatory racial buzzwords exclusively toward African-Americans, and Fournier's further distortion of it, reopens the issue of AP's clear bias in the presidential campaign (as well as running directly counter to AP's stated commitments to diversity and fairness).
Our first steps have been to inform and educate our selves on the true facts.
We are not raising small or tangential issues here, but, rather, the three very big ones, that will resonate far and wide as we bring them to greater public and journalistic attention.
In the coming days, we will begin to contact each of the 27 members of the APME governing board, via email and letters. Every letter-writer has a right to expect honest and prompt responses from each and every one of the APME board members.
If individual letter writers do not receive the response that such serious matters deserve, we will escalate to a campaign of telephone calls and visits to the workplaces of the APME members.
If that doesn't bring a change in AP policy, we may yet further escalate, targeting the media markets in which APME members work - Internet, talk radio, television, as well as grassroots political organizing and distribution of this information to all staff members of their newspapers, from bottom to top (many of whom are regular readers of this online newspaper already) - and we will involve civil rights, religious and other organizations in those communities to step up the volume on what, by then, would be their complicit protection of unethical and race-baiting activity by AP's Washington bureau chief and other AP staff.
We sincerely hope that APME members will see the wisdom in correcting this problem before it becomes a full-blown public grassroots organizing campaign and controversy.
Either Ron Fournier will be removed from his post, now, or the Associated Press, Mr. Fournier, and the members of the APME governing board will find themselves the subject of a national teach-in, through the media and grassroots organizing, that will become part of the narrative of this presidential campaign.
The APME has never received the scrutiny that a governing board of such an important media source ought to receive from informed citizens of a democracy.
This is not a light and transient matter. It cannot be "resolved" in the way that a smaller lapse by a journalist at a local newspaper might be handled "internally."
Fournier is at the pinnacle of media power: near total control - via AP's reach into the daily newspapers, local radio and TV stations of America - of the national media discourse regarding a very important presidential campaign.
If the aforementioned steps do not succeed, we will then escalate to an all out national campaign - carried out at the local level - aimed at newspapers and other media that subscribe to and purchase news from AP.
But we will begin by writing emails and letters - human to human - in the hopes that common sense wins the day at the Associated Press Managing Editors Association.
Obviously, this statement of facts is much too long for a persuasive email.
So, write your concise draft emails, letters - or shorter talking points - here.
Brevity, at this moment, is next to godliness. Craft a short email or letter that awakens APME board members to the necessity of following their own stated ethics code.
Make all three points, or just one of them: the arguments that you think are persuasive are the ones that will make your letter most effective.
Think the removal of an unethical and partisan AP bureau chief can't be done?
Meanwhile, use this comments section to post your own draft emails, letters, talking points and arguments to the APME members: so that by the time we click "send" - just a day or two from now - we will be making the best arguments: the ones that win the battle.
Email this page
here is my humble start( just the first few lines)
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Palgirl2008 (not verified)Dear Sir/Madam,
The AP always represented to me an objective, non partisan vehicle of news. In the age of biased news sources, your organization was among the last refuges of honest reporting.
The performance of your Washington Beurue Chief, Mr.Ron Fournier, during this campaign season has saddened and shocked me, and moved me to write this letter, asking for his removal from his position.
Mr. Fournier violated the Associated Press Statement of Ethical Principles on so many occasion in a way the compromises the integrity and the impartialty of your esteemed organization.
it started when he negotiated with the McCain campaign to be part of their media operation, and continued with his documented coroospondent with Mr.Karl Rove in which he declared that he was on Mr.Rove's side
"Karl, you might think the media are liberal, but you can trust me. And give me access and return my emails. Because I'm on your side."
But most outrageous of all, is Mr. Fournier's performance as a journalist during this highly charged political season...
that's what I have for now
excuse my spelling errors
To be replaced by whom?
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Tien Le (not verified)Is there someone we can recommend replace this guy who will right the ship? With him hiring all his cronies, what's to stop this from needing to be done all over again?
Nobody's going to listen to our proposed substitute
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Al GiordanoTien - That's a risk we take, but if Fournier were to be dismissed, whomever would replace him - even if it is one of "his" people - would get the message loud and clear that the news organization doesn't want such blatantly partisan coverage.
It would also send a message to others - in other media - to get their act together and report more fairly.
Our proposing a specific name or names to replace him would only make it less likely that those people would get picked. No organization likes to be micro-managed from the outside. However, airing a grievance in response to something the organization has already done is fair game.
Question
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Kat (not verified)Al, do you think it would make more of an impact for those of us who live in the states where the APME members reside to write to those members, and to make it known in our letters that we live in the same state?
Palgirl - Thanks for getting the ball rolling. My only suggestion (and Al can also weigh in on this) would be to save adjectives like "shocked" and "saddened" for when you are talking about the AP race poll, and not at the beginning of the letter.
Talking Point idea
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Kat (not verified)I have started checking the bylines of stories that I click on on sites like Yahoo, and if its written by an AP journalist, I won't continue reading because I no longer trust the objectivity of AP.
Yes
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Al GiordanoKat - Yes, the closer you are geographically to an APME member (and if you're in the readership zone of his or her newspaper, even more so), the more attentive that person will likely be to your contact.
How long should an email/letter be anyway?
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by D.Quayle (not verified)I usually prefer recieving short emails from which you can start a dialogue rather than giving all of the information in one go. If you get a reply then you can hit them with hard info/links. But these are probably busier people than I am used to emailing.
This campaign rocks
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by John SladeThis is awesome.
(So when am I gonna take up the pen? Good question!)
Whenever I correspond
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by We won't get fooled again (not verified)With an organization that is being unethical, I like to open with a reminder of their history and what they have done in the past that is exceptional. Then I hit them over the head with the negative. If you start out negative they won't read past the first sentence.
It's not unlike a parent using praise and in turn guilt to have a child adjust their behavior.
I found this on the Ap's own page, listed under
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES
AND PRINCIPLES
~~~~~~~~~~~
"I have no thought of saying The Associated Press is perfect. The frailties of human nature attach to it," wrote Melville Stone, the great general manager of the AP. But he went on to say that "the thing it is striving for is a truthful, unbiased report of the world's happenings … ethical in the highest degree."
He wrote those words in 1914. They are true today.
~~~~~~~~~~~
So I would suggest an opening using Melville Stone's own words.
Something along the lines of:
I am writing to express my concern about the recent reporting coming from your organization. As Melville Stone the great general manager of the AP said in 1914,
"I have no thought of saying The Associated Press is perfect."
It is unfortunate that the Associated press has done much to prove this point recently.
Mr Stone went on to say,
"The frailties of human nature attach to it, the thing it is striving for is a truthful, unbiased report of the world's happenings … ethical in the highest degree."
I would then point out that their Washington chief, Mr Fournier, seems to have forgotten the integrity and history that the Ap was founded upon.
Don't paint the AP with a broad brush, focus on Fournier and point out that his leadership should be an example of the AP's code of ethics.
Then go in for the smack upside the head with the laundry list of facts that prove Fournier is not and has not been ethical in his reporting.
I would then ask the person I am corresponding with to review the Ap's standards and practices and point out that under their own guidlines they have no choice but to terminate Fournier"s employment.
My Draft Letter
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Al GiordanoTo: Bobbie Jo Buel, executive editor, The Arizona Republic, president APME
Dear Ms. Buel,
First, congratulations on your election as president of the AP Managing Editors.
I write to call your attention to serious violations of the APME Statement of Ethical Principles by AP’s Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier.
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.
When, in July, a Congressional investigation revealed that Mr. Fournier had sent a letter to GOP operative Karl Rove stating his partisan bias (“I’m on your side,” 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.
Both incidents revealed real conflicts of interest and, also, the appearance of conflict, which we journalists seek to scrupulously avoid.
The response of the Corporate Communications office at AP was to send out an “internal” memo to then-APME members, regional vice presidents and bureau chiefs slamming “left-leaning bloggers” for raising these issues, and offering completely inadequate defenses for Mr. Fournier’s conflicts (the memo was posted online by Editor & Publisher).
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.
As the new 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.
AP is presently in violation of its own Statement of Ethical Principles by leaving Mr. Fournier in the position to inflict his stated partisan biases on the presidential campaign. It is especially incumbent upon those of you who are the 15 newly elected APME governing board members to set your ship on course again.
Please reply to this email and let me know if you intend to do that or if not, why not. If I don’t hear back from you via email I’ll give you a call soon.
Thanks for your attention to this urgent and important matter. As the new APME president, you have a huge responsibility. Here's hoping you utilize it well.
Sincerely,
Al Giordano
Locations
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Jason YoungAl - Since you suggested that we be as near to the actual location as possible and there is no one in Michigan, should I (and others in my situation) hold off for a short while before picking someone in a nearby state? I'd hate to select a member where there is another field hand much closer and perhaps able to make a larger impact.
In other words, should those of us with no one nearby wait for a while and pick up the members that haven't yet been taken by locals?
Michigan
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Al GiordanoJason - One of the remaining board members from the last APME term is at the Toledo Blade, which borders Michigan.
In any case, we're not clicking "send" quite yet. Pick one, any one, for the draft letter. You can always change it later on.
Those of Us writing to the
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by We won't get fooled again (not verified)Oakland Trib.
Should be mindful of the fact that they have suffered a loss over the weekend. Nancy Maynard, former owner of the Trib along with her husband, passed away.
Martin G. Reynolds the APME member we will write to knew her.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10525370?source=most_emailed
To incorporate that into your letter would be wrong. But to send a letter of condolence to him today, might be a good way to establish a connection.
snippet re: honesty
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Susan KitchensFournier wrote to Karl Rove, "Karl, you might think the media are liberal, but you can trust me. And give me access and return my emails. Because I'm on your side."
Fournier's candor goes against the principles of ethical principles of the AP.
Fournier dealt dishonestly with his readers and other newsmakers.
He built a bond of obligation to Rove.
He created the appearance of obligation.
He created the appearance of conflict of interest.
Draft to Martin Reynolds
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Heather aka gratitude (not verified)note: I have only chosen one point, for a rather informal e-mail. Having watched an interview with Mr. Reynolds, I am clear that he is highly intelligent and is most likely already aware of this matter.
Hi Martin,
I am writing to you in your capacity of APME member. First, congratulations!
Second, as the presidential campaigns come down the home stretch, we both know how rhetoric can heat up and go astray. At such a time the AP has a stronger duty than ever to remain as unbiased and faithful to journalistic veracity as possible.
Thus, the distorted analysis in Mr. Ron Fournier's Sept 20 article on the already-questionable AP-Stanford "race" poll stands out as a piece unworthy of the AP and one which violates its ethical mission.
I humbly ask that you and others on the AP board urgently act to remove Mr. Fournier from a post which he has abused and which discredits the AP.
Thanks for your time!
here I put my name and address
PS If you would like a more detailed critique of the poll and how its results were distorted, please get in touch. Thanks again!
A fox in the hen house
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Tien Le (not verified)The basic text of my message to Kathy Best
I never thought I’d see the day when I would lose all respect for the Associated Press. It’s come to the point where I no longer put any faith in articles written by the AP, especially those authored or approved by the Washington Bureau Chief Ron Fournier. His latest contribution (quoted below) to inflaming race relations in this county, the racist analysis of the AP-commissioned poll is a stark illustration of the kind of reporting that has undermined the reliable fairness of the 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" or responsible for their own troubles.
- Ron Fournier, Associated Press,September 20, 2008
This kind of biased reporting has no place in any newspaper in this country, let alone ALL the newspapers who contract with the AP.
I am calling for the immediate dismissal of Ron Fournier. It’s time to begin to adhere to the AP’s ethics code which states:
“The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation....”
And
“Involvement in politics, demonstrations and social causes that would cause a conflict of interest, or the appearance of such conflict, should be avoided.”
Oppmann
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Jason Eley (not verified)I'd like to email Andrew Oppmann, as I'm geographically in the center of both of his papers (the communities of which are essentially college towns outside of Nashville), and was served by him at the Tennessean during many of Fournier's lapses. I don't think any TN Fieldhands live in Clarksville or Murfreesboro, but if anyone is closer and wants to write him, I'll back off.
I'm going to leave for work soon, but if nobody else emerges today, I'll draft something tonight.
some more talking points
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Palgirl2008 (not verified)1- Ron Fournier has showed lack of any depth or insight in his analysis, His latest peice on Race as a factor in the presidential race, displayed a penchant for sensationalism, he ignored the nature of the push polling that went on, he ignored other findings in the poll that contradicted his point.
Survey USA Virginia - New Poll
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Melissa (not verified)Obama 51 McCain 45
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=7bd0cddb-f8eb-4a1d-9cbd-3a481b87bf37
A process suggestion
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by jon (not verified)Al,
Something that worked really well for Get FISA Right was to put a draft letters in a Google Doc or on a wiki and let people collaboratively edit them. Getting a bunch of different eyes is great for spotting unclear or confusing statements and typos -- and making sure that the key points are highlighted. Being able to edit it in place (unlike a comment thread) makes a big difference ...
jon
Kurt Franck - The Toledo Blade
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Jason YoungThanks, Al, for the clarification. I'll write up a draft for Kurt Franck later tonight after work. If anyone else is in the immediate area of The Toledo Blade and would like to write to this paper, I'll happily back off and select another.
Al, I like your letter
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by siddhartha (not verified)not to get all "grading papers" on you, these are my 2 suggestions (for now):
"Here's hoping you utilize it well"; This is a sentence fragment.
"to inflict his stated partisan biases on the presidential campaign"; I see what you are saying here because he has so much influence/power to actually change the course of the campaign but it leaves the possibility for someone to say, please, get real, we are not that powerful and if we were then your candidate--and they will assume that all who write are Obama people and not simply readers concerned with rational and fair public discourse--should be able to deal with it, otherwise how is he going to run this big country? (I've actually seen that used by some head guy at Fox who was given an award and said all this in a room full of all the journalistic literati who gave him a standing ovation; he was speaking about all the horrible stuff they did to Obama).
Anyway, a suggestion: Perhaps this could be changed to read: "to continue his skewed coverage of the presidential campaign to the detriment of the issues that most significantly concern the American people on whose behalf journalists write"
Didn't mean to just "correct" and run. I'll be able to work on a draft later on tonight.
"Correct and Run" is Fine!
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Al GiordanoSiddharta - "Correct and run" is exactly what I asked for. Thanks.
Jon - If you or somebody could post instructions on how to use Google Docs to post draft letters, then we'd know how to do it. I think it's a good idea.
Halperin getting punchy?
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Absentee Bob (not verified)Check out Mark Halperin's page at the moment.
http://thepage.time.com/
I guess he's trying to be tongue-in-cheek running the same Steve Schmidt picture four times under four separate headlines that begin with "Schmidt Declares War on...."
Gotta like the new SUSA poll that has Obama with a 6-pt lead, despite winning the AA vote ONLY 86-14.
Draft letter
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by D.Quayle (not verified)Dear whoever,
In light of APs reputation for continued excellence and impartiality, are you aware that there is a story brewing about one of your own writers, Bureau Chief Ron Fournier?
Ron Fournier is developing growing reputation on the internet for seeminlgly biased political headlines such as,
Analysis: Obama walks arrogance line
Analysis: McCain talks unity while allies attack
Analysis: Obama's pick highlights his weaknesses
Analysis: Palin more than her resume much more
however, there is now evidence of more serious breaches of the AP ethical code. A congressional investigation has turned up the following Fournier missives to Karl Rove, "Karl, you might think the media are liberal, but you can trust me. And give me access and return my emails. Because I'm on your side." as well as a breezy "keep up the fight". These were published online by media watchdog medimatters.com. Furthermore, the fact that the McCain campaign offered him a senior advisory role creates a clear conflict of interest which disqualifies him from any role at an impartial news institution.
There are other documented examples of bias and unethical behaviours which I can furnish on request.
Is the board aware of the loss of trust that has arisen from these revelations (not sure if I should keep this line, sensationalist?). As a board member I believe you are obligated to investigate this issue with respect to your published code of practise and if necessary take action. Have any steps been taken towards this end? Again, I would be happy to aid you in any way in resolving this matter.
Yours in pitchfork and torches,
Angry Reader
Hmm..
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Greg Ward (not verified)Al, at first I thought you were being selfish, putting your energy towards the subject of media partisanship, when there is what I would call a much more urgent problem in the financial sector.
But you've earned my trust with the way the tanning bed story blossomed. I have the feeling you're up to something a lot bigger than just Fournier. Maybe this will cause a similar chain-reaction? If it will, I'm sure you've already planned for it. Good luck!
Obama in Green Bay- "Enough is Enough"
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Bill R. (not verified)From text of Green Bay speech today:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/22/enough_enough/index.ht...
House oversight committee link
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Jay in SE WI (not verified)FYI the link to the House Oversight Committee emails RE: Pat Tillman does not contain the text that is quoted underneath it in this blogpost.
The email between Rove and Fournier is titled "H-E-R-O" but the text attributed to it is not in that email.
Fact-checking the fact checkers :-)
Great project; I'll try to lend more effort later!
(share, collaborate, collective action!)
I appreciate this kind of activism.
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by rikyrah (not verified)I really do.
Excellent catch, Jay
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Al GiordanoJay in SE WI - Thank you so much for your eagle eye. You're right. The quote I errantly inserted in the text was that of the watchdog group Media Matters (interpreting Fournier's letter) when his actual quote was:
"The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight."
The post is now corrected to reflect that.
And that's a good example of why it's a good thing that we're writing draft letters first! So that by the time we send them, our facts are 100 percent lined up and impermeable.
I owe you a beer, Jay!
Have I misread the mediamatters page
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by D.Quayle (not verified)Is the medimatters page saying that the implied message of "keep up the good fight" is "Karl, you might think the media are liberal, but you can trust me. And give me access and return my emails. Because I'm on your side."?
Because thats a harder case to make
Small issue
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by D.Quayle (not verified)Al, you wrote
The statement, "I'm on your side," to the person who is arguably the nation's top Republican political operative violated multiple planks of those stated principles.
maybe this should read
The statement of solidarity, "keep up the fight," to the person who is arguably the nation's top Republican political operative violated multiple planks of those stated principles.
great work, guys and gals!
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Amie HowellI have a question, isn't this new AP article based on the same poll?
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/09/22/ap5452743.html
It explores questions like how much of racial tension in the US is "created by blacks" and quotes a lady musing about the Bradley effect among her acquaintances.
What kind of polling firm is this? Should someone investigate them too? Are all their polls so inflammatory?
"The survey used the unique methodology of Knowledge Networks, of Menlo Park, Calif., including questions about how well words like 'friendly' or 'violent' describe blacks".
It feels like they are just going to do article after article and poll after poll (twisting the results) until it has the desired effect.
I wonder if Knowlege Networks has something to say about the twisting of their numbers in these articles.
Si somos americanos, seremos buenos vecinos;
compartiremos el trigo,seremos buenos hermanos -- canción de Rolando Alarcón
Todos somos americanos.-- Barack Obama
Totally off topic. An Apology
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Anonymous (not verified)Al and everyone:
I apologize for my intemperate and very stupid post. I post this in expatiation for my prior post at Al's suggestion. I was and am extremely upset about what is going on in Iraq which is off the US news and public agenda. We are only being told about how well things are going but that is not the whole story.
I mean this to be an apology but I feel I should explain my fears – if only to undo any angst I have created. I do not expect or care if you read further. I am submitting it to explain my post and to relieve any curiosity anyone may have. I have been trying to edit it for clarity and even brevity, although I feel I should post lots of quotes. But this is just meant to be an apology.
My thesis:
I believe The October surprise will be Iraq blowing up about the first week in October. And they, the Republican establishment know exactly how (and why) they are doing it.
Why: they think the economy is a looser for Mac. They think he will be the winner on WAR. I See the Georgia mess as a test run.
How. Simple. Petreaus has said that on Oct 1 the Iraqi government will take over responsibility for the "Awakening" etc warriors. Those that they don't take in to the army will be paid by the Iraqi government & that Maliki agrees.
This is very hard to believe as he and the rest of the Shia governmental people are dead set against this and have been from the get go. It is said that those that aren't taken into the Iraqi security forces will be otherwise employed. But they have no training, are no jobs for them and it is a real pipe dream. It's trying to create a rosy situation out of wishes (again). I realize that the Iraqi government CAN pay, it's that they don't want to. And that nothing has been prepared.
So what happens when they don't get paid? They can string them along for a week, tops. Then all hell breaks loose. Petreaus is now safely out of the country. And the troops are almost down to pre-surge levels. The transition should have been done when there was backup IF trouble were to come.
The parade of retired Generals on the talk shows has begun again. There was one on Tavis Smiley a few nights ago. He praised – more like deified Petreaus, conflated the Sunni Awakening with the Surge (tm) which he said resulted from the fact that Sunnis could see the US troops who were walking around pleasantly, mingling, chatting with the people were the good guys so naturally they wanted to go with the winning side. (In bloody Anbar Province ???) But he said it's fragile and naturally we have to be there a good long time to see it thru. and yat ta ta yat ta ta.
Now if Iraq erupts it is a two fer: Maliki will be scared into signing ANYTHING to save his own skin and keep the US troops near. And the US electorate should gravitate to John "I know how to win wars" McCain. I bloody well hope not. But this will be seen as proof that we can't leave Iraq.
I fear this. And I'm sure of it. Why else is this hand over timed for Oct 1? Why not do it while Petreaus was still there. Every one grants he understands the situation best. Furthermore, Petreaus has been pushing this for many months but very little progress has been made. How can anyone there not see trouble coming?
The only thing, besides a miracle that would make Maliki pay the damned salaries, either they erupt or the US goes on paying them.
I think that there should be some way to get out in front of it by getting out that this was planned and that it WILL happen. And I felt Al was the master of getting information out. I think if people knew of the possibility they would not panic if it does happen. And if things go smoothly (for which I truly pray) we can all be happy.
I think there is a slim possibility that it could work. But I really wish that this could get out as a prediction and that it is a set up to happen on a republican political schedule. Why do something this important on Oct. 1?
Any way now I've told you why I was an hysterical jackass and I again apologize to the readers here. It was wrong, I was wrong and I really am sorry for any discomfort I provoked.
I am appending a few items and cites in support of my fears. Please just skip them unless you are particularly interested.
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080916/FOREIGN/174767911
However, another dangerous crossroad is fast approaching, with responsibility for the sahwa councils in Baghdad to be handed over to the Iraqi government at the beginning of next month. The Shiite-led authorities have been wary of the councils and promises to bring them under the umbrella of the official security services have not yet been met. That could leave thousands of well-equipped and disgruntled fighters free to resume a war against US and Iraqi forces. It could pose a difficult management problem for Gen Odierno, who will have to make do with reduced numbers of combat troops as the surge winds down.
"The new leader [Odierno] might not have sufficient expertise to handle the current situation, which is delicate," Mr Zamili said. "The relationship between al Qa'eda and the sahwa needs to be properly handled."
~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/election/2008/0815diffi...
One of the consequences of al-Maliki’s perception of the new power relations in Iraq is that he is even less inclined than before to make accommodations with former Sunni insurgents now on the U.S. payroll in the militias called ‘Sons of Iraq’. Kahl said in the briefing that, of the 103,000 Sunnis belonging to those militias, the Iraqi government had promised to take into the security forces only about 16,000. But in fact, it has approved only 600 applicants thus far, according to Kahl, and most of those have turned out to be Shi’a rather than Sunni militiamen.
"There’s even some evidence that [al-Maliki] wants to start a fight with the Sons of Iraq," said Kahl. "Al-Maliki doesn’t believe he has to accommodate these people. He will only do it if we twist his arm to the breaking point." Kahl said al-Maliki has made a series of moves that have consolidated his personal power position within the state apparatus as well as in relation to various armed groups in the country. He has put intelligence agencies directly under his control and has set up major military operation centres around the country which report directly to the prime minister’s office.
~~~~~~~~~~
So that is my fear. Because I read a lot of Iraqi posts and know how bad things still are. And this hand over of control and support for 80 -100,000 armed, essentially militia men is fraught with problems even in the best of times with a smoothly running government. Which this isn't. And it is scheduled right before - and during our election.
I have a lot more cites but I think it is probably not appropriate to post them here. Most non-US news sources seem worried about the transfer.
One of the most detailed of the Iraqi bloggers is a Baghdad dentist called Dr. Mohamed, who is at: http://last-of-iraqis.blogspot.com/
He writes in a stream of conscious manner so is a bit hard to read. His posts from Sept. 8th on detail his concerns and reasoning on this point.
Other articles:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rosemary_righter/article4776113.ece
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/690972.html
I won't post the quotes – or any of the rest. Again I'm sorry for my post. I am scared but that is no reason to scare others. And I hope to hell I am wrong and things go well in Iraq. And here.
Yes, the letter
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Al GiordanoD.Quayle - Thanks. Yes. The letter will be corrected accordingly.
Thank you, Sam
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Al GiordanoFolks - The apology above is from Sam Dobermann, who had posted a rather controversial comment in another thread the other day saying he "knew" what the "October surprise" will be.
His update today is very reasonable: It qualifies what he knows, and what he surmises, and thus what suppositions he based his statement on the other day. Apology accepted.
O/T: what's race got to do with North Dakota
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Laura M. PoyneerAs an example of the mischief that the push poll highlighted by the AP has caused, check out this blog post at the LA Times. Although it is about Obama scaling back in North Dakota, half of it is devoted to the poll. Is this meant to imply that Obama is doing poorly in North Dakota because the people there are racist?
Is there a definitive list of Fournier articles?
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by D.Quayle (not verified)Is there a definitive list of Fournier headlines and articles that we can mine for quotes?
Fournier Articles
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Al GiordanoDQ - The Media Matters and MoveOn links in the story above have links to some of the most egregious examples of Fournier's reporting.
The AP statement above says it will post a special section online of those articles (but I've yet to see that happen).
Additionally, do what I did: Google "Ron Fournier" (together with the name "McCain" or "Obama").
Ramadan
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by TNK (not verified)Hi Sam,
Thanks for your apology and explanation. When I read your first post my heart skipped a beat, I'll admit, and I swallowed hard.
I generally agree with your assertions as real and distinct possibilities. As a Muslim I do want to point out, however, that it is currently Ramadan and Ramadan ends on or about September 30. In most places in the world the first day of not fasting will be Oct. 1. This has both benign and scary implications wrt your ideas.
First the benign: It is difficult for fasting people to deal with stressful situations, especially towrds the end of Ramadan which can be very tiresome time, especially in years when Ramadan occurs in the warmer months and one cannot have even a drink of water from sunrise to sundown. So the date may simply have been chosen from a practical perspective, based on a very old calendar not impacted at all by current political situations such as the date of the U.S. Presidential election.
Then the scary: In Muslim countries things are often put off during Ramadan for the sake of more peace and meditation and inward reflection. (Even at the level of bargaining with shopkeepers they will insist they are giving you their best deal because they are fasting and would never lie.) So there is weight to an idea of things escalating after the month is over, if only because people want to observe the holy month in a more religious manner. I can see how the U.S. could take advantage of this in the manner you've described, but I can also see some amount of escalation happening on its own with no manipulation on the part of the U.S. for purposes of affecting the election. A combination of both seems likely, with the U.S. capitalizing on the post-Ramadan effects anyway.
David Bailey
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Anonymous (not verified)It seems David Bailey is a fan of AP's opinion led journalism.
David Bailey, managing editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (where Fournier worked as a reporter in the 1980s), said that since the departure of former AP chief executive Louis Boccardi five years ago, he’s noticed “a new philosophy” as the AP tries “to do more with dazzle and footwork these days than [stories] with real substance,” which is why he said it’s important the paper maintains an active wire desk to vet and edit the copy. “We almost never run an AP story as we get it on the front of the paper,” he said.
Still, he said, “if the AP is smart enough to listen to what Ron will say, the AP will improve dramatically.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11716_Page2.html
1st attempt at a draft letter
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by jlsmith (not verified)I am contacting you 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 regarding 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 he has had with Karl Rove and if so, how do you justify that someone who has exposedd 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 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 got 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.
Republicans & Independents
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Emma (not verified)1. Perhaps it's a good idea to get relatives / friends / acquaintances who are Republicans or Independents or even McCain supporters to co-sign our letters, to underscore the point that this is not a partisan witch-hunt, and that non-race baiting, unbiased reporting on the Presidential campaign is in the interest of ALL Americans; Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike.
2. One caveat on this point: I do not know what, if any role Fournier had in designing the questions for this poll. Perhaps that's something we should do further research on. Anyhow:
An aspect of the latest Fournier-episode that we should especially draw attention to in our letters is the push-polling:
Take, for instance, question RAC7:
"How much do you like or dislike each of the following groups? White/Blacks/Hispanics"
The notion of liking or disliking an entire racial group is preposterous; the question itself is racist, because it implies that all members of a race are the same and can therefore be liked or disliked all at the same time.
Even more egregious is question RAC11, "How well does each of these words describe most blacks?". Some of the negative qualities suggested by the questioners: "Violent", "Lazy", "Irresponsible". Why is the same not asked for white people? And one only has to substitute "Jews" for "blacks" and insert some Jewish stereotypes to understand how inflammatory and downright racist this line of questioning is.
SPJ ethics
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Anne CrumptonAl, Don't know how many on APME are also SPJ members. Jack Lail [Knoxville News Sentinel] bio led me to look up SPJ ethics page. My notes are:
[Lail] SPJ ethics committee - Have served as national chair of the Society of Professional Journalists New Information Technology Committee, regional chair of the SPJ ethics committee.
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
"Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
Seems to me RF is not in harmony.
How to recreate a group, etc.
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by jon (not verified)Al,
1. Sign in to http://groups.google.com (creating an account if need be)
2. Click on "create group"
3. Choose a name, description, etc.
4. Invite a few other people as administrators
Once the group's created, there's a navigation menu on the right. Go to Pages, and then Create Page. Call it whatever you want.
The useful thing about the group is that by default everybody in the group can edit any document -- so collaboration is easy.
Also by default, whenever anybody creates a new document or edits one mail goes out to the entire group -- which can quickly become overwhelming. Each member can set their email preferences (the link's in the bottom of each message); I usually choose either "digest" or "web-only".
It's far from a perfect solution but it's pretty good for situations like this.
Hope this is useful ...
jon
Sentence doesn't make sense
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by AlanF (not verified)You wrote:
AP Corporate Communications spokesperson Paul Colford's argument suggests that because Fournier was hired as bureau chief after his negotiations with the McCain campaign (and, by extension, after his "I'm on your side" email to Rove) is not credible: AP did not know about either of these revelations before hiring Fournier for such an important job. Those facts came to light this summer, and merit Fournier's immediate removal.
The first sentence doesn't make sense. Perhaps it contains a word too many or too few. What should it say?
McCain camp trying to preempt?
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by David in VA (not verified)Both from today:
Ben Smith "in the tank"
NYT "in the tank"
I think you might have them a little worried, Al...
Fixed
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Al GiordanoAlanF - Good catch. I've changed the sentence to read better:
"AP Corporate Communications spokesperson Paul Colford's suggestion that because Fournier was hired as bureau chief after his negotiations with the McCain campaign (and, by extension, after his "Keep up the fight" email to Rove) is not credible..."
Fornier, donation and stuff...
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Kathleen HarganWow! I took a few days off and went to Monterey to get my jazz on... (Herbie Hancock, Joshua Redman, Maceo Parker, Cassandra Wilson, Wayne Shorter, to name a few... and lots of Obama supporters) come back only to find that you've taken on AP in a way that makes me proud to be a Fieldhand! Got to get in and settled (tried to follow a little of this over the weekend, but eyebrows were raised when I whipped out the blackberry!), but will definitely get on board.
Al, also just got to make my donation for your trip. Paypal didn't allow me to send a note; hope it will go for your trip.
See you all later after I've been able to peruse all your work.
kathleen
Drafting Letter to Jon Broadbooks
Submitted on September 22nd, 2008 by Catherine Cainat The State Journal-Register, Springfield, Ill. I will be drafting the letter by Wednesday evening. I'm crazy busy at work but I will FOR SURE find time to do this - it's too important not to. Thanks everyone for all this prep work on the project.