An Education For The Media

Assumptions made by reporters are the first lesson in Reporting 101. Never assume, always, always verify your facts. If you think you verified them go verify them again.

Let's look at the latest piece of campaign reporting misinformation regarding Paul Kanjorski's statements about minorities.

In today's Times Leader Bill O'Boyle pens a story about Democratic political collegues coming to the rescue of Kanjorski despite his insensitive statements made at a conference hearing where he stated his proposal was to help "good American people", not "minorities" or "defective" people, a summation written in the Los Angeles Times.

Several members of Congress came to the defense of U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski Friday after he was taken to task for remarks he made during a committee hearing in Washington, D.C.

Kanjorski’s challenger, Republican Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, issued a press release Thursday criticizing the congressman for making what Barletta termed “insensitive” remarks directed toward minorities.

Mr. O'Boyle left out some important information regarding the events that lead up to the press release by the Barletta camp.

Look at this HumanEvents.com article POSTED on 06/23/1010. If you trace the comments they started at 8:36P.M. on JUNE 23, 2010. The video itself is time stamped at 3:00 P.M. when Kanjorski made his disparaging remarks. The story was less than five hours old when it was reported on Human Events.

Look at this post over at pajamasmedia.com by Ed Driscoll from JUNE 23, 2010.

At the Washington Times, Kerry writes:

Connie Hair at Human Events has posted this shocking video of Rep. Paul Kanjorski, Pennsylvania Democrat, at a Wednesday conference committee hearing to merge the House and Senate versions of the recently-passed financial regulation bills. Here he talks about the debilitating effects of the recession on his constituents.

The Washington Times is already carrying the story on June 23. The first comment to that story is June 24, 2010 at 6:17 A.M.

The NRCC issues a press release on 06/24/2010. It states "A Kanjorski spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment."

On June 24, 2010 Lou Barletta's campaign issued this press release. The campaign was simply responding to the article that appeared on Human Events almost 24 hours prior. The campaign received numerous phone calls for comments about Kanjorski's statements.

The Standard Speaker reports on Barletta's release on June 25, 2010. Again it is reported that Efforts to reach Kanjorski were unsuccessful. The Times Leader did not run the story. Why?

It is a known fact that a campaign spokesperson for Kanjorski called the TL over this article. Livid might be an understatement.

Perform a Goggole search about Kanjorski's remarks and see the results. You will find pages and pages of coverage regarding Paul Kanjorski's insulting diatribe. But the Times Leader didn't run anything about the original story, just this piece to come to Kanjorsk's rescue. Why? O'Boyle didn't have any problem getting reactions from Kanjorski and his cronies for his story despite no response on previous attempts by the media.

Let's discuss an ethical issue for the Times Leader. It is no secret that Joe Healey, City Editor at the Times Leader is friends with Ed Mitchell, media consultant for Kanjorski's campaign. His friendship association with Ed Mitchell openly on FACEBOOK result is more than an apparent conflict of interest. How can a person in Healey's capacity sustain any criticism and claim complete disassociation from Kanjorski's campaign? Is Joe Healey involved in any decisions in the editorial room regarding article and content covering Paul Kanjorski?

The fact that the original article about Kanjorski's comments went viral all over the country including its placement at Number 3 on ABC news brings into question decisions made inside the Times Leader not to cover the original story but print the "saving grace" to help Kanjorski.

More On Kanjorski's Distasteful Remarks Regarding the Indigent

Start watching this full clip on Congressman Paul Kanjorski's comments and see how he not only disrespected the poor up front but continued his insenstive remarks. At 3:38 he states "It's not a cure all for everything, it's not taking care of the the useless, the wasteful, the imprudent, it's taking care of Americans that got in hard times, so many of em today, our population is 10% unemployed".

So the less fortunate are useless, wasteful, or imprudent while those who lost their jobs only fell on hard times. What an absolute moron.

Paul Kanjorski, you should be acutely aware that those born into poverty aren't useless, wasteful, or imprudent. Families on welfare must contend with a nationwide lack of affordable housing, a lack of jobs that pay a living wage, the difficulty finding child care, as well as increasingly rigid requirements for recipients of public aid. To imply otherwise is just plain irresponsible.

Kanjorski's Gaffe Regarding Minorities And More

Yesterday a story went viral concerning Congressman Paul Kanjorski's statement made during a joint House-Senate conference committee session where he contrasted minorities with "good American people". He immediately came under fire and sparked an uproar for the his antithesis position.

Despite those who rushed to his rescue it was fair for the opposition to ask Kanjo to explain himself. After all this lapse in judgement isn't the first time for the seasoned Congressman. It's funny how its fair game for the media to quickly seize on comments made by VP Joe Biden or former VP Dan Quayle, yet Kanjorski's corner wants a hands off rule.  Here's what a hypothetical interview would sound like over Kanjo's ridiculous statements that border on irrational.

Reporter: Congressman Kanjorski can you please explain what you meant by "defective" people?
Kanjorski: Uhhh that isn't what I meant
Reporter: Congressman Kanjorski can you please explain what you meant when you said "But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."?
Kanjorski: Uhhh that isn't what I meant
Reporter: Congressman Kanjorski can you please explain in these economic times what you meant when you said "We are helluva alot better off as a country and as an economy than we have ever been in the history of mankind"?
Kanjorski: Uhhh that isn't what I meant
Reporter: Congressman Kanjorski can you please explain what you meant by
"Financially, I don't have to be a democrat. I've got enough economics that I'm not going to suffer, but I'm telling you I don't like to live around extreme poverty"?
Kanjorski: Uhhh that isn't what I meant
Reporter: Congressman Kanjorski can you please explain what you meant when you said "I don't apologize to anyone" when asked if you would apologize to the troops for your statement over the war in Iraq
Kanjorski: Uhhh that isn't what I meant
Reporter: Congressman Kanjorski can you please explain what you meant when you stated that our federal tax dollars are "free money"?
Kanjorski: Uhhh that isn't what I meant

If the opposition is so wrong could Lou Barletta have that much influence to see that a headline like this one from the Los Angeles Times Rep. Paul Kanjorski says his plan helps 'good American people,' not 'minorities' or 'defective' people makes it to print? Why did the Los Angeles Times question his other statement later in that diatribe?

In his pitch, Kanjorski tells Capitol Hill legislative colleagues that expanding his state's mortgage aid program nationally would only cost "3 lousy billion dollars." After all threee lousy billion dollars is only free money.

One would think by now that the Democratic party would cut its loses and let Kanjo ride off into the retirement sunset. Attacking conservative sterotypes by validating liberal sterotypes isn't something one can fix. It is a fatal flaw and won't win elections.