If you don’t wanted it printed, dude, don’t let it happen.
The editor of the Aspen Daily News was forced to eat an inordinate amount of crow this week when he completely botched a simple courtroom story and then had to ’fess up, albeit anonymously, to his sins of character assassination on the front page. In the bargain, he missed out on a much better story that was staring him in the face. More on that later.
Here’s what happened: Hooper was tipped off by the Deputy District Attorney Richard Nedlin that Rabbi Mendel Mintz, head of Chabad of Aspen, was involved in a traffic accident and failed to report the incident to the police as required by law.
Under a nice story about the Rabbi and Chabad’s continuing attempts to buy the Silver Lining Ranch, the newspaper wrote this unsigned “correction” Thursday on the bottom of the front page:
“Yesterday’s story ‘Rabbi pleads guilty in traffic case’ contained factual errors: Rabbi Menachem Mendel Mintz will have no points assessed against his driver’s license so long as he isn’t issued a traffic citation in the next six months. While Mintz did plead guilty to failure to report an accident, it was subject to a six-month deferred judgment, meaning it will be wiped off his record so long as he doesn’t receive another traffic infraction over the next six months. If he does receive another one, he could be automatically adjudicated guilty for the failure to report citation. Another ticket Mintz was initially issued — leaving the scene of an accident — was dismissed altogether. The Aspen Daily News apologizes for the errors.
Amazingly, Hooper himself was in the courtroom and managed to pretty much whiff on the actual story. That’s what happens when you’re out to behead somebody: facts can only get in the way.
As for the big story he missed, consider that Rabbi Mendel testified on behalf of the Nedlin’s wife in a civil matter, thereby putting the D.A. in a position whereby he was all but required to recuse himself from the Rabbi’s case. Instead Nedlin notified the media (Hooper) and prosecuted the Rabbi who had testified for his wife. Hooper completely missed that story, too. Perhaps yet another front-page apology is in order.
And speaking of apologies—and in the interests of full disclosure—I should also point out that I have known Hooper’s sting. Despite my protestations before publication, the Daily News reported a story last year with my picture on the front page that said “Blogger Fired By FAIR.” In all fairness, while it is true that I am a blogger, I was never fired by Factual Aspen Investigative Reporting. In fact, Post Time News, where I am Editor, resigned the assignment because FAIR refused to publish a story on Marilyn Marks that we ultimately published here on Aspen Post. In fact, by contract, FAIR could not fire Post Time News without going through a month-long process of addressing any concerns.
How did the Daily manage to get that story so completely wrong? It’s simple: they never called me to ask. As with the Rabbi, that approach would not pass muster with a cub reporter, let alone a great metropolitan newspaper.
Before the days of blogging, a rogue reporter like Hooper was able to get away with nonsense like this unscathed
but no more.
Those days are gone, thank God.
Michael Conniff, a.k.a. The Con Man (you know, confidence man- someone usually really smart who uses falsehood to achieve his goals)
Says the Con Man editor above: “How did the Daily manage to get that story so completely wrong? It’s simple: they never called me to ask.”
How does Michael Conniff manage to get the story of Marilyn Marks so completely wrong? It’s simple, he never called her to ask.
In fact he refused my offer to arrange the conversation. He refused to talk to Marilyn Marks at all. To his credit, he did call me though. Based on that, I would think he could manage to talk to Marilyn.
Too bad for Marilyn that a significant percentage of the Aspen Post blog (this one) is smearing her in recent months. I guess that’s either the hypocrisy of the Con Man and editor Conniff or there is something completely different about a blog (and a radio show) than a newspaper- ie. it doesn’t matter at all what you put in a blog or on a radio show. Or is it the other reason?
I guess that begs the question: did Michael Conniff call Troy Hooper before writing the above piece? Makes you wonder doesn’t it?
While on the topic. Michael Conniff said on the radio that this blog is even handed and offers all sides a voice. I have requested blogger status both officially on the web form and in these comments. No answer yet.
Perhaps there is a second class of citizens here who may only comment and not create a new thread?
Which way is it, Michael?
My phone number is the same- 9631369. Only two people called so far. One of them was you. Please call again.
Harvie
Harvie:
I can’t seem to convince you that “Con Man,” like much of the imaging on my radio show, is delivered with a heavy dose of irony. Can’t help if you don’t get it.
If me meeting Marilyn is important to you, I will do it — because of you, not her. You might enjoy knowing that one of Marilyn’s most hysterical moments in the FAIR controversy came when she REFUSED to meet with me to go over the story… apparently because she said I was mean on the phone. (Poor defenseless never-mean Marilyn!!!) Because Marilyn is concerned about bullies in the schoolyard pulling her pigtails, to use her analogy, I promise to be nice. In fact, you and Marilyn both are invited to come on “Con Games” together any time you. Hell, let’s invite Mini-Me while we’re at it. You’ll all invited knock yourself out, and invite anyone else you’d like.
Seriously… no irony intended.
As for your own hilarious invocation of conspiracy theory, we’ll upgrade you to full blogger status. I’d love to have you on Aspen Post as a regular. You can join Marilyn, who is back, and invite Elizabeth and Paul Menter and Don Davidson and the whole gang that has been so silent.
Finally, I would point out to you with no irony intended that journalism and blogging are COMPLETELY different. I’ll explain the difference to you some day, but as Louis Armstrong said about jazz: “If you have to ask, you ain’t never going to find out.”
Cheers, Con Man!
PS Perhaps you can also explain why Marilyn’s apologists, Menter and Davidson, have been so noticeably silent on the Election Commission controversy. Perhaps they don’t want to apologize for her any more. Wake up, Harvie… you’re next…
I welcome your
Michael Conniff, a.k.a the Con Man (which roughly means professional liar) -
Yes I missed the irony in your title. For delicious and powerful irony watch for more from betterbadnews.com. I knew you had a soft spot in your con-man heart when I heard on the radio that you were amused by betterbadnews.com
How about the mayor on the big radio (KAJX) twice calling betterbadnews.com a political broadside? Seems he thinks it’s powerful too. Maybe we all agree on the power of effective satire.
Looks like you are taking a hiatus from focusing on the evil Marilyn Marks. Maybe she isn’t all *that* evil after all. Many are silent because they can”t afford to be treated the same way she is.
Looking wistfully at my AspenPost dashboard daily to see when I will have permission to post blogs and blogrolls. It’s been some time since you posted the above comment saying I can have full blogger status.
Meanwhile check out my http://aspenelectionreview.blogspot.com for much information about the perception and the reality of Aspen elections.
Marilyn is back. It’s about time to have that meeting. Are you still in town?
Harvie Branscomb. 9631369
Bring her on.
Cheers, Con Man!
What’s keeping you?
I don’t have all day….
Hold your horses, Con Man… glad to hear you are here…. love the Irony man in the photo…
BetterBadNews has produced a second video. Its more of the less true and more of the more true too! Find it by searching for “Aspenistan” on YouTube!
I’m all ears to hear the difference between journalism and reporting. Also interested to hear what you think truth means. I don’t expect a simple yes or no answer.
Haven’t seen my access to blog come alive yet. Let me know when it happens.
Harvie
[I'm all ears to hear the difference between journalism and reporting.]
You may be all ears, but you won’t be hearing about this from me. My comment (#2 above) explains why “journalism and blogging are COMPLETELY different.” Not why journalism and reporting are different, as you mis-read.
(I do hope you’re poll-watching and election vigilance is a bit more scrupulous than you’re mis-quoting of moi!!!)
I go on to say: “I’ll explain the difference to you some day, but as Louis Armstrong said about jazz: ‘If you have to ask, you ain’t never going to find out.’”
Reporting is, of course, the essence of journalism, while opinion, a very different animal, is the essence of blogging. Thus the standards for journalism are MUCH higher than the bar set for blogging. That’s just a fact, and facts are stubborn things.
All best, Con Man!
PS Have a technical problem with adding you as a blogger which I hope to fix Post-haste (sic). In the meantime, you’re free to keep the conspiracy going.
Man of Confidence:
Touché- you caught one of my many slip-ups. Of course “reporting” and “journalism” are at least vaguely synonymous- one presumably being one of the acts involved in pursuit of the other.
You know I intended to ask about the difference between “journalism” and “blogging”- the distinction which you made- giving me for an explanation only the mysterious analogy of jazz. (If you have to ask you ain’t never going to find out.”) That has got to be one of the best non-answers of all time. It sounds like you are saying “blogging” is an art which can only be appreciated by artists. Yes, blogging seems to create cults of believers. Maybe that is what you mean.
If “blogging” is only opinion divorced from fact, I can accept that and all that it means. What it means is that the contents of blogs, and presumably yours, is of little value to a wider community (the one which includes the non-believers as well as the believers).
Of course there is the entertainment value . Limbaugh or Fox serve as great role models, don’t they? Again your metaphor with jazz applies.
If blogging is improvisation (i.e. jazz) then it is definitely divorced from the facts. That explains why you really like BetterBadNews. BBN is the Herbie Hancock of blogs, the “iron chef” of irony ((料理の鉄人).
(Go to Youtube and search for “Aspenistan”)
Hope that conspiratorial technical glitch of yours doesn’t last forever. I have lots to say right now and nowhere to say it.
http://aspenelectionreview.blogspot.com
Harvie
Blogging is almost completely misunderstood, particularly in Aspen, and particularly among Aspen journalists.
When we started Aspen Post four years ago, local journalists were on the attack, saying we were “stealing” their content and not paying contributors. When their own payments to their contributors were slashed, and when the economy laid them low, they were less likely to say they’ve been wronged.
And, by the way, when was the last time a local paper (or any paper) paid a letter-writer for contributing content. The answer: never.
Like every other journalists, I brought my own misconceptions to the task. I thought local columnists like Alison Berkley would jump in, but not so. It was those without a regular platform — the Ed Troys, Sue Grays, and Mitch Mulhalls of the world — who jumped in and ran with what we had created.
On the occasions when journalists or writers like Bruce Berger have jumped in, they’ve been singed because (in my opinion) they are unused to the flat playing field it provides. No one at Aspen Post cares who you are as long as you have something to say. That’s something that’s very hard for journalists to deal with, because they’re so used to having the upper hand.
Journalism, to me, is a higher calling because it presupposes work, fairness, interviews, and a complete picture of things as they are. Blogging, on the other hand, is simply a way to be heard in a way that journalists ususally take for granted.
So ther, you have it, Harvie, as best as I can understand a phenomenon I don’t completely understand. I just hope it never goes away, and I’m convinced we’re all the better for it.
Best, Con Man!
El Hombre de Confianza (estafador o humorista?)
Interesting blog about blogging- starting with the mercenary and proceeding to the almost unethical- well not quite, but at least a “lower calling”.
I personally doubt the logic behind “journalism”- the idea that anything can be presented in an objective manner. There are many reasons why this cannot succeed- among them the deficiencies of language, mismatch between personal perspective of author and readers’ differing contexts, etc.
However it is possible to at least attempt to achieve fairness. One way is to try to cover it all in one story (extremely difficult if not hopeless). Another way is to have many writers and points of view, and always to accept more. The latter is much more achievable on an electronic medium, like this one than it is on paper. I hope that is what you have in mind.
I don’t even believe that news “reporting” is really that much different from what you call “blogging”. More or less half true 100% of the time is about as good as it gets.
The difference is (as is what separates magicians from faith healers) that honest bloggers know and explain that they are engaged in advocacy (i.e. quite likely some form of deceit) while journalists usually actually believe that they are “telling the truth” and healing the society too. The odd thing is, of course, that faith healing actually could have a positive effect on health once in a while too. So it is with journalism.
Are you, then, con man, one of the magicians? Or are you one of the faith healers?
Still waiting for my equal access to blog. Your system won’t even allow me to comment on the ADN stories of the year…and I thought #9 was quite formidable in its relative balance and accuracy.
Patiently waiting for a bit longer…………to blog blog, woof woof, miaow miaow for now.
Harvie