Spread of vote-buying rumors on Internet is shameful
Posted 3/05/2008 04:51:00 PM
For days, rumors have been spreading across the Internet about an alleged vote-buying scheme at the recent Bernalillo County GOP convention. I’ve been asked repeatedly why I haven’t written about the allegations.
The answer: I haven’t found a story worth writing about.
Until now. The rumors – and, at least at this point, that’s all they are – that the campaigns of Heather Wilson and Darren White paid people to attend the convention and vote for their delegates, and that doing so is a felony violation of the state election code, have gained traction to the point that they are appearing on national liberal blogs and have become the subject of a news release sent out today by the Democratic Party of New Mexico.
Democrats hate when baseless allegations circulate on conservative talk radio to the point that they get picked up by the mainstream media. Bloggers – most of them openly liberal – and the state Democratic Party are now doing the same thing, and that shameful action is, in my view, the story.
So here’s the allegation, and then I’m going to tell you, in detail, why I haven’t written about it, and why I believe the actions of those who have are disgraceful.
Former governor alleges vote-buying
The rumors started gaining traction when a reporter for KKOB radio in Albuquerque, Laura MacCallum, aired the allegations on the radio. In a conversation with me, she cited former Gov. Dave Cargo as a source. When the
So MacCallum quit.
Since then, an Albuquerque journalist who hosts two TV shows, Dennis Domrzalski, published a story on his blog about the allegations citing MacCallum, Cargo and state Rep. Janice Arnold-Jones as sources. Arnold-Jones was quoted in the story as backing up Cargo’s assertion that people said they were being paid.
That caused the story to spread across the
That prompted the state Democratic Party to strike.
“Once again, Heather Wilson is caught in an ethically compromising situation in which she faces allegations of manipulating the system to come out ahead in an election,” Democratic Party Chairman Brian Colón said today in a news release. “This time, she refuses to directly answer the charge that she bought delegate votes, and her silence on such a serious charge is incriminating.”
A non-story
The spread of these rumors, Colón’s inaccurate claim that
My investigation began a week ago, after MacCallum first contacted me. I interviewed Cargo, who told me there was illegal vote-buying at the convention. During the interview, he contradicted statements Domrzalski and MacCallum quoted him as making and implicated a third candidate in the alleged illegal activity. I won’t repeat the contradictions here or name the third candidate, because I don’t want to spread rumors any more than they have already travelled.
I also spoke with Arnold-Jones, who told me the Domrzalski story doesn’t quote her accurately. She said she is concerned that vote-buying might have happened but she doesn’t know whether it did and isn’t sure whether that would be illegal even if it happened.
I spoke with the
I spoke with a source close to the White campaign, who also denied the allegations. I asked Cargo and MacCallum for names of people who said they were paid to attend. They provided none.
I have twice asked the attorney general whether there is an investigation. Last week, I was told there was none. This morning, in response to a second inquiry, a spokesman said the AG’s policy is “to examine almost any complaint that comes into our office. As a matter of course, such complaints are analyzed by appropriate personnel to determine if there is reason for the office to proceed further.” The AG’s spokesman also said the attorney general had personally spoken with White’s opponent in the First Congressional District primary, Joe Carraro.
That isn’t a very strong statement, and seems to imply that the AG’s office is checking or has checked into whether there’s any reason for it to investigate these allegations.
I asked the state Republican Party whether Cargo or anyone else had filed a complaint with the party about vote-buying. None have.
I spoke with law-enforcement sources who told me that, even if the allegations were true, they don’t believe the law was violated. The statute that prohibits vote buying applies to actual votes at the polls, the sources said, not votes on sending delegates to a state party convention. The political parties’ delegate-selection processes are governed by their own rules, not state law. That’s why the state didn’t have grounds to investigate problems with the Feb. 5 Democratic Party presidential caucus.
So I had a former governor making allegations that contradicted what he had been quoted as saying elsewhere, and he hadn’t filed formal complaint and didn’t provide the names of anyone who he believed was paid to be at the convention. This is also a guy who is admittedly upset that he didn’t get selected as a delegate at the convention.
That’s not enough for a story.
This is why blogging doesn’t get any respect
Some of the liberal bloggers who have written about this have referred to Domrzalski as a reputable, 27-year journalist in spreading his article across the Internet. But his blog includes a posting headlined “What Naked Men Shouldn’t do in the Locker Room” and two online polls that ask, “Should naked men blow dry their crotches in health club locker rooms?” and “Would you refuse to fondle an implanted female breast?”
This is not a reputable journalistic site.
As for MacCallum: I give her credit for going after a story she believed to be true and following her heart, at the expense of her job, when she felt her boss was doing something unethical. But she has made assumptions in her reporting that she should not. An example: When I asked her how she knew the vote-buying statutes would apply to this situation, she replied by writing in an e-mail, “If they didn’t apply, why would the SOS (Secretary of State) spend any time investigating it?”
That’s not an assumption that, as a trained journalist, I’m willing to make.
I won’t say there’s no story here. I will say that a journalist’s job is to investigate rumors and allegations and determine what’s true and what is not. For now, this one remains solidly in the rumor category.
This whole situation is an example of why the blogosphere doesn’t get any respect. As a journalist who is working hard to try to bring some integrity to the blogosphere, it makes me furious. Whatever their motives, those who have spread this rumor as though it’s fact should be ashamed.
Good journalism is about facts, not assumptions. It’s about asking hard questions, verifying claims and understanding all angles of a story.
By the way, if you’re wondering why I haven’t linked to any of the blog postings in question or the Democratic Party’s news release, it’s because I won’t spread these rumors any further unless I find facts worth reporting.
A prior version of this posting incorrectly stated that Domrzalski is a reporter for KOB-TV in
Labels: 1st Congressional District race, 2008 election, Media, U.S. Senate race



















15 Comments:
You are a credit to your profession Heath.
Heath-
I think what you've written here is good journalism -- to a point. You seem to have covered all the facts and the arc of the story very thoroughly. I appreciate that.
However, I don't recall ever reading a journalist -- a reporter -- saying he's furious. Mind you, you're entitled to feel that way and to say so. That is part of the beauty (and ugliness) of the blogosphere. You can go beyond the limits of journalism (and supervising editors).
I welcome your efforts to rise above the rest of the blogosphere. (No sarcasm.) But, the blogosphere isn't a professional media outlet. Bloggers don't have to be journalists. I understand you don't like that, but that's too bad.
Just stay above the crowd, doing an exemplary job. (Still, no sarcasm.)
peace,
mjh
PS: I agree with your valid swipe at Dennis D's site -- I was surprised by the unprofessionalism of it. If that seems inconsistent, it all has to do with who one claims to be and whether one lives up to one's claims. You do; DD may not.
Thank you Heath. Sometimes it's hard to separate fact from fiction when there's so much out there. It's good to know you're here keeping us honest.
You seem to be confused on what the story actually is in this case in terms of most of the blog covreage it has gotten here. The story is that the New Mexico Republican Party is obviously in disarray if members who are a well-respected former governor and a current state rep are talking with a blogger and making accusations about the campaigns of two other Republicans. That's why I covered it. Those named and quoted in Domrzalski's post, to my knowledge, never refuted anything he said and didn't respond to posts on other blogs about the story.
I'm sorry that you believe that:
"This whole situation is an example of why the blogosphere doesn’t get any respect. As a journalist who is working hard to try to bring some integrity to the blogosphere, it makes me furious. Whatever their motives, those who have spread this rumor as though it’s fact should be ashamed."
Unfortunately, too many who call themselves journalists often refuse to look into stories or get the facts. A good example is the exaggerated brouhaha over the Democratic caucuses in New Mexico. I seem to recall a rumor being spread about ballot boxes in Rio Arriba county that gained credence here and in the mainstream media when it was in the rumor stage. It was later clearly discounted yet most media outlets never bothered to report that. Most of the news articles, tv coverage and "journalistic blogging" I saw about the caucus generally and the reason the count of provisional ballots was time consuming was off-base, inaccurate and mostly consisted of hyperventilating. If you're going to be shaming those who write about politics, perhaps the manner in which the caucus stories unfolded should be included.
Blogs can fill the gap on stories that the mainstream media and journalistic bloggers don't or won't run. There's always an opportunity to respond by those being mentioned and opinion has its place in political discourse last time I looked.
I posted about the story that KKOB killed to focus attention on the fact that there is ongoing friction within the Republican Party in NM. Because certain Republicans now seem to be backing off their statements some doesn't make that any less true. I also drew attention to the KKOB news anchor quitting because they killed her story because, as everyone who's ever listened to shows on KKOB know, their general policy is to carry news and opinion that's incredibly slanted, geared to produce controversy and often short on facts. Has anyone ever witnessed them backing away from any story because it wasn't well documented? I haven't.
Clearly there is a difference between "journalistic blogging" and political advocacy blogging. However, I've never noticed any outrage or disrespect being expressed about the use of unnamed sources on blogs like Monahan to convey what amount to undocumented rumors presented as facts. Why the outrage on your part now?
I also note that you use an "unnamed source" in your post on this: "I spoke with a source close to the White campaign, who also denied the allegations." Did you document the veracity of the "source"? Why do you believe the source's statement is true? Simply denying something is not responding fully to the accusations, is it?
I think there are a lot of grey areas in political stories, whether they appear on political blogs or "journalistic blogs." There is a difference between political advocacy and supposedly "neutral" journalism and I think people know the difference. One has more leeway, obviously, in presenting a story and its possible ramifications and meanings.
That you approach stories from a nonadvocacy point of view, or at least try to, is admirable in many ways. What you do is a valuable part of the blogsphere, but there are also many other kinds of blog activity that take a different tack and have a different orientation. I really think you are off base in calling blog coverage of a story by a known journalist shameful and disgraceful. For one thing, making such judgments isn't really journalism, is it? It's your opinion and, as such, is really not much different than some of the things you are criticizing so strongly in this post.
Come on Heath, you're seem to be riding a pretty high horse.
I'm glad that as a journalist, you took the time to look at all angles, and realized that the rumors were just that: baseless and false.
It is a shame that the Dem party would do such a thing, and even justify it in a press release. They hold such a large majority in this state, it would be crazy to think that they would have to go on the offensive.
Despite the rumors, I think what you did was right Heath. You choose the right path as a true journalist and looked for facts, not fiction. This is exactly what happened to the New York Times. McCain's story turned out to damage the NYT's reputation rather than "uncover the truth."
Blogs are indeed a different "media" (no pun intended) and are different than regular print newspapers. But why not bring those same standards to the web. The people will decide, and will be loyal to what they think is the truth. Good Job Heath, I applaud your integrity.
Heath did a good job making sure we could make up our own mind. I suspect above all else that is his core mission. He wants us to have all the facts and all the thoughts and we make up our own minds.
As for him being mad, he should be. This “got you” journalism is bad for all, the same as the “got you” people trying stir the pot over the Dems voting problems last month. I defended Brian Colon on this blog and the way the Heath presented the issue helped to make a non-issue out of this.
Heath’s concern for the confidence we can have reading his blog is exactly why I read his and rarely read many others.
One possible correction is the esteem that Dave Cargo has in Republican circles. I am not speaking for anyone but myself here. After watching “Lonesome Dave” for several decades, it seems to me that he has always been a somewhat likeable loose cannon. Contrast him with Carrey Carruthers, also a Republican governor who is very well liked on both sides of the isle and you can see why Cargo feels left out.
Look at what
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_F._Cargo
wikipedia has on Cargo and then think of his comments. Might be true, but you are correct that we should be careful that sour grapes are not talking.
Again, good job Heath.
Your attempt to play the "I'm such a serious journalist, and you guys aren't" card is - well - cute. However, you've really missed a lot of the points here, and missed them by a huge margin. First, one of your key points is (paraphrased) "yeah, so maybe some folks had their votes bought, but heck it may not even be illegal because this isn't a general election." You seem to misunderstand that there are two angles to the story: 1) legal and 2) ethical. Something may or may not be legal, while still being unethical. But that's a subtlety that your "serious journalism" act didn't seem to discern.
About the only thing you're right on, is that the story should be further investigated. Which is certainly what reporters and radio stations should be doing. Well, unless their management - under pressure from political operatives - decides to squash the investigation. That's a story unto itself, but your "serious journalism" thing missed that too, I suppose.
Finally, your attempt to smear a journalist's work with comments that he may have written some 'fluff' or humor pieces on his website is, frankly, reprehensible. Moreover, it's fundamentally and logically flawed; one can be both a serious journalist and a humorist. Seriously, if that's the best you've got - attempts to slime a guy's reputation by pointing to some fluff stories he wrote to be funny, then I'm not impressed.
But, again, I credit you for arguing that the story should be further investigated. It certainly should, provided the power players don't prevent it. If the story doesn't have legs, then by all means that should play out. If the story does have legs, then the public should know. It's hard to know if a story has legs when a station cuts the legs off before finding out, due to political pressure from a campaign.
Heath,
I'll debate you anytime, any place about journalism, democracy and those horrible bloggers you're so upset about.
about me
I take Heath in that debate hands down.
Not that we'd completely disagree on everything...
Dennis and barbwire apparently want to make this blog entry personal, but doing that misses the point. Laura's reporting lacked basic journalist principles. She ran stories on teh air about these accusations, without even trying to contact the Wilson or White camp. That is Journalism 101, and is the real reason the stories were pulled.
And, Dennis is more than able to post whatever he wants on his blog, but if he wants me to take him as a credible journalist, I don't want to have to weed through polls and postings about breast implants and blowdrying of crotches. The two don't go together, and by the way, aren't even funny or witty.
Heath,
It is really too bad you weren't around during Watergate. Nixon could have used your brilliant 'objective' spin.
What "integrity"? Heath has so far refused to post my comments here. So much for "balance" I suppose.
As to politicaljunkie's silly comment that MacCallum didn't get comment from Wilson or White as per "Journalism 101"...Um, when did she mention EITHER Wilson OR White in her reports?
Had Mr. Haussaman had the courtesy to link up to our reporting so YOU could decide what was REALLY going on here, you might have learned that by now.
That's the problem brad, Rovian political tactics are being used here.
They do this all the time - control the input so they look like they are winning and their opinion is passed off as fact.
Heath will censor you because he can.
This way he can continue smearing and discrediting the 'whistleblower.' Dave Cargo was their man until he spoke out. Sadly, what is politically expedient for the Republicans is that their dirty laundry never gets aired - whenever anyone speaks up, they are swiftboated - you do recall how they all wiped their butts with McCain when he was running against Dubya?
Cargo spoke up because it was the right thing to do and he is labelled by his fellow Republicans as a firebrand and an enemy of the party. Not a problem, cargo can sleep at night and not have to worry about the party line which these days doesn't stand for much.
What does he get for it? He is labeled as a maverick who doesn't toe the political line.
Faux journalists like Heath rely on their past employment history in order to lend credibility. Then he can express his exasperation over how unfair the blogosphere is to Heather and company. Then he posts his commentary as to the relevancy of this story and do nothing but try to discredit then, his biased commentary speaks for itself. As if his 'opinion' matters - is this what you were taught in Journalism Heath?
I am not surprised Heath would censor you since he might tend to look bad if people read ehat you had to say in response.
Can you blame him? After all, he is just doing what Pat Allen has done and he hopes this will be where you stop.
Don't worry BradF, this isn't the only venue for discussion and faux journalists who shamelessly inject their personal opinion under the auspices of 'fair and balanced' are nothing more than hacks who operate as mouth piece for their Neo-con overlords.
As for the boot lickers who sincerely proclaim this is 'fair' and honest, it only leaves me to wonder if they are nothing more than Heather's lackeys who are trying to also sway public opinion with their sincere, thoughtful commentary which means nothing in the end because they are soft-balling the Republican party opinion - they are nothing more than plants used to shore up the biased opinion of a journalist who has an agenda that is clear as day.
No worries, if there is something, the AG will find out soon enough and Heather will be sent packing – along with Darren just like Alberto Gonzales was.
The comment censoring here is incredible. Heath has decided to let a few of comments in, but the ones with substance about the real story he has left out.
Color me unimpressed. And disappointed in someone who I'd previously thought to be an actual journalist.
Another one bites the dust. And you have the temerity to try and "shame" others? Shame on you Mr. Haussamen. What a disgrace indeed.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Published comments have been deemed by Heath Haussamen to be in compliance with this site’s comments policy. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Heath Haussamen or this site. If you know of a person who is abusing this site’s comments system by impersonating someone else or in other ways, please report it by clicking here.