Skip to main content

The News Journal editorial page: insulating Governor Markell by making him into an adjective

At some point I recall seeing--either at kilroy's or delawareliberal--a comment that it was telling when the Veasey report about campaign finance was finally published in the WNJ front page there was no mention of it on the editorial page.

Today it made the editorial page (picture Jack Markell picking up the phone and saying, "Guys?  What gives?  I need some cover here.")

It is embarrassing.  It would have been better to keep silent.


The WNJ editorial board is pleased that the special prosecutor recommended no accountability, and is quite ready to excoriate all the right people:
Former liquor executive Christopher Tigani was the biggest offender. He has already pleaded guilty to a variety of campaign finance law violations, including reimbursing employees who made campaign contributions.
Then there's this:
One businessman, Michael Zimmerman, claimed representatives of Gov. Jack Markell’s campaign recommended he reimburse employees who made contributions. However, the report notes Mr. Zimmerman, who pleaded guilty to a felony charge for illegal contributions, could not recall who told him that. Investigators also could not find any proof of it either. 
And, of course, this:
Sen. David McBride, apparently took beer and vodka from the Tigani group. The only debate is whether he took these gifts on a regular or semi-regular basis. Either way is shameful.
What is truly interesting is that Governor Jack Markell never appears in the editorial as a noun, only an adjective, like here:
Michael Zimmerman claimed representatives of Gov. Jack Markell’s campaign recommended he reimburse employees who made contributions. 
And here:
The report notes that on one occasion the Markell campaign did not clarify the ownership and at other times the contributors did not understand the differences. When that was pointed out, the Markell campaign passed the money along to a charity. 
It's pretty simple, actually:  by never mentioning the governor as a person, the WNJ Editorial Board chooses to sanitize, minimize, or even erase any possible connection between Governor Jack Markell (the noun) and "Gov. Jack Markell's campaign" (the adjective), and especially between Governor Jack Markell (the noun) and other nouns like Christopher Tigani or Michael Zimmerman.

Instead, mentioning only one politician in the entire state by name--Senator Dave McBride--the WNJ Editorial Board lambasts his conduct as "shameful" (even though there is far less grounds to suspect gigantic influence peddling in his case than in the adjectival Governor's), and completely omits any reference to Senator Dave Sokola (another Markell ally).

So that's it:  the paper that fearlessly accused former Governor Ruth Ann Minner (after she had left office) of being corrupt, has taken on the role of the fearless Vichy French inspector in Casablanca:  "We are shocked, shocked we tell you, to discover that influence peddling has been occurring in Delaware.  Round up Senator McBride at once and have him shot!"

ring.  ring.

"What?  Yes, of course, Governor.  No, your name will be kept out of it entirely.  And should I send your winnings to the usual numbered Swiss account?"

---------
A postscript:  there have been occasions when I have lambasted (and sometimes unfairly, I think, in retrospect) some of the wNJ's hard-working news staff.  Reporters like Nichole Dobo, Wade Malcolm, Jonathan Starkey, and Matthew Allbright do the very best they can under circumstances that the public generally doesn't ever get to see or know about.

But I've also worked with the WNJ Editorial Board as a member of the Community Advisory Board.

They're smart people.  They know better than this.

Comments

Anonymous said…
TNJ editorial board would have praised Tammany Hall.

They have ZERO credibility, ZERO.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...