Statesman Allows David Dewhurst to Write 1/3 of a Front Page Story

by: Phillip Martin

Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 06:00 AM CDT

Key Question: Just two days after publishing an accurately critical quote by Republican Senator Jeff Wentworth about Republican Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, why did the Statesman publish an entire fluff piece on Dewhurst on the front page of its paper that not only ignored the original story, but was co-written by Dewhurst himself?

Is this what a wink and a nod between failed elected officials and yellow newspaper editors looks like in the 21st century?

• Monday, June 29: The Statesman reports that Republican Senator Jeff Wentworth says that the Senate is "not going to put up with" Dewhurst trampling the will of the Senate for his own partisan favors for Governor Rick Perry any longer.
  
  
• Wednesday, July 1: David Dewhurst co-writes 1/3 of a front page story for the Austin American-Statesman, where he is the only one quoted and the original Monday story is completely ignored

Don't believe me? Let's look at some facts:

• 804 words are in the story, total
  
• 270 words are direct quotes of David Dewhurst
• 0 words are quotes from anyone other than Dewhurst
• 0 words challenge anything Dewhurst says

Dewhurst claims the session was a huge success -- and there is not a single word to challenge that. Not one.

Really, Statesman?

No one who works for the Statesman thought that it might be responsible journalism to follow up with Dewhurst about the fact that a leading Republican State Senator from Central Texas, -- the area the Statesman covers -- declared, "We're not going to put up with this any longer" about Dewhurst? Dewhurst was the sole subject of the entire article -- and you couldn't ask him one question about the remarks you'd reported only two days before?

Really?

Am I, as a reader of your publication, supposed to somehow forget this other piece of news you published, titled: ‘We’re not going to put up with this any longer,’ Wentworth says

[Republican State Senator Jeff Wentworth] added, “We’re not going to put up with this any longer. There are a number of senators that I’ve already spoken to that agree with me. It only takes 16 senators to adopt rules.”

Wentworth said Dewhurst told him that Gov. Rick Perry talked to him 20 times about stopping the legislation. And he said former Sen. Ken Armbrister, who works for Perry, “cajoled and threatened” six senators into opposing the measure, giving Dewhurst the cover he needed to not bring up the bill. (Asked about all this, Dewhurst spokesman Rich Parsons said only that the bill did not have the votes necessary to be called up).

Wentworth said there is an unwritten understanding between senators and the lieutenant governor that if 21 senators are willing to debate a bill, Dewhurst will recognize the appropriate senator to bring it up.

“The lieutenant governor should not abuse that power that we give him,” Wentworth said. “He should not have given his word to Perry that he would kill that bill.”

Pretty heavy accusations from one of Central Texas' State Senators. But was there any follow-up about that in the front page story on Wednesday? Nope. Instead, David Dewhurst got an 804-word direct mail piece sent to the door of thousands upon thousands of Texans, bought and paid for by the Austin American-Statesman.

And it's not like Senator Wentworth's critiques of Dewhurst were without company. A few weeks before, Harvey Kronberg -- owner of Quorum Report and writing a piece of political commentary for News 8 Austin -- took Dewhurst to task:

His denials notwithstanding, most in the Capitol now believe that Dewhurst conspired with Sen. Tommy Williams to trick the other senators on the first day of the session. Williams surprised his colleagues by proposing a new rule mandating the Senate take up voter ID, a bill that Democrats otherwise had the votes to block.

The Williams play ultimately led to a session-killing filibuster in the House, by a handful of Democrats. But if Dewhurst was blindsided by Williams as he said, why did he reward him with one of the most important chairmanships at his disposal – Senate Administration?

Perhaps it was because of his upcoming wedding in June and the preparations were distracting. But Dewhurst's erraticism, lack of concentration and inability to keep a schedule were the talk of almost every senator. He was rarely in the chair. By most reports, he was inconsistent and dismissive in his dealings with Speaker Joe Straus.

Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle had noted some of Dewhursts' failures, as well, in a piece that ran at the end of session correctly identifying Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst as failing a test of character in playing his part in letting CHIP legislation die:

Dewhurst told reporters Wednesday afternoon that he was “looking for a vehicle” for CHIP expansion, he received some help.

Journalist Harvey Kronberg, whose online “Quorum Report” is must reading in the capital, quickly posted an item pointing out, as he had earlier in the day, that Coleman’s bill was available in the Finance Committee.

Thursday afternoon Dewhurst said Coleman’s criticism was “premature.” Dewhurst said Thursday evening the bill could be revived, but he was exaggerating.

Was it a deliberate charade or callous stupidity?

Does it matter, since Gov. Rick Perry appeared ready to veto the bill anyway?

Yes, it matters. It was a test of either character or competence. Dewhurst and Ogden flunked.

Sounds like a lot of controversy surrounding Dewhurst's role in the last session, doesn't it?

Yet does Mike Ward or the editors at the Statesman bring any of that into context? Not even a little. Instead, this talking point from Dewhurst is published unchallenged on the front page of the Austin American-Statesman:

As for the regular session, Dewhurst insisted that despite a last-minute partisan fight in the House that killed hundreds of bills and left the legislative process in chaos at the end, it was successful for the upper chamber.

"For the Senate and myself, this was almost a textbook perfect session," he said. "We addressed all of our important legislation early, got it passed — even though some Democrats filibustered and killed 200-plus of our Senate bills."

• 804 words are in the story, total
  
• 270 words are direct quotes of David Dewhurst
• 0 words are quotes from anyone other than Dewhurst
• 0 words challenge anything Dewhurst says

Oh, and by the way -- this just puts the icing on the cake.

Statesman writer Mike Ward, following the fluff piece that ran Wednesday morning, followed it up with not one, but two blog posts about Dewhurst's wedding the previous weekend. Even Ward, thinking it was cute and recognizing his fan-boy obsession with Dewhurst, closes his final love letter to The Dew with the following:

You asked Statesman.com for more details. We asked Dewhurst.

“What are you, TMZ?” quipped a staffer standing nearby.

Don't flatter yourself, Mike. TMZ would be a welcome change of professionalism.

No One Really Wants to Buy the Statesman

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman

Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 06:00 AM CDT

Four groups have made bids to buy the Austin American-Statesman, but none offered more than $50 million, Nicholas Carlson reported yesterday at Silicon Alley Insider.

To illustrate what a poor situation that is, let's go back to September, where media analyst John Morton told the Statesman's Dan Zehr that "a rule of thumb for valuing a newspaper is $2,000 multiplied by the average daily circulation over a week. For the Statesman, that comes out to roughly $350 million."

...

If that much has changed in the past six months, then the market for a profitable newspaper, with no other daily competition and a growing web presence, has bottomed out. The land that the Statesman sits on is worth $32 million on its own, according to Travis Central Appraisal District records.

So what does Cox do now? The company said it wouldn't rule out selling the paper and the land separately. They can either sell one of their well-performing papers for one of these low-ball offers, or hold on to it and see what's around the corner. It's a depressing situation to be in for the newspaper's owners, and for those who work there.

Sheesh. From the Business Insider, the bidders...

* Platinum Equity, which just bought the San Diego Union-Tribune.
* Chris Harte, who publishes the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
* Hicks Holdings, which owns the Texas Rangers.
* Jim Friedlich of Zelnick Media.

...and this sad quote.

The $50 million figure is based mostly on the Stateman's real-estate footprint, our source tells us. The source is pretty sure Cox won't accept any of the offers.

"Austin's in this bizarre trap: It's so worthless you might as well hold onto it."

While we've certainly had a variety of opinions about the Statesman over the years, it's not like we want to see it go out of business and really, there's no reason that it should. It's all very odd.

Quick Fact Check for the Statesman Editorial Board

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman

Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:37 PM CST

Leffingwell strongly supported a proposition last fall that would have forced the city to not honor its contract with the Domain for tax rebates. Those rebates are based on a certain number of jobs and tax revenue. Voters rejected that proposition; now Leffingwell is trying to undo that contract another way - this time to get the votes of those who supported the anti-Domain proposition.

This of course is referring to Austin Proposition 2 that was put to a public vote by last year's council and failed narrowly.

The problem is, Lee Leffingwell did not support Proposition 2 as it appeared on the ballot last fall. At least that's what the Austin American-Statesman's news department wrote the day before the Austin American-Statesman's editorial.

Leffingwell and Martinez were among those who opposed the referendum.

That is verified by Leffingwell's website record...

- I opposed Proposition 2 last year, not because I thought the Domain deal was a very good one (I actually testified against it as a private citizen, before I was on the City Council), but because I believe we should honor our word with people if they have honored their word with us.

Oops.  

In reading the editorial, it appears the Statesman was eager to draw the conclusion they wanted driven by a desire to tie everything back to the two candidates support of the public safety unions. Just read the leading paragraphs.

Their suggestion that companies that receive tax breaks and rebates give up the money can't be separated from political aspirations. Leffingwell is in a heated three-way race for mayor, and Martinez is running for re-election to the City Council.

Nor can it be disconnected from their pandering to the public safety unions that support their candidacies. Leffingwell is a longtime union leader; Martinez is former president of Austin's firefighters union. Both have been endorsed by the city's police, fire and emergency medical services unions.

Sigh.

While the issue of renegotiating business tax breaks is a valid one that separates the leading candidates (Leffingwell in favor of putting union contracts and business tax incentives both on the table, with Brester McCracken and Carole Strayhorn both agreeing to oppose renegotiating the business deals).

The city's management cannot unilaterally change the pay of its police and EMS employees because they are working under contracts, and any agreement to delay pay raises would have to come through negotiations with the unions.

The firefighters union rejected a new contract with the city last year, and the city has not renewed formal negotiations.

Likewise, Leffingwell and Martinez say, the city cannot alter its tax-incentive agreements without the consent of the businesses involved. Those agreements, which include sales and property tax reductions, could be worth as much as $4.7 million combined this year, depending on whether the businesses fulfill their obligations to the city.

Here's how I see it. The voters of Austin have had a chance to weigh in on both fronts.

1. If they didn't like the public safety unions having the ability to negotiate their contract with the city in good times and bad they shouldn't have allowed them to do so- but there was an election and the people voted in favor of giving them that power.


2. If they didn't want the city to pay out tax incentives to businesses they had the opportunity to take that away and keep more money in the city coffers- but there was an election and the people voted in favor of honoring that contract.

Now, one can argue the finer point of how either of those campaigns was waged and won (or lost) but if there is to be a debate about how to plug the budget gap, it appears that the Austin electorate has expressed this value- "the city should negotiate with all affected parties to close the budget shortfall and we feel those affected parties should have some protections from unilateral budgetary decisions by the City of Austin".

Update: Thank God, I'm not crazy. Leffingwell responds forcefully in today's Statesman. Seriously, read this.  

Comedians at the Statesman

by: cbking

Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:17 AM CDT

Click through for the pics... and uprate this on reddit!