Legislators have financial interest in ethanol plants

Seven Missouri legislators with financial interests in ethanol plants will vote on measures that will bring money into those plants, according to an article in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
The situation also provides some conflicts for Governor Matt Blunt, who pushed for increased ethanol production in his State of the State message last month.
As noted in recent posts, AGP, the Nebraska-based company which likely will get the lion's share of the money, has poured money into politicians' campaign chests during the past few years. In addition, the company picked up a high-powered lobbyist last month, the governor's younger brother Andrew Blunt.
AGP, which recently announced a major expansion at its soybean processing plant in St. Joseph, has contributed $12,000 to Senator Jim Talent, $6,000 to Senator Kit Bond, $10,000 to Congressman Sam Graves, and $10,500 to Rep. Kenny Hulshof.
Governor Blunt's campaign contribution disclosure forms did not include any donations from AG Processing, but he has received $2,200 over the past two election cycles from the Omaha offices of the national law firm Kutak Rock. According to Kutak Rock's website, the law firm serves as counsel "for the acquisition, construction and financing of ethanol plants."

Talent's time as lobbyist will be targeted

An article in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch indicates Senator Jim Talent's brief stint as a lobbyist will likely be a major issue in his upcoming battle against State Auditor Claire McCaskill.
Considering the focus that has been placed on lobbyists in the national (and lately state and regional) media, Talent may have cause to worry.

Globe reporters Gurman, McCoy, follow the money trail

In today's edition, The Joplin Globe's statehouse reporter Sadie Gurman continued her work on tracking down the flow of lobbyist money to local legislators, weeding her way through the thick barriers that have been set up to keep the media and the public from knowing just how much each legislator is receiving.
Again, part of the value of the Globe's work is that Ms. Gurman is not only able to sift through the documents, but is also able to get our area senator and representatives' quotes on the record.
Today's article provides some beauties. Referring to caucus meetings with lobbyists, Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin, says, "We really all have similar interests, and we really should all form friendships. This is a vehicle to be together with people who share interests."
Ms. Ruestman may attend numerous caucus meetings (for which no legislator is credited on the lobbyist disclosure forms, only the caucus), but Sen. Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, and Rep. Ron Richard, R-Joplin, told Ms. Gurman they were usually too busy with committee meetings to attend them.
Ms. Gurman's article shows a list of caucuses to which local legislators belong and how much money each received in 2005, according to Missouri Ethics Commission documents.
Now this is reporting.
***
The same can definitely be said for veteran investigative reporter Max McCoy's study in Sunday's Globe of travel expenditures for Joplin city officials. I am sure many readers shared the outrage I felt when I saw City Clerk Barbara Hogelin had $8,367 in travel in 2005, including book discussions in St. Paul, Minn., Chicago, Ill., Fairview, Ill., and two in Springfield, Ill. These discussions, for which taxpayers footed the bill, included discussions of Shakespeare's Henry V, designed to foster leadership skills.
My suggestion to Ms. Hogelin: Form a book discussion club in Joplin, invite city clerks from Jasper County and the surrounding area and hone your leadership skills on your own time.
McCoy's report featured information on everything from salaries to clothing and telephone allowances for city officials.

Big gain for Nexstar Broadcasting

After nearly falling under $4 per share just a few days ago, Nexstar Broadcasting continued a rapid climb, moving up 24 cents to $4.50 at the close of trading Friday.
The company picked up steam at the end of the week thanks to its quarterly results, which were better than company officials had predicted.
Nexstar owns KSNF in Joplin and manages KODE.

Are bloggers journalists?

The Joplin Globe's website features a stable of bloggers designed to cash in on the phenomenon, with a little something there for everyone. Two Globe journalists, Editor Carol Stark with her blog about her battle with cancer, and Jeremiah Tucker, with his "Everyday Dude," designed to appeal to Generation X readers, provide the "professional" blogging, while other blogs are written by a number of diverse members of the community.
Perhaps the Globe is missing the boat on its bloggers. I stumbled across the blog "Journalism and Democracy," which appears to be written by students and former students of the University of Missouri School of Journalism and came across an engrossing debate on citizen journalism and whether bloggers can be called journalists.
As I was reading the comments, I came across an entry posted by the Globe's state political correspondent Sadie Gurman, which partially concerned The Turner Report, though not by name.
Ms. Gurman's post and the others, most of them coming from current MU students, made for absorbing reading, and I found myself agreeing with the writers on some points while vigorously disagreeing with them on others.
Since I was unable to find a link that would allow me to just access Ms. Gurman's post alone, permit me to reprint her post:

There's a lively and ongoing argument taking place via the "comments" box of a popular Joplin-area news blog. The spat sparked when the author bragged that he’d frequently scooped the prominent news outlets in the area, which in turn, were ripping ideas and reporting from his blog. The author, who has become quite well known to newspapers and television stations in the area, continued with the condescending remarks, including a detailed explanation of 'news reporting' and 'journalism.' Some commenters came to the defense of the local media, saying that newspapers and TV stations do a job this blogger couldn’t fathom doing without proper J-school training, reporting skills and effective writing techniques. And then the author makes a rebuttal, which is always something to the effect that when local media fail their readers, anyone can be a journalist.

For journalism students with Web sites, blogs, online newspapers and "citizen journalism" at our fingertips, this small-town spat points to a larger question the news industry’s been forced to ask itself for years: just who can be a journalist?
Dan Gillmor, whose book, "We The Media," details the progress and problems of grassroots journalism, seems to argue that anyone with a pen, pair of eyes and an outlet can write the news.

He writes, "…readers, or viewers, or listeners, collectively know more than media professionals do. This is true by definition: they are many, and we are often just one. We need to recognize and use their knowledge. If we don’t, our former audience will bolt when they realize they don't have to settle for half-baked coverage; they can come into the kitchen themselves."

That’s a pretty extreme statement about the future of the news media. In many ways, it seems Gillmor has little faith in the efficacy of the traditional news outlet. But any student who has spent four years studying within the walls of the Missouri School of Journalism might maintain that there are certain standards only a trained journalist — someone who understands communications law, copyright, news value, AP style — can uphold. Anybody can be a source of news. But only professionals can truly be considered journalists. To best understand this, it is important to look at the ways in which citizen journalism's shortcomings can be overcome only with the help of trained professional newspeople.

"More and more, journalism is going to be owned by the audience," master blogger Jeff Jarvis is quoted as saying in Gillmor's book. He says that Internet news will eventually be run and controlled by average citizens — under the guise of writers — who submit pieces of information to the site. But even he makes the caveat that professional journalists will still need to play a large role in the data collection, audience outreach, and fact checking that should take place with every story the public will read.
After all, there’s a certain level of trustworthiness attached to a journalist who comes complete with a degree or at least some standard credentials to report the news. These people are generally better trusted because they have greater access to sources that aren't always easy to get on the record, like senators, or crime victims or CIA officials. This access comes only after a certain level of trust is built, perhaps after a reporter has spent quite a bit of time honing a beat, something a citizen journalist wouldn't necessarily understand how to do. Trust also comes with having one's name attached to a powerful news outlet, or at least a credible, bona fide news outlet that doesn’t have .blogspot,com tacked to the end of it. Gillmor writes, for example, that the Watergate scandal would not have been covered with nearly as much professionalism or tact by a modern blogger as it was by the traditional newspapermen of the time. The same can be said about every story from war to a personality profile of an upcoming mayoral candidate. People with information want to give it to someone they can trust to get it right. Unfortunately for citizen journalists, that trust comes with journalism and reporting experience.

In another portion of the Joplin-area blog, the author writes that the local news media have the credibility and manpower to be the archetypal government watchdog they’re supposed to be, but as with everything else on the blog, the local media have done it wrong. Too frequently, we’re scooped, the blogger writes, and oftentimes it’s him doing the scooping. This post simply points to a dilemma newspapers and television stations face with the emergence of powerful blogs; citizens demand that journalists, with their pride and credibility, continue to be the watchdog on money and power. They also demand they participate in news writing, yet they lack the credibility to take on the government in the way most journalists are trained to do. This is a new form of pressure for newspapers especially, but the media should capitalize on it in order to gain readership and respect. The pressure from citizens to be better watchdogs should be an opportunity to do some serious investigative journalism, something noticeably absent from many newspapers of today. Furthermore, newspapers that see their function in citizens’ lives as on the fritz, should probably remember that their greatest role is one that citizens themselves can never take away from them — the investigative role. Paul Farhi writes in a recent issue of American Journalism Review that professional, trained journalists with powerful newspapers at their backs will still be better at writing in-depth reports and investigative features than bloggers ever will, a caveat Gillmor seems to make as well.

In the same magazine, John Morton writes, "Where do they (bloggers) think the news they endlessly opine, and rail about comes from? It comes from newspapers, no less for bloggers than for most of the news presented on radio and television. Take that away, and all they’ll have left is their opinions."
And indeed, if newspapers are truly headed into the trash pile that is the American opinion media, journalism has a more daunting task ahead of it than the question of who can play the game.

Also, when it comes to reporting the most difficult stories, only trained journalists with the guidance of professional publications have the knack for detail and ethics. Even the smartest citizen reports might naturally overlook some of the biggest flaws within their stories and burn a source, or even worse, they might slip dramatic and false information to the public.
The founder of OhMy news, the first citizen journalism Web site of its kind, and the only one with its stature thus far, writes in Gillmor’s book that OhMy changed the definition of who a reporter is. His conclusion: a reporter is anyone trying to get information to the public. In actuality, that’s just another way of defining what it means to be a source.
OhMy’s definition of "reporter" degrades the hard work and training that professional journalists at the nation’s top newspapers and television stations have undergone to get where they are today. A reporter has some creative writing style to bring to the table, that has been honed by years of schooling and experience. A reporter is also someone who makes long-lasting connections with sources and comes with a notion of objectivity burned firmly in his or her brain. Reporters actively seek news. Sources, on the other hand, submit news. That is how journalism keeps the public part of the process.

The discussion won’t stop, and it shouldn’t. As today’s rookie citizen journalist gains the experience of a long-time newspaperman, modern journalism will have to ask itself the same question again, of who exactly is a journalist. And the more voices that join game, the harder the answer will be to find.
***
Ms. Gurman's piece is undeniably well-written, but to call my comments on the Globe and other local media outlets condescending when she treats bloggers with the same kind of condescension seems a bit self-serving. However, I will charitably write that off to her youth.

Ms. Gurman writes, "Some commenters came to the defense of the local media, saying that newspapers and TV stations do a job this blogger couldn't fathom doing without proper J-school training, reporting skills and effective writing techniques. And then the author makes a rebuttal, which is always something to the effect that when local media fail their readers, anyone can be a journalist." I don't recall ever saying that anyone can be a journalist, though I do believe that anyone can provide valuable information for the public. As for me not being able to fathom doing Ms. Gurman's job without her "J-school training, reporting skills and effective writing techniques," I wish she had used those skills to discover that I was probably working for newspapers before she was born, did so for 22 years and with some success. It is true that I do not have daily access to sources that she and other reporters do, but having the experience to know where to look for information and being able to connect it to other information is also a valuable skill for a reporter to have, and unfortunately, it is one that no J-school, not even the University of Missouri School of Journalism, can teach.

Ms. Gurman also writes, "When it comes to reporting the most difficult stories, only trained journalists with the guidance of professional publications have the knack for detail and ethics." This is probably the reason why we have so many instances of flawed reporting that turn up daily in some of our most highly-respected media outlets.

I share some of Ms. Gurman's thoughts about so-called "citizen journalists." I don't necessarily look at myself in that fashion. I started as a reporter for a small-town newspaper 29 years ago, and seeking the truth is something I have naturally done for the past three decades. Journalism is a wonderful calling, but you do not have to have a J-school degree to do it. Some people who have those degrees are among the worst journalists working today, while some who do not have them rank among the best.

Lawmakers' quotes are a definite plus

The advantages of the Joplin Globe's decision to have a reporter working state issues was readily apparent from the March 2 edition when Sadie Gurman put our local legislators on record about gifts they receive from lobbyists.
Consider some of the statements, the talented Ms. Gurman elicited from our legislators:
-Rep. Bryan Stevenson, R-Webb City- "I really don't care who buys the sandwich It's not going to change the way I vote."
-Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin- "It certainly is nice to have a pizza, but it isn't what's going to make or break any of the caucuses I'm in."
-Sen. Gary Nodler, R-Joplin- "People think these lobbyists are somehow giving gifts and providing benefits for lawmakers, and that simply isn't the case. If you simply eliminate the practice, it clears up the question."
These quotes are the same ones that have been used by politicians on both sides of the aisle since lobbyists began haunting the doors of state legislatures. Sen. Nodler says if the practice is eliminated, the question is cleared up. Perhaps Sen. Nodler should take the lead, and refuse to accept gifts or campaign contributions from lobbyists.

Lobbyists' campaign contributions examined

While much attention has deservedly been focused on trips and gifts lavished on elected officials by lobbyists, today's Los Angeles Times features a study of an overlooked problem (though it has not been overlooked by this blog): campaign contributions given by or funneled through lobbyists.
The question is a vital one. How much lobbying reform can we expect in either Washington or Jefferson City from politicians, whose campaign warchests rely on the largesse of the same lobbyists they are attempting to regulate?
This is a problem that afflicts both parties. My posts on the subject have primarily been about problems for state Republicans, simply because that is the party that is in power at the moment.
Some examples of this can be found at the following links:
-Missouri lobbyists contribute to Blunt campaign
-National lobbyists pour money into Missouri campaign
-MHA funnels thousands into Blunt campaign chest
-More lobbyists contribute to Nodler
-Globe still missing the boat on Nodler and lobbyists
-Lobbying firm funneling money to Nodler campaign, PAC

Sadly, this is just a sampling of the Turner Report posts on this subject over the past two years.

Speaking with one voice

Because of the overriding importance of healthcare and insurance reform in Missouri, three of our area representatives, Ron Richard, R-Joplin; Bryan Stevenson, R-Webb City; and Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin; combined their considerable intellects to write a joint legislative report, which was posted Saturday on the Joplin Daily website.
"To help standardize costs, the Department of Insurance would be asked to establish 12 to 20 risk-reporting categories. Categories of higher risk would be matched with higher premiums. For example, the everyday work of a brain surgeon carries considerably more risk than your family physician."
It is amazing that these three legislators, carrying with them the bedrock values of southwest Missouri were able to come up with nearly the same wording used by Speaker of the House Rod Jetton, R-Marble Hill, in his Capitol Report dated Feb. 17.
Jetton writes, "To help standardize costs, the Department of Insurance will be asked to establish 12 to 20 risk-reporting categories. Categories of higher risk would be matched with higher premiums. For example, the work of a brain surgeon carries considerably more risk than your general family physician."
Those two paragraphs appear to differ by only two words.
The comparisons, however, can be taken even further. The column written by the hydra-type collection of area legislators appears to have taken wording from Rep. Jetton's column, but Rep. Jetton's column is remarkably similar to one posted by Rep. Danielle Moore, R-Fulton.
Ms. Moore writes, "To help standardize costs, the Department of Insurance would be asked to establish 12 to 20 risk-reporting categories. Categories of higher risk would be matched with higher premiums. For example, the everyday work of a brain surgeon carries considerably more risk than the work of your family physician."
The wording of the Joplin-area trio's column is identical to that in Ms. Moore's column.
The identical and similar wording is not just limited to that paragraph. All three columns use the exact phrase: "That translates into more affordable and more accessible healthcare for all Missourians," though Jetton and Ms. Moore used that as the concluding line in their column and the Joplin-area legislators did not.
All three columns mention President Bush's State of the Union address early in their text.
Another comparison:
In Ms. Moore's Feb. 3 column- "Specifically, the company should not raise a doctor's premium by more than 10 percent and cannot determine not to renew the doctor's policy without giving 60 days notice."
In Jetton's Feb. 17 column- "Specifically, the company will not be allowed to raise a doctor's premium by more than 10 percent, and they cannot decide to terminate the doctor's policy without giving him 60 days notice."
In Saturday's Richard/Stevenson/Ruestman column- "Specifically, the company should not raise a doctor's premium by more than 10 percent, and they cannot determine not to renew the doctor's policy without giving 60 days notice."
Those are not the only areas of these "columns" that are similar or identical, but they are enough to give you a clear idea of what is going on.
In past posts, I have decried this practice as plagiarism, but it is something far more insidious than mere plagiarism. These appear to be columns that are provided to the legislators at the taxpayers' expense, clearly to promote their re-election, and no effort is being made to describe them accurately.
Rep. Jetton explained how the capital reports system works in an e-mail to The Turner Report, which was posted Dec. 14. This is what he said:

"I remember being in school and the rules for copying. In the House, it is a bit different. We openly share our reports with each other. If a Rep feels like I wrote something that they agree with they are free to use it in their districts at the same time; if I like what they are saying and a agree with it I may use it in mine.
"Of course, we may change it slightly to better reflect our exact thoughts. I can assure you all the Reps have a mind of their own but many times we vote with each other on key issues and when we find a rep who is communicating the same thoughts and feelings on a issue we will use that report.
"We have given each other full authority to copy, change or do whatever the other rep wants to do with the different reports folks write. Another point is with over 2,000 different bills introduced each year on all different kinds of subjects there is no way one person can be an expert and write about each one. This way if one rep who is an expert in a certain subject writes about it and a Rep agrees or likes it can save them valuable time. We do the same when it comes to getting advice on voting on issues.
"I trust a fellow rep or constitute before I trust a lobbyist.
"Just thought I might try to clear this up. Each Rep only has one assistant who usually works on taking care of constituent problems and doesn't have time to write capitol reports for the Rep."

While readers of that Dec. 14 Turner Report (and this one) may understand that; a hoax is being perpetrated on readers of the Joplin Daily, Neosho Daily News, Joplin.com, Newton County News and other sources that print these legislators' "columns" verbatim. Communicating with constituents is a commendable concept and one which should be embraced by all elected officials, but that communication should come with their own words. Newspapers that play along with these so-called "capitol reports" are committing a fraud on their readers.

Many loopholes exist in lobbying disclosures

An article posted today on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website shows the many loopholes in Missouri lobbying reporting which allow legislators to accept considerably more in gifts than are listed on their disclosure forms.
The best route to go would be no gifts from lobbyists whatsoever.

New senator opts for secrecy

Newly-elected Sen. Jack Goodman, R-Mount Vernon, did not take long to propose a bill that would close information to the public.
Goodman's recently filed SB 1214 would require votes by political parties attempting to select candidates to run in special elections to be closed to the public.
The more things that are closed to the public, the more influence special interests have. But then again, special interests have been kind to Goodman.
In the November 8, 2005, Turner Report, it was noted Goodman received more than $80,000 in campaign contributions during the last week of his campaign, mostly the legal, but ethically questionable laundering practice of receiving large amounts of cash from legislative district committees.
That money was used to pay for vicious personal attack television ads against his opponent, Nolan McNeill, advertising he probably did not need to win the race.
In the Oct. 10, 2005, Turner Report, it was noted Goodman received a considerable amount of lobbying gifts from the health industry during his final term in the Missouri House.