Not necessarily. Either one.

….Honest…I ran out of gas. I…I had a flat tire. I didn’t have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn’t come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! It wasn’t my fault, I swear….

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Ann Wagner (r): maybe if corporations were women… (February 28, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): through the looking glass (March 2, 2013)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) [file photo]

An editorial in today’s Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal (subscription required):

3/3/2013 6:51:00 PM

Actually, Rep. Hartzler voted against act

EDITORIAL

Jack Miles

The Daily Star-Journal newsroom operates with a degree of trust in the sources with whom the newspaper works, but not blind trust, and the degree of trust the newspaper offers relates directly to the credibility of sources, often based on their positions.

[….]

Based on trust, The Star-Journal accepted as fact, under the headline “Hartzler votes to protect women from acts of violence,” the following three paragraphs in a press release last week from U.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s office:

[….]

In the release, she makes no mention that she did not vote for what would become law and, coupled with the deadline timing, what conclusion could be drawn other than that she voted for what would become law?

[….]

I received a call from Hartzler’s office and I thanked the person for the release, saying something to the extent that the release appeared to cover all of the bases. The newspaper heard nothing to suggest the release meant anything other than what the release said: Hartlzer voted for the act.

[….]

I hope this information answers the question of how the mistake occurred.

I trusted…

I regret that error.

It’s generally not a good idea for people holding public office to upset people who buy ink by the barrel.

In the Columbia Daily Tribune:

Senate version of anti-violence measure passes

Hartzler voted for House bill.

By Rudi Keller

Friday, March 1, 2013 at 2:00 pm

Fourth District Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler on Thursday put out a news release touting her vote in favor of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, but the release failed to mention that the bill she supported did not pass.

The House did pass a version of the law, which had already received bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate and is now awaiting President Barack Obama’s signature. Hartzler’s news release did not mention that bill or that she voted against it….

We await more spin from Representative Hartzler (r).

Yesterday, in the New York Times:

Editorial

A Certificate of Embarrassment

Published: April 27, 2011

….the birther question was never really about citizenship; it was simply a proxy for those who never accepted the president’s legitimacy, for a toxic mix of reasons involving ideology, deep political anger and, most insidious of all, race….

….mainstream Republican leaders allowed it to simmer to satisfy those who are inflamed by Mr. Obama’s presence in the White House….

….That signal was clearly received. Lawmakers in nearly a dozen states introduced bills requiring presidential candidates to release their full birth certificates.

It is inconceivable that this campaign to portray Mr. Obama as the insidious “other” would have been conducted against a white president…

Go. Read the whole thing.

Almost seven years ago:

Thursday, September 16, 2004 – Page updated at 12:00 A.M.

Amendment would drop requirement that president be U.S.-born

By Jim Puzzanghera

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON – Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, an Orange County, Calif., Republican and longtime friend of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, introduced a constitutional amendment yesterday to allow foreign-born Americans who have been citizens for 20 years to run for president….

What’s the difference for birthers?

Previously:

President Obama (D): The American President speech (April 27, 2011)

Where to start? – part 2 (December 1, 2010)

…ergo propter wingnut (October 28, 2009)

Your “mainstream” Missouri republican party in action: birthers! (June 30, 2009)

Do the sponsors of HJR34 believe in anti-Obama conspiracy theories? (March 4, 2009)

Birther Infomercial runs in Springfield (September 25, 2009)

You get the picture. There’s plenty more.

I hate meta.

Yesterday the Warrensburg Daily Star Journal published an editorial which happens to mention “bloggers”:

3/18/2009 12:42:00 PM

Bloggers offer news, but scope too narrow

Jack Miles

Editor

…But bloggers, in general, are not journalists. Bloggers often offer one-sided opinions, not news…

…The best bloggers may be accurate, but what if they are not?

Do editors force them to double-check facts? Must they seek opposing opinions?…

…Unlike most bloggers, mainstream reporters must deal with editors who question articles before the information is presented to the public. Editors also know that – not just in physics, but in life – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning reporters need to know that if there is more than one side of a story, those other sides must be presented. If a reporter is wrong, he must write a contrite correction saying so and if a reporter is wrong intentionally, he is unlikely to remain a reporter for long…

…Bloggers have value, but people who value democracy need to understand the narrow agenda and resources of bloggers are no substitute for the broad agenda and resources of reporters.

Where to start?

Okay, so it’s “National Sunshine Week”. And criticizing blogtopia (yes, skippy coined the phrase!) as inadequate has exactly what to do with the price of beer in Germany?

“…Bloggers often offer one-sided opinions, not news…”

Exaggerate much?

The Johnson County recount case is finally over – for sure, sort of

The Johnson County recount case is finally over – for sure, sort of – part 2

Did you miss this one? Or just ignore it?

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 1

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 2

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 3

Democratic Attorney General Debate in Kansas City, part 4

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 1

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 2

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 3

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 4

I could go on and on.

By the way, was the Daily Star Journal there? If so, what was the coverage like?

“…The best bloggers may be accurate, but what if they are not? …”

If we’re not accurate then we’ll get hired as on screen talent for a cable news network. Or, we can change our name to Judith Miller and flaunt our Pulitzer Prize.

If one of us “frontpagers” were to do anything to damage the reputation of Show Me Progress I guarantee that there would be dire consequences for that kind of failure.

As for editorial control, we do not have prior review or prior restraint here. To posit the lack of an editor’s filter as a weakness indicates a woeful ignorance of the dynamic of the blog. If we fail we have peers and readers who will quickly take us to task on our own turf.

This is a collaborative effort among all of the “frontpagers”. If one of us were to do anything on the blog contrary to the purpose of this blog their tenure here would end swiftly.

“…Must they seek opposing opinions?…”

“…Editors also know that – not just in physics, but in life – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning reporters need to know that if there is more than one side of a story, those other sides must be presented…”

All opposing views are equal? Please. Sometimes blatantly stupid just doesn’t deserve the light of day. Sometimes. Sometimes it does.

The stenographer: all things being equal…

…Political stenography in old media must dictate false equivalence as a matter of course. It’s definitely time to convene another panel on blogger ethics.

…If a reporter is wrong, he must write a contrite correction saying so and if a reporter is wrong intentionally, he is unlikely to remain a reporter for long…

Uh, if we’re wrong we’ll run a correction. On top of that, if someone wants to comment on our posts all they have to do is register and post a comment. As long as they conform to our Posting Guidelines.

Question: Has the Daily Star Journal ever spiked or avoided a story because of worries about what it would do to advertising revenue? Just asking.

Question: Has the Daily Star Journal ever spiked or avoided a story because of worries about getting cut off by sources? Just asking.

“…resources of reporters…”

Tell that to the folks at McClatchy who’ve cut reporting and content in search of higher profit margins. Then get back to me with their response.

In the not so distant past the old media would never bother to mention blogs and bloggers. Heh. Now they do, usually along with muttered curses. I wonder why?

We’re here because the old media has failed so miserably. Not because all journalists are incompetent or don’t do great reporting, but because the media business model, the corporate news industrial complex, and bad choices have diminished the journalistic values that were once there in sufficient amounts to help preserve Democracy. So spare us the “preserving values” lectures.

As for blogs and bloggers? We’re not the enemy. We have the same ideals that the old media once possessed. We look for facts and we seek the truth. If the old media actually did its job we wouldn’t be here. We’re not the enemy, but we may be the future.