News-Record.com

Here we go with the Edwards campaign. A quote from the AP (published in a second-page short-take in the Courier Tribune): "Goss sent an e-mail to supporters on Thursday urging them to post their own Edwards-adoring videos on the website YouTube."

"Edwards-adoring videos". Seriously. That's what it said. YesSiree, sounds like serious political debate to me.

Many people don't know what blogs are. That's why so many of us "trolls" would like to see more of the stories that are in the blogs put in front of your "zillions" of print readers.

In fact, Edwards might not have it so easy if more "testimonials" from North Carolinians unhappy with his previous "representation" were in print.

Mary:

Irrespective of your feelings on Edwards - I know you don't like the guy - that isn't a quote from the e-mail. If was presented as such, well, it's just bull-you-know-what.

This is the actual language from the relevant part of the e-mail:

"But we need your help to keep the momentum going and get the word out to millions more. This campaign is about all of us, about our dreams for a better country and our commitment to making it happen. The best way to spread the word and build our momentum is for people in your area -- and around the nation -- to hear from you: what does your dream for America look like, and why do you support John Edwards' campaign for change?

"Click here to write a letter to the editor of a paper near you -- and share your story about why you personally support our campaign to change America.

"Click here to upload your story of support to YouTube.

"We have all the tools you'll need to write and submit your letter online -- or to upload your own video to YouTube -- and it only takes a few minutes.

"Why is sharing your story of support important? Because people in your community and the media in Washington need to know that Americans really care about ending poverty and strengthening the middle class, about universal health care, global warming and restoring our moral authority in the world."

Thanks for the fact-check, Mark. The good Dr.s' "quote" sounded suspicious to me and you saved me the effort of looking into it.

Matt (along with his much better half Mel) is a near neighbor and close friend and a beast at politics. I am looking forward to your profile of him.

As for my profile of Matt, it would have to include a mention of Bourbon and dominoes and live lobster. Did that come up in your interviews? If not... well... your readers won't have the whole picture.

I'll do a postscript on Sunday to fill your readers all the way in.

Here we go with the ENDLESS parade (starting last month) about JUST HOW GREAT John Edwards and everything he touches is...

He has such a brillant strategist, so HE must be brilliant! That should just be the headline.

What is the POINT of this story? What average reader gives two ____ about how his very smart, very competent, awesome strategist is using the, gosh, of all things... Internet to further his cause???

There is only one agenda here: to paint John Edwards are a marvel of wonder who hires great people to do great things because he is great and will be a great president.

This is an inside baseball story that is being peddled to clearly demonstrate how "cool" and "down with the peeps in technology" Edwards is.

It's SOOOO obvious what you are doing.

Best I can tell from the very defensive Mark Binker message above, this guy is basically just trying to enlist regular people to give the impression that more people care about his candidate than really do. (And, the fact the News & Record is doing a STORY about it -- and how BRILLIANT it is -- certainly doesn't hurt...)

Was this brilliant guy at the helm in 2004? When with home-state "hero" Edwards on the ticket the Democrats did not better than in 2000 in N.C. in the Presidential race?

Oh, I know.. I found this post from Feb. of 2004... He apparently had just thrown in the towel from the Dean campaign and said this whopper quote to the American Spectator:
"Campaigns will have to decentralize as the electorate becomes more decentralized. And I think the Dean campaign has shown the way for other campaigns to do that. "

I don't even understand the first part of that quote.. sounds like typical political doublespeak to sounds slick...

And, uh, yeah. Dean showed something...

sorry, it was the American Prospect.. which I'd never heard of... but whatever..

Hogg: Sadly, bourbon didn't come up. Send me an e-mail when you post your addendum and I'll link to it from Cap Beat.

Jim:

I'm going to take one crack at answering your query and then I'm going to go for a little down time this weekend and maybe circle back here on Sunday or Monday.

As to the defensive post: It was a corrective. The word quote has a very specific meaning and what Mary offered as a quote was no such thing. It was plane wrong.

As to who cares: Basically, I use a five-point test when figuring out whether a story is worth my time. Is it a) unique - no one else is working on it. b) local - has an anchor in a local character or issue c) important - part of a larger statewide/regional/national story d) quirky/interesting - pretty self explanatory there e) service - does it fulfill part of the newspaper's commitment to serve a public trust by explaining or exposing the workings of their government.

I will grant you; in this case e) doesn't apply so much. Points a) b) c) and d) do, either in part or in whole.

And, heck, if I did a good enough job writing the story we might even clear that quote up for you.

Now, if you still want to ascribe other motivations for this story in particular or our political coverage in general, have at it. You’ll be wrong, but you’re entitled to be. And I’m betting I could type until my fingers fell off and not convince you that my motives are that straightforward.

Good night.

For the record, Mark and David, I quoted DIRECTLY from the second page ARTICLE in the Courier Tribune today. The title of the article was "Edwards on the road for much-needed fundraising". The focus of the article was his web-guruism (or more acurately, that of the people he's hired) . . . labeled, "internet outreach". I guess you can't even believe what you read in my local newspaper.

It seems to me we have a difference in interpretation of the e-mail . . . with an AP reporter (not me) doing the interpreting. So David, if you do more homework, take it up with the AP.

On the other hand, having read the text of the e-mail, the AP reporter's description does sound fairly accurate.

And no, I don't like "the guy" (who I shared my story of woe with when he was actually in an office that represented me). But I like you Mark . . . and your blog. You cover a beat known for its cronyism and corruption with just about the right amount of skepticism and even sarcasm. I read it and comment regularly and link it. With all of the emphasis on "local" coverage (in my book that includes state government) you ought to be more front and center at the N&R. But you're not.

As for the accuracy of what was in Asheboro's paper, I/others have complained about the quality of journalism down here for quite a while. JR's position so far (as a competitor who supposedly covers the area) is for us to sit down, shut up and deal with it. Because he's not going to tell our stories or respond to our comments.

Where Edwards is concerned there seems to be an undercurrent of mass media manipulation of the voting public that really, Really, REALLY disturbs me . . . on a level far beyond the fact that I don't think he should be President.

So by all means, profile the Edwardian beast" (poor choice of words, David). I look forward to it.

If accuracy is at all important to you Mary, "Edwardian beast" are your words, not mine.

Read it again. Mine were "political beast".

Key word: "Beast".

Again, David, take the "accuracy" issues up with the AP reporter (funny how they rarely give a name). It does seem like, outside of North Carolina, not everyone in the political press corps is going to fawn.

In this case the political beast IS Edwardian . . . and will be the subject of Mark's report. So what are we arguing about again?

Mark,

I suspect you will attached to Edwards at the hip for the next year or more . I am not, so get over your paranoia, going to suggest that you will be his adoring scribe. Somone readers said as much about Eric Dyer. Unfair, huh ?

One of the most daunting tasks facing Gross will be getting this removed from Youtube:( An oldie but a goodie)

Ain't He Purtty

Fred:

Right now, we have no plans that I know of to send me or anyone else traveling with the Edwards campaign. That could change as we prepare for 2008, but I'm guessing we'll probably focus more on the U.S. Senate, governor's race and at least one or two council of state races, depending on who's involved.

However, and this is a big however for you, when we find opportunities that make sense we are going to check in on the Edwards campaign from time to time. And we're going to end up having more staff written stories about Edwards, by far, than any of the other presidential contenders. He’s from our area, used to represent the people of this state, and still stirs strong passions both by people who like and who don’t.

And we’ll do all that knowing that there will be folks, probably like yourself, who won’t be happy with anything we write about the guy that falls short of a hit piece. So let me apologize up front for aggravating you.

Mark, there is an old saying that one should keep their friends close, but their enemies closer.

I expect that concept applies just as well to knowing what's going on in a Presidential campaign one does not support . . . and will stand firmly/passionately against. So you report away. I want to know. But do me a favor and try to hold the sugar-coating.

That being said, I think it would be prudent to focus on the elections you mentioned. One of the recurring themes in Raleigh has been corruption. Every four years we get a good chance to flush it out. To do it in 2008, we've got to have a state-wide press corps that isn't acting like a bunch of Edwardian groupies (like they did last time).

The web-campaign will march on. But as Fred pointed out with that "purty" oldie-but-goodie, the "YouTube" business is a double-edged sword.

Mark,

Thanks for the advance apology.

A hit piece. LOL In the words of George Gershwin..The Rockies may crumble, Gibraltar may tumble, they're only made of clay, but the News & Record's love for Edwards is here to stay.

"And we're going to end up having more staff written stories about Edwards, by far, than any of the other presidential contenders. He’s from our area, used to represent the people of this state, and still stirs strong passions both by people who like and who don’t."

Sounds like a perfectly good excuse to me, Mark.

Thanks for the tipoff. We'll be watching...and reading....and commenting.

That way, we'll be sure to get a different perspective out there for comparison.

What the future holds can only be speculated about. Whatever the capability of the future technologies, the best implementations will be lean and will relate to the right care at the right time in the right place using the right technology. WBR LeoP