Bachmann I think this was certainly relevant to the story of the nomination. It seems like a major gaffe for someone running for Congress, and it would have been nice to have known about it before the election. It would have fit into the storyline of her personality and the doubts about her within Republican circles pretty well. I'm sorry you didn't put it in the story.
LimaBN
· 2 years ago
Bachmann's character not in doubt anyway Printing the story about Bachmann's threat would not have made any difference.
Those who have to believe in The Power of The Lord, or whatever it is they want to call their mythology, will do so anyway.
Those who view Bachmann as The Evil One Incarnate weren't going to be any more convinced than they already were.
Those in the middle would have figured "It's just politics the way it's played."
Until the folks in the middle wake up and realize there are real-world prices to pay for this medieval idiocy, we will continue to descend into the new dark ages.
Huns and Visigoths did not have to tear down the walls of Rome - the gates were opened from inside by people like Michele Bachmann, who thought their sinning neighbors needed a little cleansing.
Bachmann Basher
· 2 years ago
Bachmann Republicans--sheep, lemmings, whatever. They're all the same. It's clear from the threatened woman's reaction--"Michele needs to run for Congress and I need to support Republican candidates."--that these mindless lemmings care not a whit about ethics or honesty or even politicians who make threats against constituents. Win at all costs, straight from the Rove Playbook.
No wonder this country is so fu$ked up.
Ike
· 2 years ago
Gosh, Eric.... you make Bachmann sound like Hillary Clinton.
Bill Prendergast
· 2 years ago
all previous comments aside... ...Mr. Black, if you have any more Michele Bachmann information you have been "sitting on"/"not publishing"--could you publish it *now* rather than sitting on it for another year?
That kind of information is really valuable to the voters; you shouldn't keep stuff like that back. Any more stories about Bachmann experiences/facts that you can recall? You can skip the part about how you should have printed them when you worked for the Strib--just print them here, with the factual context, ASAP--that would be the sincerest form of making good on your mistake.
womanphoenix@yahoo.com
· 2 years ago
I'm glad you're telling it now, Eric The thing is, as you've discovered -- and as Bachmann's victim discovered -- no amount of kowtowing to the hardcore Republicans like Bachmann will stop them from going after you if you show yourself to be anything other than an RNC-talking-points-spouting party hack.
True, Anders the Easily-Cowed "Balance" Seeker was still in charge at the time, and he probably would have just taken The Big Question away from you a few months earlier than when you wound up leaving it and the the Strib. Though whether your leaving a few months earlier than you did would have been good or bad is a question only you can answer. And whether the Strib under Avista is on the whole worse than it was under McClatchy is likewise an open question. On the one hand, the conservative Doug Tice now is the unquestioned king of the Strib's politics newsroom; on the other hand, Tice was in the ascendant anyway, and at least we don't have to suffer syndicated dingbats like Debra J. Saunders in the Opinion Exchange section.
Avidor
· 2 years ago
The Twin Cities Needs a Tabloid We need muckraking reporters to expose these right-wing hypocrites... not high-toned journalists.
Bill Prendergast
· 2 years ago
seriously though, Mr. Black-- Do you have more substantiated Bachmann news that you're *still* sitting on?
You remember that I sent you stuff that you didn't print/wouldn't run on her--I sent it prior to the election, and there was no problem about sourcing, because it was stuff she'd said in public that had been recorded on tape, or stuff she'd written and signed herself. You know, the outright lies, the stuff where she said the federal government was out to set up a Soviet style economy and impose global socialism; the wing-nut stuff she wrote and said.
But you and the Star Tribune would not report that or raise that issue on your Big Question blog. In the old, pre-Internet days, the newspapers could use the lame excuses like "not enough space, not enough staff"--those excuses are not available to a newspaper reporter running an online blog who receives newsworthy information "from the candidate's mouth."
You chose to spike it, and the past is the past--but I'm pleading with you, if you have more newsworthy items about Bachmann that you sat on in the past--please disclose them now, this week. The voters really do need to know that stuff--don't agonize over whether you wrong to hold that back. You were. Just print it now, this week, if you feel bad about holding it back.
Ike
· 2 years ago
This almost (key word "almost") makes you feel sorry for Eric He did not take this kind of beating he has taken in the Comments section of this blog when he was in the rarified air at the Strib. At his sanctuary on Portland Avenue, never was heard a discouraging word from the masses.
Paul S.
· 2 years ago
Daley? Huey Long? Charlie Stenvig? Joan Crawford in Baby Jane? The presence of a vicious streak in a politician is not in itself surprising. In fact you could make an argument it's invigorating. Fear of being seen as "mean" has had a bad influence on politics in some ways. Mean is necessary once in a while, and from what you read, in our country anyway, any politician who actually gets anything done has to be a real jerk. It has to be amongst the weaponry.
But to display it so openly: that's a different issue. Is it invigorating to witness a politician unafraid to display the meanness? Or is it psycho? The original Mayor Daley would be unafraid to do that. It's all based on perception of security and power, I guess, and in Daley's case it was utterly justified that he would feel that way. Is it for Bachmann? Bill P. would say yes, look at the morons in her district.
It might be politically risk-free and psycho, though, even if her supporters are not wacko right-wing Christian fasco-zealots. Even if they just agree with Michelle B. in a sort of general conservative sense, not a Holy Warrior sense. If you agree with a politician, a display of meanness is not disqualifying.
But even for them, for those kinds of supporters, the display of meanness combined with the zealous Christian impulse is worth noting. At least, it justifies closer attention to her zealotry.
Paul S.
· 2 years ago
That is, a serious Christian conservative ... would not be in favor of the kind of agenda Bill P. ascribes to Michelle Bachmann.
The West's ability (so far) to accomodate both secular politics and wide, serious Christianity has something to do with Christianity's approach to the conundrum. The co-existence is not simply a matter of asendant secularism imposing something on Christianity over the centuries.
Our response to poltiical Islam, at least the widely-supported version that does not recognize any separation between politics and religion, depends on many things, but they include Christianity and all the other religions redoubling their support for the separation. Compromises anywhere encourage comprimises everywhere.
On policy questions, anyway. (As oposed to issues like public displays of religious significance, like manger scenes.)
Justin C. Adams
· 2 years ago
It was already too late, but it should have been published. This news was between ballots, the only difference it could have made electorally was in the nomination process, not in the general, as the 6th is the mirror of the 5th, anyone with an R behind their name wins.
However, considering the singular dangerousness of this particular representative, I disagree with Bill P. You should continue to sit on unpublished facts until she nears re-election, and then publish when someone is actually paying attention.
This is the only point on which I disagree with Bill P regarding this, however.
Charles
· 2 years ago
The American gulag You are describing what I call The American Gulag, Eric. There are no walls, no guards, no beatings, no one to withhold food. But everyone is curiously passive in the face of wrong. Many, like the woman you describe, are actively afraid, though of what is unclear.
To your credit, you recognize that that was a reportorial moment that should not have been missed. There may have been some sound journalistic reasons not to write the story, such as the absence of confirmation from the woman as to the topic of the discussion.
But when we look around the media landscape, we see instance after instance of reporters not reporting or badly misreporting what are obviously stories. This speaks of people who are at some level afraid. The reporters deny they get advertiser pressure. They deny that their editors are telling them what to write. But mysteriously, certain stories aren't written.
There don't have to be walls for people to be in prison. There don't have to be cells for them to feel isolated. There doesn't have to be punishment for them to turn their eyes away.
Bill Prendergast
· 2 years ago
the question remains... ...Does Mr. Black have any more Bachmann stories that he is holding back? I, for one, don't want to have to wait another six months for him to realize that there was another important Bachmann vignette or fact that he thinks "he should have printed before", but didn't.
The problem with printing this story was not that Black didn't have "confirmation" for it. As Black points out, he witnessed the confrontation himself; it is akin to a reporter being at the scene of an accident when it happens. There's no question as to the facts; he's was a reporter and should have reported it.
Reporting this in a timely manner would have made a difference, to at least some of Bachmann's devout evangelical supporter. Bachmann deliberately made her supposed faith into a political strength, played on it, campaigned on it in churches. Readers could evaluate how deeply "Christ changed her heart" in light of her public threat of reprisal against a woman who opposed her candidacy. Devout Christians do not repeatedly and publicly tell their opponents that "they will pay" for opposing her--that's vindictive and vengeful, and if that's Bachmann's understanding of what it means to be a Christian, her Christian supporters needed to know that.
And it was "news." Classic "man bites dog", the professed follower of Christ publicly threatens a fellow Republican with vengeane.
No, Mr. Black knows he should have reported the story; he had the facts, the opportunity, and the forum and it would have been valuable for the voters to know before they made their decision to vote.
So the question remains: Does Mr. Black have any more solid Bachmann stories that he is still holding back?
jeiacono
· 2 years ago
It was a story, but... Two things surprise me about this story:
Anyone, like EB, who has been around politicians knows that "payback" is the name of the game, and has been for many years that I know of. It's what keeps the troops in line. I could tell war stories, but...
What surprises me is that MB was so naive that she actually SAID it. That is something one cannot get an experienced politician to do. But there is always payback, nonetheless, as our legislature and the congress make abundantly clear each and every day. As an old pro told me once, "It's not a gathering of boy scouts."
The other thing that surprises me is that I know well that women who are angry often cry. I'm not sure why. From the setting and the persistent pushing for some specific payback to be named, I would have perceived this good woman's tears as angry ones, probably with good reason because her candidate was obviously trailing in spite of her efforts. I wish EB had characterized the tears-behavior combination a little more clearly -- this venue allows it.
Still, it happened, and it was worthy of note, simply because it spoke at least to MB's inexperience as a politician.
Paul S.
· 2 years ago
Thinking of and describing a metaphor... ..doesn't guarantee that the metaphor is thrilling or insightful.
Phoenix Woman
· 2 years ago
That's exactly it. You are correct, Charles. The fear of consequences has been so ingrained into us all that there needs be no overt exhortations to censor oneself: Most of us do it automatically.
Amused onlooker
· 2 years ago
Timidity indeed! Well, you've managed to coax Rep. Bachmann's cyber stalkers out in force if nothing else Eric...and there is little else from where I sit.
Wasn't there something about a "civility" rule being in force here at the ol' Minnesota Monitor?
I guess it was just my imagination.
Bill Prendergast
· 2 years ago
Here's why she "said it", out loud and in public "Anyone, like EB, who has been around politicians knows that "payback" is the name of the game, and has been for many years that I know of. It's what keeps the troops in line. I could tell war stories, but...
What surprises me is that MB was so naive that she actually SAID it."
There's a number of reasons.
1) she's not too tightly wrapped. we are talking about a person who can't see what's wrong with grabbing the president of the united states and won't let go until she can give him a kiss and get a headshot with him, thinks the federal government and homosexuals are out to establish "a new order" based on international socialism and the "homosexual agenda", accuses the Pawlenty government of Marxism in Minnesota--all matters of record, and it goes on and on, way too much to fit here-- and the professional media in Minnesota never call her out on that kind of stuff.
So she thinks, and she may be correct, that the local media will let her get away with practically anything. She went into a kind of shock when the local media called attention to her crazy claims about inside knowledge of a plan to divide Iraq with Iran, and wouldn't talk to reporters about it--she was genuinely surprised that she had been called out on something she said or did--the local media in MN simply refused to do that, until it hit the Drudge report.
The local media is terrible on the subject of Bachmann's craziness they have and had all this stuff available to them, literally for years--and they chose not run it, and they still won't run it. It's practically impossible to convince them that a crazy narcissist representing the people of MN is government is "news." Mr. Black had a lot of stuff to run on her craziness, including the story he references above; he simply didn't run it, neither did MPR or the PiPress.
So: the reason she does something like that is that there's a high probability that it won't be reported by major local media. That's reason one. Kim Ode just did a front page piece on Bachmann for the Strib, apparently she didn't consult former colleague Eric Black on Bachmann, or he would have told her this latest fascinating story that is so revealing of Bachmann's character and world view. Surely EB would not have sat on this anecdote on purpose, knowing that Ode's Strib piece was coming up (it was months in the making.) Surely he would have volunteered this information publicly before the piece on Michele's background and character and worldview came out...wouldn't he?
So it's not "inexperience", Michele has been in politics for seven years. Thanks to the absence of local media coverage, a lot of Minnesotans still don't even know the most important fact about her--she's not just a Christian, she's not just another conservative Republican, she's also a creature of the national Christian right; James Dobson's national organization actively campaigned to put her in office. So Bachmann felt safe threatening someone publicly because the broadcast journalists have given her pass on her crazy stuff--when that stuff hits our local papers it's because it came in through the transom first: the out of state papers, the AP, television, or the Internet.
2) The other reason is simple: she made the threat publicly because she wanted the other people to hear her make it. Not just the target of the threat, but the people listening to her make it. The message to everyone listening is clear: if you oppose me, I will do whatever I can to ruin you, Republican or no. And this conduct, in the brain of Michele Bachmann, is perfectly consistent with Christianity and receiving visions from Christ. Instead of raising the bar for her own conduct, her weird version of the Christian faith lowers the bar--it is okay for her to lie (on the record, to the press, or even in church testifying for Christ), it is okay for her threaten--because she is the true representative of Christ and Christianity.
You have a point--it is arrogant to the point of craziness for an American elected official to threaten someone publicly. So what lesson do we draw about her character, from that?
This is why it's so reprehensible that reporters like EB spiked all the other documented evidence of her lies, bigotry and craziness. She's in their, representing us in Congress on the Iraq war and a thousand other issues--and the local media *knew* she was lying hateful nut before she even got elected.
lloydletta2
· 2 years ago
Bachmann's behavior was Unchristian - but not surprising Ken Avidor and I were at the convention, and did not witness this.
I was disappointed to see this wasn't reported on the Big Question shortly after the convention, but can understand that people (including reporters) make mistakes. I sure do. Larry Schumacher was highly criticized for not writing an article about his podcast interview where Bachmann made the Bachmannistan comments. Schumacher lost the Drudge link, and Eric Black took advantage of that.
I appreciate that Eric is reporting on this now.
joelr
· 2 years ago
Gosh I've gotta admit that my mind boggles at the notion that you're holding back, PW.
parthian1
· 2 years ago
Of course this was "worth" reporting at the time.... Especially because of Bachmann's revolting claims to Christian "holiness". And because of her brazen use of vague public threats of "retaliation", which are rare, despite all the predictible "no story here!" defense spinning by Repub apologists, who defend all things "conservative".
But it wasn't reported. Why? Apparently no one knows and no one is to blame. EB says he plans to write more about "the norms that shape journalism in powerful ways that are often invisible even to journalists". Indeed. I think journalists know more about what's "holding them back" than they say. I question whether we need Freud to figure it out.
The "norms" seem most often to end up protecting crazy Repubs, their appalling hypocrisy and irrationality. And from pointing out the abject failure of conservative Repub "policies" and their continuing lies about them.
So, yeah, I think we need to "explore" those norms. Or the country is doomed.
parthian1
· 2 years ago
Great post. thank you.
Rob Levine
· 2 years ago
Good job Thanks for that, Eric. Better late than never. Bachmann's behavior isn't surprising, given her stalking of the gay rights rally.
joelr
· 2 years ago
Just goes to show how bad the reporting at the Strib was -- and probably still is. They withheld the shocking news that Bachmann said something mean to a political opponent within her party, and the obviously utterly unimportant news that Ellison lied in minimizing his longterm involvement with the lunatic "Nation of Islam" -- after all, who would care that he lied about that, eh?
The Gipper
· 2 years ago
Censorship gone awry at MM:):):) Why was my last comment deleted??? Whatever happened to the arena of open debate??? Oh, that's right, this is a forum that is run by "E. Black the Hack" :):):) No Surprise in regards to their being an opposing opinion censored to the prevailing groupthink that is presently at work:)
Anyway, I just sent Bachmann and co clips from your "article" ie..."may be an example of how the effort to prop up the wobbly objectivity paradigm causes journalists to leave out what they should put in.
In a case like this, the coverage of the kerfuffle would have become a kerfuffle itself, cited as evidence of my bias (or the Strib's). Maybe it would have been good evidence, I don't know."
Since you admit that "objectivity" gets in the way for you, I thought MB and her staff should know why they should NEVER RESPOND TO ANY OF YOUR REQUESTS:):):):)
Keep up the "journalism" :):):)
The Gipper
· 2 years ago
Don't hold your breath E. Black:):):) Just talked to someone at Bachmann's office, and they weren't surprised that your bias/"objectivity" got in the way of your journalistic responsibilty:):):) Take it from me, plan on being on the outside looking in....if ya catch my drift:):):)
By the way, if I forward your view on the "problem with objectivity" to your Strib colleagues/editors, would they be surprised???? :):):)
Robin Marty
· 2 years ago
Why I delete Gipper comments That many smiley faces make me hurt.
The Gipper
· 2 years ago
Censoring a smiley face???? WOW!!!!.....Welcome to the blog where NOTHING is allowed:( Only a liberal would be deterred by a smiley face....see, I wrote it out so that you wouldn't censor my comment.........ZIEK HEIL.......LOL
Cyrus
· 2 years ago
No, she was not afraid I know this situation very well, and I know Bachmann's target very well. She was not 'afraid'. That was Black's mis-interpretation. She was angry. By the way, she is doing very well.
CyBear
· 2 years ago
Blog enrty accurate and fair Let me start by stating flatly that I am a highly partisan Republican and conservative. I have personal knowledge of the situation that Black describes and the people involved. The only significant error was the description of the woman as fearful. She was not, she was angry. Any extensions that I would make to the story would only reflect poorly on Representative Bachmann, so I will keep them to myself. Let me say, however, that I will not be sorry to see her leave politics when that time comes.
The point that the subject made about supporting Republicans needs clarification. Whether Democrat or Republican, once a contested endorsement is conferred, the members of the party close ranks and support the nominee. There is nothing mysterious or nefarious about that. Such a decision does not make anyone a 'lemming', whether Democrat or Republican. Such statements are made by fools who neither understand nor appreciate the difficult process of recruiting and fielding candidates. If you want to participate in the partisan nomination process, then you accept the obligation to support the 'ticket' once the party as a whole has made its decision. If you can't at least hold your tongue, then you should leave the party, and your influence, behind.
We have certainly not seen the last of the unnamed subject of this article. I have no doubt that she will appear on the ballot sometime in the future. When she does, Minnesota will have the opportunity to send an outstanding public servant into real leadership. I have every confidence that her time will come.
Finally, while I am not a regular reader of Mr. Black, I have not noticed any disclosures here or at the Strib about the sordid history of Keith Ellison. Many disclosures have been made on other blogs in Minnesota. For example, I think the voters in the 5th should have been apprised of his close association with Sharif Willis and the killers of police officer Jerry Haaf. In my view, past association with Vice Lords is far more important than association with Christian fundamentalists. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will conclude that Black disagrees.
cashncarey
· 2 years ago
Ooh Boy Eric the Strib must miss your hard hitting reporting. Such timeliness too. And look you have brought the anti-Christians with you too. Not only Bill but partisan and now Marti. The Big Question is much better since you left. There is nobody obsessed with Michele at the BQ now (except for Bill).
All Comments
Those who have to believe in The Power of The Lord, or whatever it is they want to call their mythology, will do so anyway.
Those who view Bachmann as The Evil One Incarnate weren't going to be any more convinced than they already were.
Those in the middle would have figured "It's just politics the way it's played."
Until the folks in the middle wake up and realize there are real-world prices to pay for this medieval idiocy, we will continue to descend into the new dark ages.
Huns and Visigoths did not have to tear down the walls of Rome - the gates were opened from inside by people like Michele Bachmann, who thought their sinning neighbors needed a little cleansing.
No wonder this country is so fu$ked up.
That kind of information is really valuable to the voters; you shouldn't keep stuff like that back. Any more stories about Bachmann experiences/facts that you can recall? You can skip the part about how you should have printed them when you worked for the Strib--just print them here, with the factual context, ASAP--that would be the sincerest form of making good on your mistake.
True, Anders the Easily-Cowed "Balance" Seeker was still in charge at the time, and he probably would have just taken The Big Question away from you a few months earlier than when you wound up leaving it and the the Strib. Though whether your leaving a few months earlier than you did would have been good or bad is a question only you can answer. And whether the Strib under Avista is on the whole worse than it was under McClatchy is likewise an open question. On the one hand, the conservative Doug Tice now is the unquestioned king of the Strib's politics newsroom; on the other hand, Tice was in the ascendant anyway, and at least we don't have to suffer syndicated dingbats like Debra J. Saunders in the Opinion Exchange section.
You remember that I sent you stuff that you didn't print/wouldn't run on her--I sent it prior to the election, and there was no problem about sourcing, because it was stuff she'd said in public that had been recorded on tape, or stuff she'd written and signed herself. You know, the outright lies, the stuff where she said the federal government was out to set up a Soviet style economy and impose global socialism; the wing-nut stuff she wrote and said.
But you and the Star Tribune would not report that or raise that issue on your Big Question blog. In the old, pre-Internet days, the newspapers could use the lame excuses like "not enough space, not enough staff"--those excuses are not available to a newspaper reporter running an online blog who receives newsworthy information "from the candidate's mouth."
You chose to spike it, and the past is the past--but I'm pleading with you, if you have more newsworthy items about Bachmann that you sat on in the past--please disclose them now, this week. The voters really do need to know that stuff--don't agonize over whether you wrong to hold that back. You were. Just print it now, this week, if you feel bad about holding it back.
But to display it so openly: that's a different issue. Is it invigorating to witness a politician unafraid to display the meanness? Or is it psycho? The original Mayor Daley would be unafraid to do that. It's all based on perception of security and power, I guess, and in Daley's case it was utterly justified that he would feel that way. Is it for Bachmann? Bill P. would say yes, look at the morons in her district.
It might be politically risk-free and psycho, though, even if her supporters are not wacko right-wing Christian fasco-zealots. Even if they just agree with Michelle B. in a sort of general conservative sense, not a Holy Warrior sense. If you agree with a politician, a display of meanness is not disqualifying.
But even for them, for those kinds of supporters, the display of meanness combined with the zealous Christian impulse is worth noting. At least, it justifies closer attention to her zealotry.
The West's ability (so far) to accomodate both secular politics and wide, serious Christianity has something to do with Christianity's approach to the conundrum. The co-existence is not simply a matter of asendant secularism imposing something on Christianity over the centuries.
Our response to poltiical Islam, at least the widely-supported version that does not recognize any separation between politics and religion, depends on many things, but they include Christianity and all the other religions redoubling their support for the separation. Compromises anywhere encourage comprimises everywhere.
On policy questions, anyway. (As oposed to issues like public displays of religious significance, like manger scenes.)
However, considering the singular dangerousness of this particular representative, I disagree with Bill P. You should continue to sit on unpublished facts until she nears re-election, and then publish when someone is actually paying attention.
This is the only point on which I disagree with Bill P regarding this, however.
To your credit, you recognize that that was a reportorial moment that should not have been missed. There may have been some sound journalistic reasons not to write the story, such as the absence of confirmation from the woman as to the topic of the discussion.
But when we look around the media landscape, we see instance after instance of reporters not reporting or badly misreporting what are obviously stories. This speaks of people who are at some level afraid. The reporters deny they get advertiser pressure. They deny that their editors are telling them what to write. But mysteriously, certain stories aren't written.
There don't have to be walls for people to be in prison. There don't have to be cells for them to feel isolated. There doesn't have to be punishment for them to turn their eyes away.
The problem with printing this story was not that Black didn't have "confirmation" for it. As Black points out, he witnessed the confrontation himself; it is akin to a reporter being at the scene of an accident when it happens. There's no question as to the facts; he's was a reporter and should have reported it.
Reporting this in a timely manner would have made a difference, to at least some of Bachmann's devout evangelical supporter. Bachmann deliberately made her supposed faith into a political strength, played on it, campaigned on it in churches. Readers could evaluate how deeply "Christ changed her heart" in light of her public threat of reprisal against a woman who opposed her candidacy. Devout Christians do not repeatedly and publicly tell their opponents that "they will pay" for opposing her--that's vindictive and vengeful, and if that's Bachmann's understanding of what it means to be a Christian, her Christian supporters needed to know that.
And it was "news." Classic "man bites dog", the professed follower of Christ publicly threatens a fellow Republican with vengeane.
No, Mr. Black knows he should have reported the story; he had the facts, the opportunity, and the forum and it would have been valuable for the voters to know before they made their decision to vote.
So the question remains: Does Mr. Black have any more solid Bachmann stories that he is still holding back?
Anyone, like EB, who has been around politicians knows that "payback" is the name of the game, and has been for many years that I know of. It's what keeps the troops in line. I could tell war stories, but...
What surprises me is that MB was so naive that she actually SAID it. That is something one cannot get an experienced politician to do. But there is always payback, nonetheless, as our legislature and the congress make abundantly clear each and every day. As an old pro told me once, "It's not a gathering of boy scouts."
The other thing that surprises me is that I know well that women who are angry often cry. I'm not sure why. From the setting and the persistent pushing for some specific payback to be named, I would have perceived this good woman's tears as angry ones, probably with good reason because her candidate was obviously trailing in spite of her efforts. I wish EB had characterized the tears-behavior combination a little more clearly -- this venue allows it.
Still, it happened, and it was worthy of note, simply because it spoke at least to MB's inexperience as a politician.
Wasn't there something about a "civility" rule being in force here at the ol' Minnesota Monitor?
I guess it was just my imagination.
What surprises me is that MB was so naive that she actually SAID it."
There's a number of reasons.
1) she's not too tightly wrapped. we are talking about a person who can't see what's wrong with grabbing the president of the united states and won't let go until she can give him a kiss and get a headshot with him, thinks the federal government and homosexuals are out to establish "a new order" based on international socialism and the "homosexual agenda", accuses the Pawlenty government of Marxism in Minnesota--all matters of record, and it goes on and on, way too much to fit here-- and the professional media in Minnesota never call her out on that kind of stuff.
So she thinks, and she may be correct, that the local media will let her get away with practically anything. She went into a kind of shock when the local media called attention to her crazy claims about inside knowledge of a plan to divide Iraq with Iran, and wouldn't talk to reporters about it--she was genuinely surprised that she had been called out on something she said or did--the local media in MN simply refused to do that, until it hit the Drudge report.
The local media is terrible on the subject of Bachmann's craziness they have and had all this stuff available to them, literally for years--and they chose not run it, and they still won't run it. It's practically impossible to convince them that a crazy narcissist representing the people of MN is government is "news." Mr. Black had a lot of stuff to run on her craziness, including the story he references above; he simply didn't run it, neither did MPR or the PiPress.
So: the reason she does something like that is that there's a high probability that it won't be reported by major local media. That's reason one. Kim Ode just did a front page piece on Bachmann for the Strib, apparently she didn't consult former colleague Eric Black on Bachmann, or he would have told her this latest fascinating story that is so revealing of Bachmann's character and world view. Surely EB would not have sat on this anecdote on purpose, knowing that Ode's Strib piece was coming up (it was months in the making.) Surely he would have volunteered this information publicly before the piece on Michele's background and character and worldview came out...wouldn't he?
So it's not "inexperience", Michele has been in politics for seven years. Thanks to the absence of local media coverage, a lot of Minnesotans still don't even know the most important fact about her--she's not just a Christian, she's not just another conservative Republican, she's also a creature of the national Christian right; James Dobson's national organization actively campaigned to put her in office. So Bachmann felt safe threatening someone publicly because the broadcast journalists have given her pass on her crazy stuff--when that stuff hits our local papers it's because it came in through the transom first: the out of state papers, the AP, television, or the Internet.
2) The other reason is simple: she made the threat publicly because she wanted the other people to hear her make it. Not just the target of the threat, but the people listening to her make it. The message to everyone listening is clear: if you oppose me, I will do whatever I can to ruin you, Republican or no. And this conduct, in the brain of Michele Bachmann, is perfectly consistent with Christianity and receiving visions from Christ. Instead of raising the bar for her own conduct, her weird version of the Christian faith lowers the bar--it is okay for her to lie (on the record, to the press, or even in church testifying for Christ), it is okay for her threaten--because she is the true representative of Christ and Christianity.
You have a point--it is arrogant to the point of craziness for an American elected official to threaten someone publicly. So what lesson do we draw about her character, from that?
This is why it's so reprehensible that reporters like EB spiked all the other documented evidence of her lies, bigotry and craziness. She's in their, representing us in Congress on the Iraq war and a thousand other issues--and the local media *knew* she was lying hateful nut before she even got elected.
I was disappointed to see this wasn't reported on the Big Question shortly after the convention, but can understand that people (including reporters) make mistakes. I sure do. Larry Schumacher was highly criticized for not writing an article about his podcast interview where Bachmann made the Bachmannistan comments. Schumacher lost the Drudge link, and Eric Black took advantage of that.
I appreciate that Eric is reporting on this now.
But it wasn't reported. Why? Apparently no one knows and no one is to blame. EB says he plans to write more about "the norms that shape journalism in powerful ways that are often invisible even to journalists". Indeed. I think journalists know more about what's "holding them back" than they say. I question whether we need Freud to figure it out.
The "norms" seem most often to end up protecting crazy Repubs, their appalling hypocrisy and irrationality. And from pointing out the abject failure of conservative Repub "policies" and their continuing lies about them.
So, yeah, I think we need to "explore" those norms. Or the country is doomed.
Anyway, I just sent Bachmann and co clips from your "article" ie..."may be an example of how the effort to prop up the wobbly objectivity paradigm causes journalists to leave out what they should put in.
In a case like this, the coverage of the kerfuffle would have become a kerfuffle itself, cited as evidence of my bias (or the Strib's). Maybe it would have been good evidence, I don't know."
Since you admit that "objectivity" gets in the way for you, I thought MB and her staff should know why they should NEVER RESPOND TO ANY OF YOUR REQUESTS:):):):)
Keep up the "journalism" :):):)
By the way, if I forward your view on the "problem with objectivity" to your Strib colleagues/editors, would they be surprised???? :):):)
The point that the subject made about supporting Republicans needs clarification. Whether Democrat or Republican, once a contested endorsement is conferred, the members of the party close ranks and support the nominee. There is nothing mysterious or nefarious about that. Such a decision does not make anyone a 'lemming', whether Democrat or Republican. Such statements are made by fools who neither understand nor appreciate the difficult process of recruiting and fielding candidates. If you want to participate in the partisan nomination process, then you accept the obligation to support the 'ticket' once the party as a whole has made its decision. If you can't at least hold your tongue, then you should leave the party, and your influence, behind.
We have certainly not seen the last of the unnamed subject of this article. I have no doubt that she will appear on the ballot sometime in the future. When she does, Minnesota will have the opportunity to send an outstanding public servant into real leadership. I have every confidence that her time will come.
Finally, while I am not a regular reader of Mr. Black, I have not noticed any disclosures here or at the Strib about the sordid history of Keith Ellison. Many disclosures have been made on other blogs in Minnesota. For example, I think the voters in the 5th should have been apprised of his close association with Sharif Willis and the killers of police officer Jerry Haaf. In my view, past association with Vice Lords is far more important than association with Christian fundamentalists. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will conclude that Black disagrees.