Is the MSM lowering blog standards?

(Column now includes updates)

RALEIGH — One of the first things my city editor told me at my first newspaper job was, “If somebody’s got an ax to grind, make sure your readers know it.” This is pretty rudimentary stuff for reporters, something you learn, as I did, the first day on the job.

But things have changed, apparently, since 1973. These days, even reporters and editors the journalistic fraternity deem the best and the brightest ignore that basic lesson of reporting. An especially egregious example comes from a former Washington Post reporter who teaches at one of the nation’s most esteemed journalism schools, and a former reporter for The Associated Press.

Fred Barbash and David Mark wrote an article for the Politico blog/politics site on Sunday with the following title: “Scholars question Palin credentials.” This is called a reaction story, and it’s one of the most basic in journalism. Something happens in the real world and your editor instructs you to go see what people think about it. Pretty simple.

That’s where my old city editor’s admonition about axes comes in. For instance, if you want something resembling a fair sample of opinion, you don’t only go to a union hall to ask about “right-to-work” laws, or only to a Planned Parenthood office to ask about Rove v. Wade.

But that’s exactly what Fred Barbash and David Mark, both senior editors at Politico, did for their story on the reaction of scholars to McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate.

For their story, Barbash, a veteran Washington Post reporter and editor who is also a lecturer at Northwestern’s prestigious Medill School of Journalism, and Mark, who worked for The Associated Press as well as Congressional Quarterly, chose four scholars: David Kennedy, Joel Goldstein, Doris Kearns Goodwin and Matthew Dallek.

Here’s how they identify them in their story:

• Goldstein: “St. Louis University law professor and scholar of the vice presidency”

• Kennedy: “Stanford historian”

• Goodwin: “Historian”

• Dallek: “Presidential historian”

But here’s some more information on the four scholars that the two reporters didn’t think you needed to know:

• Goldstein: Obama donor.

• Kennedy: Maxed-out Obama donor.

• Goodwin: Exclusive Democrat donor.

• Dallek: Former speech writer for Dick Gephardt, one of the most partisan Democrats in recent memory.

I don’t know much about the partisanship of Goldstein, Kennedy and Dallek, but I’ll never forget Goodwin referring to Democrats as “our guys” during the 2000 Democratic National Convention.

As you would expect, the McCain campaign very quickly let the editors at Politico know about this irresponsible reporting.

The reaction of publications to their own errors, misfeasance and malfeasance is always enlightening. Too often you get the instinctive and annoying “we stand by our story” comment. Too rarely you get an admission of a mistake, with a mea culpa prominently displayed.

Sometimes, though, you get a response that is an obvious effort to keep from having to admit a mistake. This is the route Politico took. When notified of the atrocious reporting, the editors at Politico simply appended the McCain camp’s reaction to the end of the second page of the story:

UPDATE: After reading this article, the McCain campaign issued the following statement: “The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin’s fitness for the office of vice president. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed-out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Gov. Palin’s credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Sen. McCain.”

Note that Politico does not rebut the McCain camp’s information. We can assume, then that it is accurate. So why didn’t Politico state the information as fact instead of depicting it as simply allegations of the McCain campaign?

Simple. They didn’t have the guts to admit the mistake. And to make matters worse, they hid the truth at the bottom of a multi-paged story, hoping that few would see it.

But thanks to blog sites like Newsbusters, it didn’t go unnoticed.

Is this is what happens to the high standards of blogs when you get mainstream media refugees involved?

UPDATE: The following paragraph was later added to the Politico column:

In response to the statement, David Kennedy wrote to Politico that he has contributed the maximum to Obama, but believes that does not compromise his objectivity as a historian. Goodwin said she has contributed to no political candidates in the 2008 election cycle and has not done so for more than a decade, if not longer. Goldstein said he has given $250 to Obama but rejected suggestions he can not be objective. Dallek is a former Gephardt speechwriter – but noted that he also is the author of a well-received book about Ronald Reagan’s first election as California governor.

Also, Barbash emails to say he left full-time employment at Medill in the spring, and that he now teaches a seminar once a week on a contract basis.

Jon Ham is vice president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of its newspaper Carolina Journal.