AJC – the news that fits.

Comments

13 responses to “AJC – the news that fits.”

1. 

   J.M. Prince

   December 9, 2008

   Never on a Sunday? (Following the 2nd coming?). Again I’m with Catherine here, this is really not journalism, & not what they typically teach in the J-schools (or indeed elsewhere), and every idiot Knows that the written record provides just One view of reality. You can get into entire huge arguments here over ‘simple’ accounting standards on that score too. Business reporters can’t even tell you Coke’s real bottom line either. It’s not like they’re unaware of this possible ‘discrepancy’ either. All that needed to be done was a simple follow up call to try and confirm matters, and get some more context on the story & figures. Again, once it was as common as dirt, and pretty much standard procedure.

   Really. Few folks could ever get away with such a sloppy, incomplete & generally shoddy job. You’d just have to fire them for doing such a poor job with no follow up, no follow through, and no ‘cross checking’ to try and confirm facts. Again, NOT real reporting as such. And wholly unacceptable even to most 3rd& 4th Grade teachers when I was growing up. JG & the AJC’s PI staff KNOW this. They might argue otherwise in order to keep their jobs, but deep in their hearts and from their training? They’d be ashamed to pass this off as their ‘finest quality work’. And really if you’re not proud to put your name on it? Why bother even putting it in print? Look into Mediamatters.org for more current examples of this type of idiocy. We’re surrounded by it. Swimming in it constantly. Just one more huge problem for ‘reality based’ governance. Cheers, JMP

2. 

   Zaid

   December 9, 2008

   Hack journalism from Galloway and the AJC?

   NEVER

3. 

   plange

   December 9, 2008

   IRE, this is how I understand it (and if I’m wrong, let me know as it’s just based on reading this blog post, LOL) — this is an incomplete rendering of it as it’s only showing their balance on a long-standing debt that they’ve been methodically paying down (like a house payment) but doesn’t reflect their other monies. And I have to say, if we’re only 100K in debt after this mother of all elections, I’m relieved….

4. 

   CatherineAtlanta

   December 9, 2008

   I am not saying it’s bad journalism. I’m questioning whether it’s journalism at all? To me journalism includes something more than regurgitating documents and jumping to conclusions.

   I don’t think anyone is denying that the information was correct on the legal documents, IRE. There are millions of legal documents submitted each day across the country. Why did Mr Galloway feel the need to highlight this particular document, on this particular day, without bothering to do any additional work on the story.

   It’s just sloppy. He took the easy way out.

5. 

   innerredneckexposed

   December 9, 2008

   Hey! Crawford can’t do journalism either! And look at this! Galloway posted it! A DOUBLE WHAMMY OF BAD JOURNALISM!!!

   http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/12/09/oxendine_spends_36k_on_campaig.html?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider

   Come on…its the same thing as the above, who is going to say its bad journalism?

6. 

   innerredneckexposed

   December 9, 2008

   OK, so what everyone is saying, is that the financial disclosures for the DPG can’t be trusted. Galloway got a public document that the DPG has to release by law, that must be wholly accurate BY LAW, and then say he is doing shoddy journalism.

   At what point did the DPG’s financial disclosures no longer become wholly accurate? Why is that? (Think about what that’s saying about the DPG).

   Now, if I am misreading the situation here let me know. But if you’re saying it is bad journalism to rely on the DPG’s LEGAL DOCUMENTS, then you guys are wrong on this one. You just are that’s the only way to cut it. There is an objective truth to this that is on Galloway’s side.

7. 

   J.M. Prince

   December 9, 2008

   Truly touching IRE, that you’re ‘standing up for your fellow journo’, but JG’s reporting here was less than stellar. In fact it was subpar, incomplete, slapdash and under sourced. In other words? SSDD for the AJC’s Political Reporting. They’ve cut back their actual ‘reporting staff’ some 80% from when I started reading the rag. It’s one of the reasons I finally gave up on it. If you’re unwilling and unable to actually report on the news as it Exists, then you might as well close up shop. They can’t, and they have. Really.

   The PI is just nothing much more than elevated gossip if it’s not properly fact checked and edited by knowledgeable folks willing to actually follow up on leads and stories, instead of the usual ‘rip and read’ rehashing of various blogs or PR reports.

   Now they’re fully capable of doing actual reporting, I’ve seen them do it. It’s all the lazy crap that somehow winds up in the copy that gives their team & the AJC a poor reputation for ‘quality & accuracy’. It’s not like this is ‘rocket science’ here either, a simple follow up call to someone would have sufficed. In an earlier day it would have been required too.

   But the ‘modern media’ are herd animals, they follow the trends above all. We’re not all that popular at the moment in Ga., so they play along to the crowd. Ralph McGill is still rolling in his grave over this and too many other insults to mention. Suffice to say it’s one of the reasons I finally gave up on the rag after being a loyal subscriber for about 25 years. I’ve had it with the snide biases & the mean spirited mindless coverage of elections especially. They no longer really cover local politics, and expect people (candidates) to ‘pay to play’ for favorable coverage in their monopoly media set up. And that was just the start…

   But idiocy, thy name is AJC! And if they’re regularly practicing some form of journalism anywhere on the premises, their product seldom shows this. It’s a scam. What they’re Not telling you? This has been the most expensive Ga. political race, bar none. Follow the money guys! How much was piled into Their coffers for this runoff? Probably well in excess of 10-15 Million for a month’s long effort. That’s rich folks, and it moves numbers fast!

   Cheers, JMP

8. 

   innerredneckexposed

   December 8, 2008

   I read the original story. I got the impression that the DPG did not have a lot of money. If there is another story then that needs to be told, but I don’t think there is one.

   I’m pretty sure the federal funds count separately and can’t be used to make payments on 1100 Spring Street etc. And I would think, even if we included those funds we still aren’t doing too well financially. So yeah, the picture might be different but I doubt better.

   and im going to stand up for my fellow journo: no he didn’t have to indicate as much. He’s dealing with the info he has on hand. The info is that the accounts the state party can use to operate are not in the positive side. If somehow your saying the DPG’s financial disclosures can’t be trusted, let me know. That’s a story I would like to run with. (Allow me to make an analogy — you get a ruling on a case from a judge, do you need to call the judge to understand something if its put in black and white? No of course not. That is what is happening here. You have a legal document that says quite clearly what the DPG’s funds are.)

   The story at the end of the day is: we don’t have a lot of money. That is a fact.

   Now if I am misreading what Galloway is reporting then fine, let me know.

9. 

   MelGX

   December 8, 2008

   And here’s another thing. The report Galloway cited was the disclosure for state funds. The DPG also has Federal funds, but I don’t think those disclosures are out yet.

   So, by definition, the financial picture is incomplete and he should have at least indicated as much.

10. 

    MelGX

    December 8, 2008

    The original story was misleading IRE. See Amy’s comment above.

    Yes, there is dept, but it’s not as if the doors are about to close. And what if they hadn’t left everything on the road in 2008? Wouldn’t that be much more troubling? With their major fundraiser only 3 months away, it seems to me they are in reasonably good shape.

11. 

    innerredneckexposed

    December 8, 2008

    Wait, so the party has debt (six figures no less), can’t raise dough, and the money is from a guy who was in power four years ago? And if the source is unreliable (in this case disclosures filed with the SofS), then there is a much larger story.

    And somehow Galloway is the one who effed up?

    Let me put it this way, imagine if the GOP had 100K worth of debt from Westmoreland’s office in 04 and hadn’t paid it off by now (follow me with this thought experiment), what do you think we would say?

    Now I know we are getting some money back, I think it is $40k, that means we are only 100K in debt. That plus $70oddK in CoH, you think we’re sitting pretty? So at the end of the day, the truth of the story (DPG has no money) stands, regardless if we like the story or not.

12. 

    Amy Morton

    December 8, 2008

    But it is caucus debt that we have been steadily paying down since 2004, following Terry Coleman’s year as Speaker. Maybe that’s too fine a dice for the AJC, but it is not quite the same as DPG debt. The AJC reporting on this is evidence of what happens when someone just reads a disclosure or trusts an unreliable blogger for info rather than checking with the source. The phones are still on at 1100 Spring Street.

13. 

    innerredneckexposed

    December 8, 2008

    I hate to say it but Galloway has less than no axe to grind and he hardly is out to “get” anyone. That’s not his style.

    As for the substance yes the DPG is getting some of that money back but it is still debt.