Lazy, agenda-driven "reporting" hastens journalism's demise

It's no secret that the journalism business is in big trouble. The big traditional print outlets are seeing their circulations decline and their credibility eroding, and the well-known broadcast outlets are losing viewers and trust at an alarming rate. High-profile lawsuits against a number of those outlets by Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann don't help, and neither will the multimillion-dollar suit Congressman Devin Nunes filed against CNN for its false report that he met with Ukrainian officials in Austria in an attempt to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.

There are lots of reasons for the decline of the media. Biased coverage, poor business decisions, and bad reporting are chief among them. 

At a time when newspapers are begging for readers and trying to make themselves relevant once again by adopting catchy slogans such as "Democracy Dies In Darkness," one would think that reporters would make an effort to write complete and unbiased stories when they cover current events.

A recent story by Jack Brammer from the Lexington Herald-Leader shows this not to be the case at all. Lazy, biased reporting still rules the day at one of Kentucky's two largest newspapers.

On his way out of office, Gov. Matt Bevin has been giving interviews to a number of radio stations across the state. He has either ignored or declined the Herald-Leader's request for an exit interview. And why should he talk to that paper? It has been hostile to him since he won the Republican gubernatorial nomination four years ago.

Unable to get his own interview with Bevin, Brammer decided instead to write a story centered on various comments Bevin made in those radio interviews. The focus of the story that came out was that Bevin had stated that incoming Gov.-elect Andy Beshear had sold a high-level appointment to a campaign contributor.

"I’ve heard of one person who has been appointed who told the person whose place he is taking that he had to pay. He had to make campaign contributions to get his appointment,” the story quotes Bevin as saying on a radio station in Cadiz. Brammer's story chastises Bevin for not naming the appointee or offering any proof that the allegation is true.

Isn't that the job of the press? Don't they investigate and verify the statements of officials and politicians every day? Isn't that why there are scads of fact-checking sites out there? Isn't that why reporters and pundits hang on every word President Trump utters, trying to prove them false?

So far, Beshear has made two announcements of appointments to high-level positions. His first announcement, last week, was mainly of people who work for him in the attorney general's office moving up with him. He made another announcement this week, in which he gave Lt. Gov-elect Jacqueline Coleman a cabinet secretary's role, and verified what many people suspected, in that Rep. Rocky Adkins -- whom Beshear defeated in the gubernatorial primary but became a prominent Beshear backer in the general election -- would get a key role in his administration.

Also in that announcement, Beshear stated that former Lexington mayor and failed congressional candidate Jim Gray would be his Transportation Cabinet secretary. That appointment came as a surprise to most, as the prevailing thought was that Adkins would get that job.

The Kentucky Registry of Election Finance has this neat little feature on its website, where anyone can search for campaign contributions. After first seeing Brammer's story Wednesday night, it took me about five minutes of work on my smartphone to determine that Jim Gray, this surprise appointee, had contributed the maximum of $4,000 to Andy Beshear's gubernatorial campaign. He gave two separate $1,000 contributions to Beshear's primary effort last winter, then a $2,000 gift to his general election campaign this summer.

If I could find that out, and take the time to research it, why couldn't Brammer? Wouldn't the prudent course of action for an unbiased, impartial journalist be to look into the contributions of everyone Beshear has appointed to date, then ask those individuals and the governor-elect for comment?

In the case of Gray, I can think of a number of pertinent questions to ask.

• "Did the two of you know each other previously? If so, how well? What was the nature of your relationship?"

• "Did the two of you ever discuss campaign contributions"?

• "When was Gray's appointment first discussed? How long had he been under consideration for a cabinet secretary's position?"

It could be that both Gray and Beshear would deny any connection between Gray's contributions and his appointment, but at least the questions and answers would be out there in the public domain for all to see. In any case, it's an obvious matter that one should expect a serious journalist to pursue.

The major media outlets in this state have a history of overlooking or blatantly ignoring information that would make Democrats look bad, or present Republicans in a better light. Look how doggedly the Courier-Journal tried to make Bevin's purchase of a home an issue. Yet during the Ernie Fletcher administration, the press overlooked pertinent facts concerning Greg Stumbo's investigation that could have made a difference in public perception had they been widely known.

Jack Brammer's been a political reporter for a long time. He knows how to research stories. Is he just phoning it in now, waiting for a buyout from McClatchy? Did laziness or bias impact the way he reported this story? Why didn't he do some simple investigation and then ask questions about what he could have found out? If someone who lives two hours from Frankfort can find this out from the comfort of his home, why can't a reporter who works in the capital city do it while on the job?

As a commenter noted on the H-L's story, there's no direct evidence of a quid pro quo (that certainly seems to be a popular phrase these days.) While that's true, there are legitimate questions that could be asked, and should be asked by responsible reporters. Ask them, get denials on the record, and then let the people make up their own minds based on the evidence. The fact that the question never got asked takes that possibility away from the populace.

Volumes could be, and have been, written about journalism's decline. The clock is ticking on the traditional media, as more and more sources of information become available to the public. When journalists don't do their due diligence on stories, they do their industry no favors.