Progress Now Action

I don't have a problem admitting that I am not and would probably make a very poor journalist. I'm a blogger, I go off about things that interest or inspire or disgust me without a lot of attention to impartiality or AP style. I don't pretend to do according-to-Hoyle "journalism." There are lots of blogs out there, of course, you can go to excellent news sources like Colorado Confidential to see an authentic journalist process at work as good as any metro newsroom.

But not so cool is when a so-called online "journalist" outfit has a chance to get new information on record on the hottest story in the state, and ends up getting bullied like a fifty-pound weakling with too much lunch money. PolitickerCO "reporter" Jeremy Pelzer got roughed up thusly by Colorado Senate candidate Bob Schaffer and his henchman Dick "most appropriate name ever" Wadhams, check out the highlights from the transcript after the jump. If you're a particularly empathetic person you might want to think about happy kittens or something; it's kind of brutal. If you get through the whole thing, though, there's a moral at the end.

PolitickerCO: The campaign's been fairly quiet about the whole Marianas Islands controversy since it came out in the Post about a week or so ago. What's your take on this whole controversy and how it's played out?

Schaffer: Why don't you describe the controversy?

PolitickerCO: Well, just that the Post put out a series of articles detailing how, one, you went to the Marianas Islands and it was funded by or organized by Preston Gates...

Schaffer: Really? Was it?

Wadhams: No.

Schaffer: Why don't you take the opportunity to substantiate your comment just now?

PolitickerCO: Sure, sure. This is just -well, what is your take on the controversy? Why don't you fill me in?

Schaffer: Why don't you describe the controversy?

PolitickerCO: The controversy?

Schaffer: Yeah.

PolitickerCO: Well, just what's been in the papers, and there's a whole series of things - and I'm not asking you so much to talk about the controversy itself, but how's it's played out and what the reaction's been in the media and -- that's what I'm going for.

Schaffer: Well, the Denver Post has a hard time arriving at a factual and truthful representation of a 1998 event (Editor's Note: Schaffer visited the Marianas in August of 1999). And that probably causes controversy for the Denver Post. Maybe you should take it up with them.

PolitickerCO: Just trying to get your take on it. Just trying to get your take on it.

Schaffer: I'm not sure what "it" is. I'm asking you to describe that.

PolitickerCO: The controversy-the reaction to the Denver Post articles. That's what I mean by "it." And what you see as the effect--

Schaffer: Jeremy, if you're going to ask me-anyway, now listen, I love questions. I love talking about campaigns. If you've got something you want me to answer, you've got to tell me what you want me to answer.

PolitickerCO: I'm trying to tell you right now. I'm asking what your take is on the reaction and the effect of the Denver Post articles on this topic- that's my question.

Schaffer: I think it's probably hurt the credibility of the Denver Post.

PolitickerCO: Why?

Schaffer: Well, because when any news organization fails to report accurately and completely on any topic, readers tend to, um, assign lower and lower levels of credibility to reporters that make no pretense for objectivity - a political reporter, any kind of reporter.

PolitickerCO: What specifically - when you say inaccurate, what do you mean?

Schaffer: Things that they stated that were not true.

PolitickerCO: Like what?

Schaffer: You can, uh...Well, there were several. But frankly, I'm not here to talk about the Denver Post. If that's an interest to you-I mean, it's nice that you ask about the Denver Post, and I've made some comments, but you probably ought to talk to the Denver Post about their stories, their reporting, their controversies. I'm just not hired by them to do that.

PolitickerCO: Sure. There's been a story in the - (Lynn)Bartels wrote one, and there was one in the Post too about (American Right To Life Action head and former Colorado GOP Chair) Steve Curtis questioning your pro-life credentials because he claims you ignored forced abortions-

Schaffer: What example did he give?

PolitickerCO: What example did he give?

Schaffer: What example did he give? Yeah.

PolitickerCO: He offered the testimony of that woman whose name escapes me, who claimed that her husband went undercover - he's a Filipino-American - and she claimed that he went undercover and after that-

Wadhams: Curtis did not make that claim, Jeremy. You've got it all mixed up.

Okay, it goes on and on like this. And the kid tries a couple of times, but Wadhams realizes early on that he can punk him six ways from Sunday (last line above just the first). Eventually,

PolitickerCO: He also said that you had not weighed in on the personhood referendum, proposed referendum-

Schaffer: Yeah, let's not get beyond these basic questions. What was the example he gave?

PolitickerCO: I'm sorry? Which example?

Schaffer: You asked me to react to somebody's, maybe Curtis', allegation that I somehow turned my back on human life issues. And I'm asking, what is the example? And you've not answered that.

PolitickerCO: But do you know what he said?

Wadhams: Jeremy, this whole interview stands in stark contrast to that fluff piece you did on Udall. I don't know if we're going to go any further on this. So if you want to continue with this line of questioning, we're going to cut it off right now.

PolitickerCO: All right, I'll move on to the next question.

Wadhams: Very good.

PolitickerCO: Not a problem.

Wadhams: Keep moving.

Good lord, what a disaster. Except...

What if the other narrative about this sorry interview, that is the sweaty, caustic, positively Clintonesque evasiveness of Schaffer, aggressively defended by a belligerent Wadhams, betraying over and over that they know exactly what the kid is getting at and laughing at his inability to back them into a rhetorical corner, is what's remembered about this otherwise unmemorable article?

You get past the fact that this poor reporter is getting the crap kicked out of him and you realize this is also an incredibly arrogant and damaging performance by Schaffer and Wadhams. It makes them look horrible--no substantive responses to any of litany of troubling questions raised by the Schaffer/Abramoff scandal, only thinly-worded evasions, denials, belittlement, and threats. If it's shameful for the staff at PolitickerCO it's much more so for the guys who were being interviewed: they just didn't realize it while they were working the kid over like a New York mugger. But the tape recorder was still running...

If there's any justice, this will be the worst interview every Colorado voter reads this year.

See also:

Ideological roots of the Schaffer/Abramoff scandal
"Colorado Right to Life" blasts Schaffer for ignoring forced abortions in Marianas
Hey! Look over there!
Down the rabbit hole with Bob Schaffer
TPM updates Schaffer/Abramoff
Brief summary: Schaffer/Abramoff so far
Schaffer / Abramoff strategies meshed
Bob Schaffer hides from Abramoff/Marianas questions
Damaging Schaffer/Abramoff disclosures continue
Schaffer/Marianas scandal explodes
Marianas questions dog Bob Schaffer