How did Craig’s guilty plea almost go undetected?
Don Day August 28th, 2007
Editor and Publisher asks the question of the day: how on Earth did yesterday’s revelation about Idaho Sen. Larry Craig go undetected for so long? The Craig story is one that has been very much on the radar of every newsroom in the state of Idaho for years - and that focus got even more intense late last year. Today Craig lashed out at the Idaho Statesman newspaper, and put the blame for his actions in the wake of his arrest on pressure stemming from the paper’s eight month investigation. Even the reporter who broke the story was surprised “It is amazing to me that it was able to sit on the shelf so long,” he told Editor & Publisher. “Through the arrest and the guilty plea, and even a couple of weeks after.”
The list of organizations that “missed” the story is long: NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN, rash of politics-only newspapers (Politico, National Review, etc.), the Washington Post, NY Times, hungry news organizations in Idaho (including the one that employs me, KTVB) and even Minnesota news outlets. Roll Call finally broke the story - but only after a tip last week - months after the incident, and weeks after the plea was signed.
4 Comments Add your own
1. Jason | August 29th, 2007 at 6:00 am
I explain part of why I believe Minnesota media “missed” the story in my blog (linked above). Larry Craig isn’t exactly a household name here, and even if reporters were looking through police reports at the Airport Police (a separate department from the city police agencies), his name wouldn’t jump out. Nor would a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge.
His plea was signed on August 1, the day the 35W Bridge collapsed. The normal courthouse suspects wouldn’t be tipping off reporters, as everyone was swamped with the bridge collapse.
2. Don Day | August 29th, 2007 at 6:42 am
I agree Jason - the MN media had bigger things going on during the time of the plea deal.
3. Safran | August 29th, 2007 at 6:59 am
That’s insightful Jason, thanks.
I like that there’s a story that both the blogosphere and the MSM missed. Gives a little for both to think about in the “us vs. them” silliness. In this case, it was “neither.”
4. tdc | August 29th, 2007 at 7:26 am
now a paper has to defend its reporting?
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed