Despite the blogs, the TV ads and the candidate forums, most frequent voters still rely on The Kansas City Star to help them sort out the issues and gauge the candidates in the mayor’s race.
In recent days, The Star has, in some instances, yielded valuable insight. On the other hand, it fell face-down in the mud on a story last Friday about the legal cases that candidates Mike Burke and Sly James — both lawyers — have handled.
Let’s get the mud-splatter job out of the way first.
Political reporters Dave Helling and Steve Kraske set up their front-page story about Burke’s and James’ legal backgrounds by quoting Jim Bergfalk, a longtime political consultant who engineered the ill-fated campaign of Deb Hermann, who finished fifth in the Feb. 22 primary election.
On the front-page part of the story, before it “jumped” to an inside page, Helling and Kraske said that “because both men have thin experience in public office, some attention has turned to the pair’s legal careers for clues about their approaches to government.”
Then came the stage-setting quote from Bergfalk: “It (the legal perspective) is absolutely relevant. It’s the only real body of work that voters have” for the two contenders.
Oh, really?
Never mind that Burke has served as chairman of three economic development agencies, headed the city’s Public Improvements Advisory Committee for five years, founded the July 4 Riverfest celebration and headed the committee that got Kansas City named an All-America City in 2006. And forget that James was co-chairman of the Save our Stadiums committee and served on the boards of Operation Breakthrough, the United Way and Genesis School.
First, shame on Bergfalk, who should and does know better. I don’t know what the hell he was thinking or doing when he said that. Maybe whichever of the two reporters who interviewed him led him in that direction. Maybe he was thinking about how, on his watch, Hermann plummeted from favorite a month before the primary to fifth on Election Day.
But the bigger shame goes to Helling and Kraske, who also know the quote is completely misleading and are guilty of using it to artificially pump up the importance of that day’s story. OK, the candidates’ legal backgrounds are relevant — no doubt about that — but is it…
“the only real body of work that voters have” ?????
Come on…In my view, those two reporters were trying to sell their story to both their editors and their readers. Once again, as is often the case at The Star, one or more editors failed to rein in the reporters. One of an editor’s main jobs is to make sure a story is balanced and in perspective. Sometimes, editors have to stand up to heavy-hitting reporters, blow the whistle and say, “No, that’s outta bounds.” Unfortunately, the editor who handled this story was a milquetoast.
Just that one quote blew the legal backgrounds of the two candidates out of perspective and, correspondingly, unfairly denigrated their respective civic-activist backgrounds.
…Guess I’ve gotta rein myself in here…Let’s move on to the next point.
On Thursday, Yael Abouhalkah, Op-Ed columnist and member of The Star’s editorial board had a column that, in part, addressed the two candidates’ leadership styles.
As a Burke contributor and supporter, I have to say, I loved that column. To my surprise, Abouhalkah said that James’ emphasis on being a mediator was “starting to wear thin.”
I say that surprised me because The Star recently endorsed James, although it was complimentary to Burke.
It sounds to me, just from that column, like Abouhalkah either didn’t cast his editorial vote for James or he’s had second thoughts.
Listen to what he went on to say…
“James recently hasn’t taken definitive stands on the Polsinelli law building/Country Club Plaza dispute, the future of Acting City Manger Troy Schulte and pension reform.
“His continued reservations won’t earn him points with voters who want leadership on issues that have been discussed for months, sometimes years (such as city pensions).”
Wow. Those are two powerful paragraphs that the Burke campaign could blow up into 60-point type and smack James in the head with. Whether the campaign will take advantage of that godsend remains to be seen.
That brings us to side-by-side stories in Sunday’s “A” section. Reporters Lynn Horsley and Michael Mansur interviewed both candidates on the most important issue in the race — Why should voters choose you? — and ran excerpts of the interviews.
Both stories were excellent and riveting — riveting to those of us who like politics, anyway. Here’s a link to the Burke story, and here’s a link to the James story.
Congratulations to Horsley and Mansur on stories that might prompt many voters to go for one candidate or the other.
I will leave you with the final questions and answers.
Question to James: Is there anything else we haven’t touched in terms of differences (between you and Burke)?
A: The key difference between Mike Burke and Sly James is we’re totally different people. Because I’m willing to accept that he has good ideas doesn’t mean we’re the same. … I believe I’m the leader that we need to go forward…I believe that the past is part of the problem for why we are where we are. I’m not saying that’s his fault. I don’t want that to be said at all. I’m just saying the time for politics as usual needs to cease and we need to do things a little differently in this town.
A: The main thing is who’s ready to walk in the mayor’s office and know how City Hall works, know who at City Hall are the good administrators, are the people you can trust for advice. That’s something I’m sure he can learn over time, but I don’t think we have a year or two of on-the-job training.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
What’s both comical and sad to note in watching the KCMO elections is that the “consultants” are quoted more often than the actual candidates. What does (fill in the name) think about something, even though these people are focused on making a buck from whoever they’re supporting and in any case are engaged in the tactical aspects of a political campaign, not the ideas, proposals, and public policy thinking that may actually be meaningful to the voters in deciding who to vote for.
The system in KCMO forces candidates to raise money from special interests so that they can then pay the same old people to tell them what to think and do. Why is anyone surprised that we end up in pretty much the same place every time?
What KCMO desperately needs are some candidates who aren’t carrying water for the same old groups, can think for themselves, formulate some innovative proposals to actually address the city’s problems, and have the guts to not take “because-that’s-the-way-we’ve-always-done-it” for an answer and to hold others accountable.
That’s the choice!
Nice take, Fitz.
Great analysis — but I wonder about the opening sentence.
Years ago, I wouldn’t have questioned The Star’s leading role in helping frequent voters sort things out — but today? They might still be the go-to source, but it’s not a slam dunk anymore.
Just curious if there’s any research out there to back up the statement.
I doubt that’ there’s any research, Greg — other than The Star’s circulation and readership statistics, which have been headed down for quite a few years…Note that I did say “frequent voters,” which is people who probably tend to be in their 40s, 50s and 60s and up. It’s those people who comprise the bulk of The Star’s readership.
Jim
I was told that one of the local unions did some sort of research and supposedly found that a Star endorsement was counter productive. I don’t think so. People who are informed enough to know that the endorsements are BS already know enough to make their own decisions. Most folks, even if they claim to hate The Star, pretty much accept it as an honest broker (because that’s what newspapers supposedly do), and absent any information to the contrary, will take their endorsements seriously.
That said, congratulations, Fitz, for joining the rest of us who have watched The Star screw our candidates with trumped-up commentaries like this disguised as news articles and their infamous hate campaigns. So far, your guy is getting a pretty mild treatment, so they must think he has a pretty good chance of getting in.
The sad part is that they waste a lot of quality journalistic talent in the process.
Fitz-
I am a Sly James supporter because I think he can best represent Kansas City for a lot of reasons that I won’t argue with you here.
Your position is clear and I thank you for your disclosures to that effect in your blog.
You are right in that The Star under-emphasized Burke’s (and for that matter James’) experience in that story. While I like Jim Bergfalk, why is he the only quoted ‘expert’ in the article?
I do believe that The Star’s endorsement matters (although it matters substantially less than when we had two papers and no internet.)
I feel that the Star has gone easy on Mr. Burke in light of their endorsement of Sly.
Kansas City is fortunate to have two candidates for mayor who are people you would like your kids to grow up to be like.
A choice like Burke or James for mayor underscores what a classy town we can be.
I like Sly. You like Mike. Kansas City wins.
We agree on the E-tax.
What happened with this story is typical; it’s not confined to political stories. It occurs with every article that is pitched for the front page. Because such importance is placed on getting a story on A1, reporters and their line editors become marketers for the story (in the internal back and forth of the paper) and frequently tweak the writing and the nut graf to make the gist of the article sound more momentous and newsworthy. Many times that leads to exaggeration, unfairness and distortion. An editor should be the one to rein this in, as you say, but more often the line editor is pushing just as hard if not harder to get the article on A1, and will not take kindly to having a reporter downplay his or her own story. “Don’t you want your story on the front page? What’s wrong with you? Aren’t you a real reporter?”
Obviously, you have some experience in the “internal back and forth” that takes place in the newsroom, Harwood. And there’s a lot of truth to what you say. I’d like to think that had I been the line editor on the Helling-Kraske story, I would have flagged the offending quote, but, who knows? I surely would have wanted the story to get to A1, and I just might have let it ride…I’ve got a different perspective now; it’s a lot easier to judge when your a referee, instead of when you’re in the game.
Jim
Altevogt –
The Star came out in favor of breathing. Take the hint.