Thursday, July 27, 2006

So, what did they have to say, Rochelle?

I found this third-rate article by a fourth-rate reporter, Rochelle Olson, in the S&S. It’s about a DFL congressional forum held at Temple Israel in Minneapolis. All the suspects were there – Keith “I don’t hate Jews” Ellison, Paul “no chance in hell” Ostrow, Ember “has been” Riechgott Jung and Mike “I will abide by the endorsement, unless I’m not endorsed” Erlandson.

If you’re looking for information that will help you make up your mind in September, this aint the article to read. But it is filled with wonderfully insightful comments such as:

"I am the candidate who is deeply connected to the people,"

"That experience is very different from being a staff member or a legislator,"

"If you raise the bar high, I'm the candidate who can jump over it,"
"I am the strongest pro-labor, pro-union candidate. I am the peace candidate," he said. "I am the proven, progressive leader."

“I have the neatest handwriting.”

“I color inside the lines.”

“I can touch my nose with my tongue.”

Ok, enough fun. Here’s where the article falls apart, as if it was ever together:

The candidates also responded to complicated questions about the Middle East at the 90-minute forum that followed the Jewish Community Relations Council's annual meeting.

I’m still waiting to read the responses. This was a throwaway paragraph buried deep in the article with no additional information. To say this is journalistic negligence is an understatement.

When you have a Jewish audience listening to a congressional debate – with one candidate being Muslim – while open warfare is going on between Israel and Hezbollah: I am of the opinion that this should be the story. This shit about raising the bar and being pro-labor (never heard that from a Lefty before) is the cliché drooling of all Liberals and should be ignored.

Is Rochelle incapable of reporting the real story, is her editor incapable of calling her in and asking one simple question, “so, what did they say about the Middle East?”

Or is global warming and bashing George W. Bush more important?

No comments: