Unsolicited advice to that phalanx of reporters chasing down the Bolger story

by: Eric B.

Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 16:47:37 PM EDT

I'm elated to see that there hasn't been any reporting yet on the revelation yesterday from Progress Michigan that Jase Bolger has a long, and storied history of personal corruption, because it must mean that the state's media outlets have finally figured out that the way to do a public figure corruption story doesn't mean first contacting the accused official and asking for a reaction statement (hint: he's going to say he's not guilty and that it's a political witch hunt). On the other hand, it could mean that no one's bothered to do anything with it, for a variety of reasons ... all of them dumb (the person involved is the House Speaker, and has suggested that he's an effective one because of his private sector experience, which the allegations go to the heart of). If the latter is the case, let's assume that part of the problem is that there isn't anyone left at any of our currently existing outlets who remembers how to do a story like this. So, let me offer the following basic framework for getting the story (assuming that our media outlets are still interested in doing journalism):

1. Get the documents. This is, above all else, a story based on documents. In fact, Progress Michigan posted a bunch of them to the Internet. The question boils down to either Jase Bolger had a bunch of liens filed against his business because of unpaid taxes and settled out-of-court accusations that he embezzled money from clients or he didn't. Since the cases are now officially closed, the documents involved should be publicly available and merely a FOIA away.

2. Don't get your reaction quote yet. You've got the public records, but it's not time to actually a reaction quote from Jase Bolger or Ari Adler. You have the documents, but unless you've done this sort of story before, you don't know what it means. You not only have to know what the public records say, but you have to have them interpreted for you. The choice here is to either go an ask a question or to ask intelligent questions. Pick the second. Go find someone who is reliable, neutral and can explain to you what this all means. The idea that someone had a bunch of tax liens filed against their business really looks bad, but who knows, maybe it's common and acceptable. I just don't think it is. Who might help? A tax law professor at one of our state's many pre-eminent universities. Maybe a retired treasury agent or even a lawyer whose practice is business law. And here's the thing ... these people generally want to see you do an accurate story, so they'll help you until probably they're comfortable that you either fully understand it or are so clueless that no amount of conversation will educate you.

3. Ignore the haters. Probably at some point, one of your editors -- probably a very lazy person who doesn't want to be bothered with work that isn't part of a daily routine -- will give you one of a few standard reasons why you shouldn't bother chasing this story down. Let me go through a few of them and why you should from that point on consider your boss to be an impediment to good journalism:

A. It's just Democrats. This is perhaps the face-palmingest response you'll get. The idea is that because Democrats have produced these documents, they are somehow suspect. This is why you go to the trouble of verifying them. If they're forgeries, then the story is about a pending libel suit by the House Speaker against Progress Michigan. If they're accurate, well, I'd hope we haven't gotten to the point where we think that sound business ethics is a partisan issue.

B. This is old. This really isn't your call to make. It's up to voters to decide how much importance they place in what the public record says about someone running for office. Your job is to merely report what is in it and do it accurately. And, again, it has to be pointed out that the documents in question speak to Bolger's claim that his private sector experience is what makes him extra fit to be an effective elected official. Also, he's the House Speaker.

C.  Election year shenanigans. Maybe so, but so what? The only important question here is whether it is accurate. And, we're not talking about a whisper campaign that Jase Bolger likes chickens -- you know -- a little too much. These are very specific accusations that appear to be supported by public records.

D. If it's so important, why are we now only hearing about it? Because your colleagues did an incompetent job at informing the public in prior campaign cycles. Okay, that's probably not fair, since no one has the time to go through the public records of everyone running for every office. The truth, however, is that most great political corruption cases get exposed in public documents because someone leaked their existance, not because a news organization went on a fishing trip and landed a record catch.

4. Now, you can go ask questions of Speaker Bolger. Now that you know what the records say, and know how to view those records through the prism of experience you lack, you can go ask Jase Bolger intelligent questions. The bonus is that now that you've talked to someone familiar with how these things work, you can go back to that person with the Speaker's answers to see if they pass the smell test to someone who understands what's happened. The Free Press has been doing something along this road regarding the Prop. 6 ads this campaign season if you're curious on what it looks like. If he's telling an untruth, you are more than entitled to say so, by the way.

5. Don't bother asking for a reaction from the Democrat in the race. Unless he's in the public documents, he's not part of the story. We already know that he thinks that, no matter how significant or insignificant the story, it's a good reason to not re-elect Jase Bolger. There's no need to water down a real story with predictable nonsense.