All Blog Posts from Public Eye

Think the Larry Craig story was just a tabloid creature of late summertime?

Think again.

Eight men have now come forward in the Larry Craig story – for reasons that range from clear anger to admitted self-promotion – and they have told their stories to the Idaho Statesman, the newspaper that broke the story in late August. According to the Associated Press’ reporting of the matter:

Eight men say they either had sex with Sen. Larry Craig or were targets of sexual advances by the Idaho lawmaker at various times during his political career, a newspaper reported Sunday…

The newspaper identified four men and reported details of the encounters they say involved Craig. It also reported the accounts of four other men who did not agree to be identified but who described sexual advances or encounters involving the conservative Republican, who opposes same-sex marriage and has a strong record against gay rights.

It’s a blockbuster advancement in the story, no doubt. But seeing the coverage given the story all day Monday, a few questions occurred to me:

From a journalistic standpoint, does the fact that you’ve already broken the story make one’s job easier or harder?

If there wasn't already the initial Craig Story out there, would these allegations have the journalistic "oomph" to be considered news?

Does the threshold for news get lower once something is already "out there?"

I decided to put those questions to the Editor, Managing Editor and Political Columnist at the newspaper.

Read full post…

Two months ago, America was downright tap happy over the salacious story of Senator Larry Craig’s (R-ID) guilty plea and arrest for disorderly conduct at a Minnesota Airport earlier this year.

The story was originally broken by John McArdle of the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, but the journalist who immediately skyrocketed to the top of every TV booker’s “get” list was Idaho Statesman political columnist Dan Popkey – who had been covering Craig for years and also conducting his own background investigation regarding allegations of sexual misconduct by the Senator. You couldn't turn around without seeing Popkey being interviewed about the story.

This weekend marks the two-month mark since the story took over America’s watercoolers and dinner table conversations – and late-night monologues, of course – so I tracked down Popkey to gauge his thoughts of the experience, now that the media frenzy is in the rear-view mirror.

Matthew Felling: You were invited onto every major news show. What surprised you about the media frenzy?

Dan Popkey: The intensity of it was something I wasn’t prepared for. The urgency of the requests for interviews was surprising – they initially asked for me, but we started using other people from the paper, like the editorial page editor and the managing editor. This is Idaho, we’re not accustomed to network vans coming here and staying for days.

Another thing? More often than I would have thought, people working for major news organizations didn’t do their homework. For example, they’d call me for comment on a story not having read the 3,800-word piece that we published the day after the arrest and conviction became known.

Matthew Felling: I think I already know the answer to this, but did people mistake you for the person who actually broke the story?

Dan Popkey: Yes. In one of the first interviews I did with some guy, I forget his name – I don’t watch much cable TV. Oh, it was Chris Matthews. He said “You broke this story!” And I had to respond, “No, actually, Roll Call broke the story.” He wasn’t the only one, though; there were several organizations that associated the story with us first.

Read full post…