Pay for Play?
Last Sunday, the Herald's ombudsman admitted that the newspaper had ponied up $50 to attend a Hillary Clinton fundraiser:
Miami Herald reporter Evan S. Benn, under instruction from his editors, paid $50 last Sunday to the Clinton campaign to cover a fundraiser and rally by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Benn said he tried to get in for free, presenting himself as a reporter, but was told the event was closed to the media and was turned away. He then made the minimum contribution to get in. Local television stations remained camped outside.The ombudsman continued on, conveying how he spoke with a bunch of people in the newsroom about how Florida is in such an odd position, given the state's decision to move up their primary and the Democratic National Committee publicly chastising the state:The Miami Herald's decision to contribute was made after nearly a week of what, by all accounts, was a strong internal debate among editors and reporters. The concerns, which strike at the ethical core of a newspaper, were: fairness to readers and other candidates; paying for news; whether to sneak in; and what to do going forward.
The issue was created by a novel situation, unforeseen by most ethical guidelines.So the Miami Herald made its decision, stuck to it, and adopted a fully transparent approach. Good enough, right?It began when the Legislature moved up the date of Florida's primary, putting it among the earliest in the nation. Fearing hop-scotching by other states, the Democrat and Republican national committees took counter measures….
The Democrats have resorted to sleights of hand. Instead of exclusive fundraisers for big rollers, the Democrats are creating large, cheap ones that are, in fact, also mass rallies.
Nah, not so much.
This week was feedback week. And did the readers let the paper have it. Letters from angry readers tossed out phrases like "stoop so low" and "The Herald made a big mistake."
Other readers tossed out suggestions like 'why not send a matching contribution to the Republican frontrunner?' or 'contribute to all the campaigns.'
I've got an idea: Don't contribute at all. Don't play along. And don't cover the event. Then see how long these events stay 'closed to the media.' I can't imagine that the campaigns would move forward with the same stance if they saw it costing them media exposure. (Particularly since the Republican contenders are campaigning freely.)
It's important to note that it's not a tactic employed only by the Clinton campaign. The Obama campaign confirmed that they don't issue press passes for the events, either. An Edwards contact pointed out that they hadn't been through Florida in awhile, so couldn't weigh in. To the point, one presidential campaign staffer admitted, "Once you issue press passes, it becomes a campaign event."
I'm betting that – if the media decided to ignore these events – the campaigns would likely reconsider their approach. If they wanted to remain consistent with the stance of the national party, they could find some wiggle room and manufacture some Orwellian euphemism for press pass … An "exclusive media fundraiser waiver" or something.
In the meantime, Florida newspaper reporters could set up question-and-answer meetings with the candidates themselves elsewhere on the campaign trail to ask them about topics that directly impact the sunshine state.
Just because the Democratic candidates are indulging in a little campaign chicanery – "it's not a rally or news conference, it's a fundraiser" – doesn't mean the news media needs to play along.