Michael Coleman, the Washington reporter for the Albuquerque Journal, replaced a guy named Richard Parker, who did some tough reporting.
Coleman's Sunday column was headlined, "Phoenix Summit Brings Money, Politicians Together."
It was about an energy industry event, at an Arizona resort, sponsored by the US Chamber and the Western Business Roundtable (a coalition of mining and energy resource companies). Attendees spent $1500 each for room, food, golf, entertainment and chats with leading lawmakers and Washington officials. Pete Domenici was a speaker.
Proceeds of the event were to be divided, Coleman reports, among the House Republicans present.
Domenici, who said he took neither a fee for his speech nor any contributions, told Coleman he saw nothing wrong with those who did.
Coleman interviewed conservationists who differed. They said the conference allowed affluent special interests to buy access to leading lawmakers, like Domenici.
Coleman should be credited with doing the story. And he neatly set those "propriety" arguments side-by-side.
But read his concluding paragraph:
"Domenici's presence at the controversial event would certainly seem to be OK under the rules, but a growing perception that only the wealthy can get special access to powerful politicians helps erode public faith in a representative democracy."
That summary sure erodes my faith in journalism. Come on now. Has John McCain taught us nothing? Doesn't Mr. Coleman know that energy policy is bought and paid for?
The reporter missed a rich opportunity to tie the conference into the specific provisions of the energy bill Pete didn't quite get through the last session of Congress? How come... (Bulletin! We interrupt this little comment to note that the airline industry claimed late last week that the Bush Administration is pushing up oil prices by buying fuel for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.End bulletin.)
Meanwhile, back in the news biz...
Journalists have been putting two sides of a debate next to each other and calling the result "objectivity" for too long. It's not "objectivity," whatever that means.
It's unwillingness to educate the readers to the dynamics of our political system. And unwillingness to call a spade a spade.