The total for my portion of the trip was $4,028.93, which divided up among the 600,000+ residents the 29th District, equals approximately $0.00671 per constituent.
I understand the significance $0.00671 means to my district, but achieving energy independence is priceless to some. There are those who said that this trip was a vacation and we should have spent our time in Iowa. When Iowa finds the solution to energy independence, I will be the first to schedule a CODEL there.
It is unfortunate that some media outlets and individuals would skew this trip to only be about dollars and cents. But the truth is that this trip was desperately needed by lawmakers of Congress to find a solution to the energy crisis and I encourage more of my colleagues in Congress to visit Brazil.
Kuhl seems to be attacking the messenger, WHAM, which is an organization that's just doing its job. When you don't disclose information when you promise to do so, it makes good reporters curious, so they follow up. WHAM spent an inordinate amount of time and effort to find out something that could have been disclosed on time and without any static. Their reward for going through weeks of run-around is a partial disclosure and a bunch of attitude. They're the ones who should be snarky, but of course they've stayed professional.
Comments
I just did a post about this:
http://ontariogop.blogspot.com/2008/02/price-of-kuhls-brazil-trip-000671...
OR, seriously, that is one weak post. You come up across as whiny punk-ass beeyotch there. I usually don't mind your stuff but taking shots at reporters is weak, dude.
Grow up.
Sorry to see you pile on the "shoot the messenger" spin, OR. I thought you'd do better than that.
There are two issues here:
1. Is this a big story?
Debatable. We can go round and round on that.
2. Has Kuhl screwed the pooch while dealing with WHAM?
I don't see much room for debate here, and it's not even a partisan issue. It's politics 101 that you don't jerk around the local news reporters, because it always comes back to bite you.
Kuhl's mishandling of this situation is an almost textbook case of how not to treat local media. If he would have delivered up the goods as promised on January 2, he would have had a one-cycle story, with a headline like "Trip cost taxpayers $20K". Kuhl's office could have spun it how they wanted, and they'd have been dutifully quoted by WHAM or whoever else cared to run the story. It would have been forgotten by everyone but the Massa campaign and a few bloggers.
Instead, he acted like he had something to hide. So now he's reaping what he sowed, and will continue to do so.
I think you all are making this whole story bigger than it is.
The trip itself was no big deal, being blown out of proportion by Eric Massa.
Randy Kuhl's handling of the issue was something you would have expected from a small town mayor, not a US Congressman.
It isn't always wise to upset reporters, but generally speaking TV can do less damage locally than radio or newspapers.
Let's move on to some other more important issue.
I still called it as I see it. WHAM has turned a non-story into a mini-local Watergate, and because of this, I don't see any reason why the motives of the reporters shouldn't be questioned here. It's not like Kuhl didn't tell anybody about this trip beforehand. During his last round of town hall meetings, he told people about it when discussing their concerns on energy independence, which got covered in the press, so it should have come to no surprise to the press. We all knew that the price of this trip would be a few thousand dollars, which it was. And for Evan Dawson to complain about the "run around" he received just because he had to call a few offices (which is called "investigating," something all reporters have to do, even in the smallest of stories), came across to me as "whining".
Elmer, I agree that the expenditure per se isn't a big deal and I agree that this isn't about Kuhl. I'm troubled though by the lack of transparency. And that's not a partisan issue -- there were Democrats as well as Republicans on the trip.
The taxpayers deserve to know how their money is spent. Their response to what they see may be an overreaction at times but their desire to have that information available is not an overreaction.
OR: I like that Kuhl holds the town hall and I don't think that his participation in the trip is necessarily a big deal in a way.
But when you start taking pot shots at people for trying to dig up info, that's essentially anti-free press. Bear in mind that the stonewalling was done by Democrats as well as Republicans in this case. It's wrong to see this as a partisan issue.
Exile: Challenging the local media in their never-ending quest to selectively report the congressional campaign in the 29th is not "anti-free press." I'm not advocating that the government should strip WHAM's license or silence reporters. Instead, I, as a private citizen, am allowed to call out a network like WHAM in hyperventilating about a non-story like this.
As I'm sure you recall in 2006, there was a lawsuit (which I believe is still ongoing, though I could be wrong about that) between Massa and his former campaign manager, and in that suit, Massa filed an affidavit giving his version of the events. The judge refused to release Massa's affidavit until challenged, even though such a document should be public record, and he finally relented and released it a few weeks before election day. Massa's affidavit accused his former campaign manager of violating FEC regs and included innuendo about his former campaign manager of a Mark Foley nature. One would think that most local papers and nets would have reported this story, or at the very least give it a passing mention, with the issue involved being that Massa showed very poor judgment in hiring this person, or that he lied and therefore perjured himself. And you know what: Every one of them sat on it until a local conservative talk show host reported it. This despite the fact that Congressman Kuhl's private divorce records (which are by law supposed to remain confidential for 100 years in NYS given the private nature involved) just happened to be released to the local press just days before the '04 election, and were reported with as much glee as could be.
So ever since then, anytime a local paper or network "reports" a story like this on Congressman Kuhl, I get highly skeptical about their motives.
I'm not going to argue with you further. I'm afraid, though, that you, like many Republicans, would be happier living in North Korea, where Dear Leader controls all communication. Different strokes for different folks.
Until the day comes when the Bush worshipers can turn this place into the authoritarian wonderland they dream of, people like me will be supporting freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the right to dissent. And I suspect that, should you achieve your goal of a right-wing autocracy, you will grow tired of 85 channels of Fox News. I mean that last bit a compliment.
Just a quick reminder to Ontario Republican that the newspapers in Elmira and Corning both endorsed Kuhl last election.
And for Evan Dawson to complain about the "run around" he received just because he had to call a few offices (which is called "investigating," something all reporters have to do, even in the smallest of stories), came across to me as "whining".
This is an absolutely false smear of Evan Dawson. He had to find someone to go, in person, to a subcommittee office in Washington, DC to try to get a document that should have been released, and that office still wouldn't release the document. It's not "whining" to report that an office isn't doing its job. It's journalism. What's whiny is for Kuhl to cop an attitude in a press release simply because a reporter is doing his job.
"Blame the messenger" might work for national Republicans, but in the local market, it's a non-starter. Your characterization of a "never-ending quest to selectively report the congressional campaign" is just not how it goes around here. I've read most of what's been published about Kuhl and Massa in the 29th's newspapers, it's clear to me that Randy Kuhl gets generally good press, by which I mean that a lot of his press releases make the paper. Unfortunately for him, the Massa campaign challenges his every assertion, and the press reports that, as they should.
As for your other charges:
The whole 2006 lawsuit was completely reported by the press. Look at the archives of this blog -- it's clear as day. So what if Lonsberry got there first? Somebody chose to tip him off first, because nobody in the press had noticed the filing. That's for a couple of reasons. First, neither party issued a press release or made any other kind of public statement about it. Press releases are how most reporters find stories. Second, that lawsuit was filed in the Steuben County courthouse, which, as Elmer points out, is covered by newspapers that endorsed Kuhl last time around. One possible, and fair-minded, interpretation of the facts is that the Corning Leader and Elmira Star-Gazette don't have reporters on the Steuben Co Civil Court beat. And why should they? There's not a hell of a lot going on in civil court there.
On the divorce issue, wasn't it the press who reported in 2004 that Barend's campaign manager illegally procured those documents? How is it the press' fault that those documents were released in the first place?
I've been following the debate about our story, and I thought it would be helpful if I added my thoughts.
First, I appreciate Ontario Republican's concern. If I felt that certain media were employing bias, I'd call them on it.
So let me respond to some of OR's comments.
"WHAM has turned a non-story into a mini-local Watergate, and because of this, I don't see any reason why the motives of the reporters shouldn't be questioned here."
I'm confused about why this is a mini-local Watergate. Our most-watched newscast is 6pm. We ran the piece at 5:30 pm on Monday, and followed up in our early morning news. It has hardly risen to the level of a top story, let alone a lead story -- and it certainly isn't a "mini-local Watergate." If there is a lot of attention being paid to this story, it's because of the strong viewer response and blog response the story has received.
If we were treating this story like a scandal, wouldn't you expect to see it air at least once in our main newscast?
Regarding motives, I understand that it's natural to question a reporter's motives when you perceive a story to be slanted. In the case of Mr. Kuhl, you'd only need to go back to 2004 to get a good perspective of whether I (or my station) is biased against him. I was the first reporter to receive the packet of files that made headlines. I decided, after meeting with our managers, that it was not appropriate to air the contents of that file. We investigated every angle of it -- including the possibility that the claims made in the file might not even be true -- and our careful judgement was that the right thing to do was to set it aside.
Of course, other media jumped on the details. I went through our archives and found that we did half a dozen stories on the subject -- and every one of them was about the allegations that the Barend campaign improperly released the files. We never once detailed what was in the files. Some criticized us harshly, but we made a decision on principle and we stuck to it.
So, when you say:
"Congressman Kuhl's private divorce records (which are by law supposed to remain confidential for 100 years in NYS given the private nature involved) just happened to be released to the local press just days before the '04 election, and were reported with as much glee as could be."
I'd just ask that you accurately note that 13 WHAM did nothing of the sort. I'd be happy to send you the exact scripts of every story that appeared on our air.
"And for Evan Dawson to complain about the "run around" he received just because he had to call a few offices (which is called "investigating," something all reporters have to do, even in the smallest of stories), came across to me as "whining"."
You're entitled to feel that way -- that's certainly fair. All I can tell you is that we had to do a lot more than "call a few offices." I'm accustomed to calling offices, filing FOI requests, etc. But in this case, I tried to imagine what an average voter would have to go through -- someone who might not have the experience trying to get through the layers of bureaucracy. And you can tell me if you think the following is an expected process for getting information:
-The first Congressional office you call is not certain where you can get the information you seek. You're directed to another office.
-The next office passes you to a committe's office.
-The committee's office -- which waits most of a week to get back to you -- tells you they have the information you seek. But they won't give it to you. They tell you to call another office.
-THAT office seems to have no clue. First, they tell you the information must be filed within 15 days of the end of a trip. They also tell you that every stop on an itinerary will be included with great detail. But after 15 days, the same office changes the story, saying that it's actually 30 days before the information must be filed. So you wait another 15 days. Only this time the office tells you that once the information is available, you'll have to go pick it up IN PERSON. They refuse to even tell you, over the phone, if the paperwork is on file. They won't email or fax it.
-You ask the Congressman's office if they'd be willing to check in with the office and help you. They indicate they'll get back to you but they don't.
-So you convince a friend in the DC area to take an afternoon off work to travel to the capitol and pick up the paperwork, but lo and behold, nothing is there.
-You're forced to call the Office of Interparlimentary Affairs and ask them to dig into it.
I can handle it, but the point was that it's an inordinate amount of hassle for the average taxpayer who simply wants public information. And THAT, more than anything else, was the point of our report.
However, you also say: "We all knew that the price of this trip would be a few thousand dollars, which it was."
See, this is how Mr. Kuhl's office describes the trip, and that forces us to talk about trip costs. The final number after the cost of travel is factored in will certainly be higher. I'm not making a value judgement on the trip; I'm just pointing out that "a few thousand dollars" probably doesn't accurately describe it.
Bottom line is that we made a basic inquiry regarding 1) The details of what the group did in Brazil, along with the value for taxpayers, and 2) The cost of the trip. I had no idea that getting the latter would take more than two months, and the process became a much more significant story than a simple trip.
Now, I must say that I would take issue with how Rottenchester characterizes the thought experiment when he says, "Imagine that your least-favorite Congressional Democrat (Louise Slaughter, Brian Higgins, whoever) went on a Congressional junket somewhere you think he or she has no business going."
In this case, there is ample evidence that Brazil can teach us all kinds of things about energy independence. Energy experts I've spoken with -- even ones who were frustrated by Mr. Kuhl's vote against the first version of the recent energy bill -- thought that, at least at first glance, the trip to Brazil was a good idea with a lot of potential benefit.
I would also disagree with Rottenchester's description that, "You don't jerk around the local news reporters." I don't think Mr. Kuhl did so. His office, after all, was not obligated to help us get the information on the Brazil trip. He was kind enough to sit down with us for an interview on any topic that we wanted to discuss. I've always had a respectful relationship with him and his staff, and I expect that will continue.
Thanks for listening and watching.
Evan, thanks for the comment.
On the thought experiment, put emphasis on "you think" in that sentence. I'm trying to get partisans to imagine what it would be like if the tables were turned. I don't think the trip was just for pleasure, but I also don't think that it's the vital necessity that Kuhl wants to spin it.
Evan, I appreciate your comments on this, and also how your station handled the one situation in 2004. My major concern about the reporting of the story was that it made Congressman Kuhl and his office look like it had something to hide about the cost of the trip, and that some may have perceived the runaround you received as being orchestrated by Congressman Kuhl and his staff, rather than the normal, everyday bureaucratic mess that people unfortunately have to deal with in DC, dealing with different committees and departments, which I'm afraid will be around for as long as we live no matter who's in charge of running things down there.
But I do appreciate you clarifying the matter. In the past, when I have criticized other media outfits in their reporting of stories (particularly the local papers), I never received a single response from them, so I'm glad you took the time to reply. Thanks!
Ontario Republican,
I've gotten a cyber-truck load of feedback on this story, and the respondents claim to be from all ideological backgrounds. By and large they've expressed satisfaction or offered encouragement because they found the story to be an example of how obstructive government is. They seem to welcome our efforts in bringing certain issues to light.
But if you, or other viewers, felt that the piece placed the bulk of the "blame" on Mr. Kuhl, then I accept responsibility. I tried to show that both parties and many layers of government played a role. If it appeared exclusive to Mr. Kuhl, then I wasn't clear enough.
By the way, I think blogging and citizen journalism are a large and central part to the future of American media. I read news and opinion from all kinds of sources. I'm happy to discuss issues and our reporting any time. I very much appreciate the diverse backgrounds of local bloggers, and I salute their effort.
all i can say is that WHAM has a strong following and they were just doing their job. why wasn't the info just turned over in the first place, shutting down this tempest? A lot of us here in Steuben follow WHAM regularly.