The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

California Reporter Nick Green Says He Is ‘Victim of an Andrew Breitbart Wannabe’

Posted on | August 13, 2010 | 70 Comments

“So imagine my surprise today to find I’m the victim of an Andrew Beitbart wannabe, a blogger with a clear agenda of his own who has decided in his hypocrisy I have one of my own.”
— Nick Green, Torrance (Calif.) Daily Breeze

He’s the victim, you see. Nick Green was just minding his own business, cheerfully ignoring the congressional election that he’s paid to cover, blowing off the Republican challenger’s campaign as too insignificant to merit his attention and then — without notice or warning — somebody called him on it.

Sucks to be you, doesn’t it, Nick?

Let’s begin by clarifying the chronology of Nick’s alleged journalistic victimhood:

  • Tuesday, Aug. 10 — In a story headlined, “South Bay officials welcome passage of jobs bill,” the Daily Breeze treats the $26 billion legislation as a godsend to the California economy, citing a teachers union estimate that the measure “will provide $15.4 million and save 215 jobs in Rep. Jane Harman’s district.” (Hey, when it comes to economic analysis, nobody can out-estimate the National Education Association.)
  • Wednesday, Aug. 11 — Campaign consultant John Thomas e-mails Breeze reporters Nick Green and Art Marroquin, asking if they “have a second to chat today about Jane Harman,” to discuss Harman’s statements about the area economy.  When Green replies, “No,” Thomas asks, “Tomorrow then?” Green e-mails that he is “busy all week,” and Thomas then replies, “Are you covering this race or is there someone else I should talk to at the breeze?” It is in reply to this query that Green sends the now-infamous “we’re not interested” e-mail. (The entire colloquy was posted as a PDF at Mayor Sam’s blog.)
  • Thursday, Aug. 12 — Under the headline “Officials hope to extend temp jobs program,” Daily Breeze reporter Douglas Morino quotes Rep. Harman, who is featured in a staff photo showing her “at a press conference to highlight the success of a Los Angeles County employment program.” To say that this article was favorable to Harman and the Democrats is an understatement on the order of saying that Triumph of the Will was pretty good P.R. for a certain German political party.

See the picture? St. Jane of the Blessed Bailout gets adulatory coverage from the Breeze and, when a Republican tries to get some notice for Harman’s GOP challenger, Nick Green is “busy all week” and “not interested.”

Now, sources close to the Fein campaign (nudge, nudge) tell me that the Republican challenger felt like she got reasonably fair treatment from former Breeze political reporter Gene Maddaus (e.g., “Republican Mattie Fein makes run aganst Harman official“). But Maddaus has since departed for L.A. Weekly, and lately the GOP candidate feels like she is being purposely ignored by the Breeze.

Er, sources say.

All of this was unknown to me when, at the behest of my filmmaker friend Ladd Ehlinger Jr., I boarded a flight to LAX expecting to cover Ehlinger’s astonishing ascent as a producer of attention-getting campaign ads. Insofar as I had any interest in California politics, per se, it was to find an answer to the question, “What the #$%* is wrong with the California Republican Party?”

What I’m trying to get across here is that I was utterly unaware of Nick Green’s existence until late Thursday when sources close to the Fein campaign — hey, did you notice my elbow jabbing you in the ribs? — forwarded me Green’s e-mail to John Thomas. Let us now consult Nick Green’s lecture on the subject of “news judgment” :

It’s the job of newspaper reporters and editors to decide what to cover when and how. . . .  It’s a matter of news judgment, time and resources.

Indeed. And here, according to my own news judgment, was a great story served up on a silver platter:

California Reporter to Republican
Candidate: ‘We’re Not Interested’

Piece of cake. The story “wrote itself,” as they say. It took me barely an hour Friday morning to compose the original post, which was then extended with a series of updates aggregating the blogospheric reaction.

This was not the only reaction, however. A lady who happens to be a subscriber to the Daily Breeze forwarded me her e-mail correspondence with the newspaper’s editor:

Dear Editor,
Will you be addressing this issue in your newspaper?  I’m a subscriber and would appreciate a response.

To which the editor replied:

I just learned of it a little more than an hour ago. I will handle it internally as a personnel matter. And yes, I will be addressing. We don’t tolerate this type of behavior.
Linda Lindus

OK, so now the relevant questions are:

  • Is Nick Green, as he says, a “victim”?
  • Am I, as Nick Green says, “an Andrew Breitbart wannabe”?
  • Has Nick Green heard of Denis Healy’s First Law of Holes?

Let’s start with Nick’s claim to victimhood. Having some direct personal experience with the dangers of hitting the “send” button on e-mails I subsequently had cause to regret sending, I certainly feel Nick’s pain. And my buddy Dave Weigel can probably relate, too. Anybody can have a bad day on the Internet.

Andrew Breitbart is someone I admire and consider a friend but, in point of fact, I was working full-time as a reporter when Andrew was still in high school, so the “wannabe” accusation is kind of ironic. No hidden cameras or young Republicans posing as pimps were employed in this story. The complete e-mail exchange between Nick Green and John Thomas has been online at Mayor Sam’s all day, so there’s no Shirley Sherrod “gotcha” editing involved.

Obviously, however, Nick Green is a stranger to the First Law of Holes: “If you are in one, stop digging.” His attempts to justify and defend his churlish response to John Thomas constitute “digging” in this context.

And allow me to point out something that perhaps Nick Green hasn’t considered: Former Breeze staffer Gene Maddaus (a) treated the Republican candidate with evident fairness and (b) has now moved on to a more prestigious gig.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Call me a “wannabe,” if you like, but if Andrew Breitbart himself decides to take notice of Nick Green . . .

Well, it sucks to be you, doesn’t it, Nick?

UPDATE: In the comments, Thane Eichenauer says liberals are now playing “the Breitbart card.” And in this case, it’s decidedly misplayed. There’s just really no comparison.

When I first met Breitbart — at CPAC 2007 — I sat for hours listening to him talk about his experiences in New Media. The guy is an authentic genius. Some people talk in sound-bites.  Andrew talks in paragraphs. If you ever get a chance to catch him when he’s off-the-record, relaxed and in a mood to tell stories, it’s an adventure you don’t want to miss.

Being  the guerrilla leader of an epic struggle against liberal bias in media and pop culture, however, is above my pay grade. Oh, I have my moments, but my focus for the past couple of years has been on chronicling (and cheering on) the grassroots insurgency against the GOP Establishment and its defeatist mentality. In a word, “WOLVERINES!”

The problems of the Republican Party are systemic and rooted in what sociologists might call “selection effects.” It’s a matter of organizational dynamics. Personnel is policy, as they say and, in the final analysis, the GOP has a personnel problem. 

Over the years, the Republican Party has attracted to itself — at both the operational and managerial levels — certain types of personalities, so that the style and content of Republican politics tends to be predictable. This is a problem that people who’ve lived their lives inside the GOP “bubble” can’t accurately perceive, and so change must come through outsiders who challenge the status quo.

Andrew Breitbart is one such outsider, Dan Riehl is another, and many of the candidates and campaigns I’ve covered — including the “Not One Red Cent” rebellion and the Hoffman campaign in NY-23 last fall — have been outsider/insurgent operations.  The fact that Ladd Ehlinger is now working in California is one indicator that some Republicans in this state are adopting that outsider/insurgent stance, and it’s about damned time.

As for media bias, we need not wonder why polls show a declining trust in major news organization, and Mark Goluskin has further thoughts on the Martyrdom of Nick Green.

Category: Andrew Breitbart, California, Media Bias

Comments

70 Responses to “California Reporter Nick Green Says He Is ‘Victim of an Andrew Breitbart Wannabe’”

  1. RES
    August 14th, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

    GG, I’ve been reading the NY Times for 25 years. It ain’t Fox that’s lowered the bar. Frankly, I blame J-school graduates and those who hire & publish them without bothering to tech them not to wipe their noses on their sleeves.

    Pop Quiz for American journalism scandals: What do Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Walter Duranty, Gerald Posner, William L. Laurence, Patricia Smith, Christopher Newton, Brian Walski, Jack Kelley, Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Hassan M. Fattah, Adnan Hajj, Michael Whitney Straight, Janet Cooke and Rick Bragg have in common?

    Answer: none of them worked for Fox News, the Washington Times or any other “right-wing” news outlet.

  2. RES
    August 14th, 2010 @ 11:42 pm

    GG – because I know how much you care about such things, in the prior post the word “tech” is a typing, not spelling, error.

  3. RES
    August 14th, 2010 @ 7:42 pm

    GG – because I know how much you care about such things, in the prior post the word “tech” is a typing, not spelling, error.

  4. Randy Rager
    August 14th, 2010 @ 11:44 pm

    There is no excuse for journalism schools to exist. None.

  5. Randy Rager
    August 14th, 2010 @ 7:44 pm

    There is no excuse for journalism schools to exist. None.

  6. RES
    August 14th, 2010 @ 11:49 pm

    Randy, I disagree. Journalism schools provide employment opportunities for people who can no longer cut the mustard as working reporters or editors. They also serve to occupy students who otherwise might have pursued productive careers doing something useful. And their graduates help discredit the journalism profession. That’s three excuses right there.

  7. RES
    August 14th, 2010 @ 7:49 pm

    Randy, I disagree. Journalism schools provide employment opportunities for people who can no longer cut the mustard as working reporters or editors. They also serve to occupy students who otherwise might have pursued productive careers doing something useful. And their graduates help discredit the journalism profession. That’s three excuses right there.

  8. Ed Driscoll » Playing ‘the Breitbart Card’
    August 14th, 2010 @ 7:56 pm

    […] become the co-owner of Newsweek thanks to her husband), Stacy McCain quotes from a journalist who works at the Breeze: “So imagine my surprise today to find I’m the victim of an Andrew Beitbart wannabe, a […]

  9. Rob
    August 15th, 2010 @ 12:28 am

    And the story goes viral….

    The weird thing is, is that Nick Green covers the Los Angeles Galaxy…so why is he diving into political matters?

  10. Rob
    August 14th, 2010 @ 8:28 pm

    And the story goes viral….

    The weird thing is, is that Nick Green covers the Los Angeles Galaxy…so why is he diving into political matters?

  11. Randy Rager
    August 15th, 2010 @ 1:37 am

    Sorry RES, I was confusing a sane world for this one, and should have said so.

  12. Randy Rager
    August 14th, 2010 @ 9:37 pm

    Sorry RES, I was confusing a sane world for this one, and should have said so.

  13. RES
    August 15th, 2010 @ 5:29 am

    Randy – understood. I have to write it on my hand so I don’t forget it.

  14. RES
    August 15th, 2010 @ 1:29 am

    Randy – understood. I have to write it on my hand so I don’t forget it.

  15. Gallup: Americans Don’t Trust the Mainstream Media
    August 15th, 2010 @ 1:48 am

    […] out The Other McCain’s snoopdoggery on Nick Green at the  Torrance (CA) Daily Breeze.  Caught ya red-handed Nicko! […]

  16. Reason #2 why deadtree “news”papers are dying [Darleen Click]
    August 15th, 2010 @ 12:09 pm

    […] Green, of course, now whines he’s a victim. Nick Green was just minding his own business, cheerfully ignoring the congressional election that […]

  17. Roddy boyd
    August 15th, 2010 @ 8:50 pm

    RS:

    As I read his reply, he told the consultant–read:flak–“No.” As in, he couldn’t hop on the story that week. Ok. Not optimal, but the guy was crushed on a real story. It’s a fact of life in print, cold and simple. I’m not getting into why–you know all the reasons.

    Here’s the deal which you recall well from your time at WT, and I recall from my many media stops: When you get a pitch a story and the reporter says he can’t focus on it, is distracted et al….Thats that.

    Green could have been more professional by a long margin, and he absolutely walked straight ino the hands of a political operative, who in the absence of a real story for their candidate, managed to create one.

    But he did nothing wrong here.

  18. Roddy boyd
    August 15th, 2010 @ 4:50 pm

    RS:

    As I read his reply, he told the consultant–read:flak–“No.” As in, he couldn’t hop on the story that week. Ok. Not optimal, but the guy was crushed on a real story. It’s a fact of life in print, cold and simple. I’m not getting into why–you know all the reasons.

    Here’s the deal which you recall well from your time at WT, and I recall from my many media stops: When you get a pitch a story and the reporter says he can’t focus on it, is distracted et al….Thats that.

    Green could have been more professional by a long margin, and he absolutely walked straight ino the hands of a political operative, who in the absence of a real story for their candidate, managed to create one.

    But he did nothing wrong here.

  19. Randy Rager
    August 16th, 2010 @ 4:30 am

    If he did nothing wrong, why is his editor stating clearly that such behavior is not tolerated and will be dealt with as a personnel issue?

  20. Randy Rager
    August 16th, 2010 @ 12:30 am

    If he did nothing wrong, why is his editor stating clearly that such behavior is not tolerated and will be dealt with as a personnel issue?