Just as there's no legittimate reason to not allow our State Auditor to audit how public money is being spent without the express approval of the Governor. THAT's the basis, or connection.
The important questions are who is a journalist and how do we define journalism? I’ll let Laura Belin repeat her arguments here. For several years I posted on YouTube a weekly video podcast “Democracy in Action.” I recorded house and senate debate as well as committee discussions and public hearings. All using the General Assembly (GA) cameras. And I inserted graphics, animation and still images to illustrate key issues. I never once set foot inside the Capitol. Does that make me a journalist? I could argue it does. But now in retirement, I do this as a hobby for my own consumption and enjoyment only. However, the YouTube videos are posted with a Public viewing setting so anyone can watch. Given all this, and in retirement, I do not consider myself a journalist any more although given what I describe above, I could assert that I am. But the GA would probably deny me a press credential if I were to apply. So where do we draw the line? Thanks for raising the issue.
Steve, the line is blurry these days, no question. And I don’t know who gets to decide. Clearly, House leaders have appointed themselves arbiters of who is legitimate and who is not. Those decisions could be turned over to the Capitol Press Association, I suppose. My main point is that Belin does a lot more than spout off opinions. She works hard to get factual info. She’s a terrific reporter. Wherever the line is, she certainly qualifies as a journalist.
I would agree on a decision outside the Iowa General Assembly. Politicians should not determine who is a journalist and who is not. Although that debate continues to simmer in other legislative bodies such as Congress. The question is better resolved by one of Iowa's journalism bodies. And I agree that the line is unclear these days.
Was Rush Limbaugh a journalist? Is Hannity or Carlson? Laura backs up her material with so.id research but she’s much closer to Rush and Hannity. Her writing is almost always angry and suspicious because that’s what sells. There’s money in opinion. Is opinion journalism?
If it’s opinion only, then it’s certainly one kind of journalism. But Belin works hard to dig up facts and figures, so her opinion is based on reality. Limbaugh and Hannity are, or were, blowhards practiced in the art of setting up straw man arguments and then relishing in blowing them down.
If Hannity applied for a credential to cover the Iowa legislature, he should get one, in my view. I’d rather have him observing the process and learning rather than sitting in some remote studio having to create an hour of controversy every night just to fill the time.
Belin works for weeks on end to dig up solid info before she writes a word.
I’m not disagreeing on who is be considered a journalist. Let me remind you Tom Harkin and other liberal politicians wouldn’t appear on talk radio but you’ve missed the point. Leave Berlin out of this for a moment. The question is should someone, well sourced and research driven who is obviously an activist as Hannity/Limbaugh be considered a journalist? Or have we entered a new era as you seem to imply where objectivity is a relic of the past as Atlantic magazine, a leftist publication said last year. Leaving Berlin out this can a leftist be a bloviating loud mouth? Print journalists aren’t saints or even very likable This could mean “journalist” will disrupt at times .They can and will feed the lizard part of our brains as talk radio can. Is objectively, decorum and civility too much to expect. Is the joy of tormenting the political class just to good. “Journalists” could start disrupting the legislative process. Everybody with a website could start screaming at representatives in the state house. Are you suggesting decorum is outmoded, that middle class values give way to “new media.” Laura gets people angry. Like Limbaugh. Like Hannity.
I think it’s better to include people, even those who disagree, and involve them in the process rather than flat-out excluding them. I doubt journalists would disrupt the legislative process by shouting during a session. There are rules prohibiting that kind of disruptive behavior by anyone, be it a journalist or a citizen in the gallery.
If I could wave a magic wand, I would reinstate the old rules of objectivity. But times have changed. Fox, Rush, MSNBC and others have stomped all over the old rules whether I like it or not.
Any story Laura Belin writes, no matter how critical of those in power, would be stronger and more balanced if leaders had input in the story. In my opinion, though, they know many of their actions in recent years are hard to justify in public, and they don’t want to look like fools trying to explain what they’re doing and why. So they simply ignore legitimate and reasonable questions.
I’m not sure, judging by the last election, that they need to justify anything, other than in West Des Moines or the college towns. What you have is a nice sounding theory. I can guarantee you if activists can portray themselves as journalists the process will be disrupted. Someone will pull a fire alarm on the house floor. There will be intimidation. I’ve poked a microphone in the face of a lot of people and seen the look on their faces. Everybody trying to make some one they don’t like look bad. I mean...have you seen Heather Ryan’s TikTok videos from the statehouse? Is she a journalist.
Would it help if all of us reading your column write to the Iowa House to request that Laura Belin's right to cover articles for us be honored immediately?
My former Iowa State journalism profs are nodding in full agreement from the newsroom in the sky. Me too, although as a current member of an out-of-state county election commission I will admit that it is incredibly frustrating for what we consider a small, activist group that disagrees with our basic decisions to write half-truth letters to the editor. They have that right but incumbents see these types as trouble makers and its not difficult to try to pretend they don't exist.
I understand, Rod. The give and take of public policy is often a painful, messy process. The way to handle those who write half-truths is to respond with facts and point out where they may be wrong. Ignoring them lets those half-truths grow into accepted reality.
I’m glad she’s finally filed a suit. She will win, and she might get attorney fees. The First Amendment doesn’t allow politicians to choose who covers them.
You correctly note that journalism is changing. The same internet that is killing the old news industry is empowering a new one.
There’s nothing magical about having the credentials of a legacy media outlet. In college, I took an independent study class where I was an intern for a Cedar Rapids country station for two months, back when they had news. They laid off their news director just before I started, so I was the (unpaid) news bureau while I was there. They gave me a microphone and a tape recorder, and suddenly I was a credentialed reporter at age 19. I got reporter access to the 1980 caucuses, and I covered the first trial in Linn County that allowed cameras.
The experience left me with respect for the good journalists, but with a lasting cynicism for journalism and politicians. Laura Belin, despite (or maybe because of) her politics, is one of the good ones.
Joe, thanks for your comments. What led to the cynicism?
Old radio guy geek question: Was that tape recorder back then a Sony TC110A? I can’t remember what I had for breakfast, but I remember my first tape recorder! It was a thing of beauty. Looks like they’re available on EBay:
Nice recorder! I don't remember what kind I had. I do recall repeated mic failures. The news intern didn't get the good equipment, which was reserved for broadcasts from car dealerships and such.
The cynicism came from a combination of things, but a couple incidents might illustrate it.
I covered the first trial in Linn County that allowed cameras and recorders. It was for attempted murder. The guy shot a cop; his defense was that he was mad at his wife and didn't know what he was doing, if I recall correctly. There was a little closet off the courtroom where you could plug in your recorder. I was busy trying to get events from the trial that I could assemble into a good story, which meant I recorded a lot, most of which of course didn’t get used.
Meanwhile, the TV reporters just wanted shots showing they were there. They would go into the courtroom, tape a few seconds of video showing them pretending to take notes, and then retreat to the closet and watch it from there. They didn’t understand why I was trying to actually incorporate the testimony into the story and thought (maybe correctly) that I was foolish. The only other person who seemed to actually wanted to cover the story was the reporter from public radio. The TV reporters were more concerned with how they looked on video.
With politicians, any prolonged exposure causes cynicism. The most eye-opening incident to me was Ted Kennedy flying in to do a press conference at the Cedar Rapids airport. He was hitting a bunch of airports that day. They flew in and parked in a hangar where the press assembled. Out he comes with his wife, who looked awful. He spoke, she spoke about how awesome he was. Remember, this was soon after the disastrous Roger Mudd interview. They announced their divorce the next year. He answered a few not very good questions, and off they went. The whole circus was orchestrated around getting a news bite on all the little Iowa stations evening shows, and it worked. it was such a canned and manipulative event. Yet we all went along. It wasn't a very good look for any parties involved.
Another spot-on article, Dave! The Republicans have a trifecta, of which they have taken full and illegal advantage. They don’t care a bit about these matters that are crucial to Iowans, Because they keep getting elected and they don’t have to. Unfortunately, the legal process has to be invoked, the defense of which is likely paid for by taxpayers. Unless and until the Democrats are able to obtain control of at least one of the houses, I fear nothing will change. This is a sad state of affairs in Iowa.
I'm reminded of the wisdom in Levitsky and Ziblatt's book How Democracies Die where they observed there are a handful of collective understandings (guardrails) necessary for the survival of democracies such as our own Great American Experiment in liberal democratic governance. One of these they label as Institutional Forbearance. This opines that institutions, in this case the Iowa House of Representatives, must not do certain things just because they have can. In this case, barring Laura Belin credentials as a journalist is a really bad idea for democracy writ large and the institution itself. One would think this unforced error by the Republican controlled House would have been avoided in view of Ms. Belin's successful lawsuit, joined in by others, to correct another unforced error by the Governor's Office over a freedom of information issue.
I like that concept. Institutional forbearance is in short supply these days. The problem is Trump and his ilk take advantage of people who practice forbearance. They see it as a sign of weakness. Like Trump saying “only idiots pay taxes.”
"Government leaders who stick their heads in the sand and pretend the websites don’t exist would be better off giving them access and taking advantage of the opportunity to explain why they’re enacting legislation."
Right on. Can't very well include their point of view when they don't talk. You might get a better shake if you gave her access. There's going to be a story whether you're part of it or not. This is still the United States of America and we still have a First Amendment. And I'll tell you what: If you don't talk, the other side sure as hell will.
I remember a spokesperson for a major meatpacking company launching into a tirade with one of our reporters at the Courier and the reporter finally said, "Look do you want to be in the story or not?" Then the spokesperson shut up and started acting like a professional.
The attitude toward Laura and her publication by some in power in state government is dismissive at best, mean spirited and malicious at worst. I've been in her spot several times just covering city government. Usually you just keep doing your job, own up when you make a mistake, and wear them down or they get over it. But it's no fun, and I can't imagine what it's like being in that position over a number of years.
I know very well some Republicans don't like Bleeding Heartland. But I have former Gov. Branstad's words echoing in my head from when he met with our editorial board at the Courier when he was in a primary fight seeking to return to office in 2010. He was being pilloried by social conservative groups (and one Democrat front group posing as one) for having OneIowa supporter and former Cedar Falls state senator Joy Corning as lieutenant governor.
"Look, I'm a social and fiscal conservative," Branstad said. "But that doesn't mean you don't work with people."
Speaker Grassley, if he has any influence in this, would be well served to heed the former governor's remarks. He also should consult his grandfather, who, politics aside, has been one of the most responsible and responsive public officials this state has ever had in terms of accessibility and information flow.
And as far as liberal/conservative goes, well, I was blessed to be able to interview the great I.F. Stone for a class paper at Iowa State. He said, "Jefferson's idea of freedom of the press wasn't to have a bunch of political eunuchs running around."
Stone, as you know, was blacklisted in the '50s, but put out his own weekly in Washington for 20 years and won a George Polk Award. He was a dogged researcher and dug up stores mainline news organizations overlooked.
Kinda like Laura. Questions from the left, right, and in between keep government accountable and make our democracy function better. They also generate ideas for better government and, maybe, help the folks who may be falling through the cracks. A reporter asked President Bush 43, after the Democrats took the House near the end of his administration, if he'd be able to work with them on immigration reform. President Bush actually thanked the reporter for the question.
Here's to Laura and everyone out there continuing to produce good journalism -- which is, as one priest once told me, "a valuable work of humanity."
Great point about Senator Grassley. Branstad also always took the questions, no matter how tough. They became good at answering even the tough questions, although Grassley has a tendency to prattle and on run out the clock in question time. I started covering him in 1980. He was the same then as he is now. But he’s always defended the First Amendment.
It is great to see her finally get the credential. Too bad it took a lawsuit for the Iowa legislature to do the right thing. Locking out journalists, whether by left or right, is the beginning of autocracy. Another further step is what’s happening in the Tennessee legislature, excluding actual elected members because they point out inconvenient facts and advocate for another “side.”
Let’s hope this is the beginning of a turn around. I fear not as it was forced.
Just as there's no legittimate reason to not allow our State Auditor to audit how public money is being spent without the express approval of the Governor. THAT's the basis, or connection.
I tried to send you a comment but it timed out. I’ll email from my computer later.
The important questions are who is a journalist and how do we define journalism? I’ll let Laura Belin repeat her arguments here. For several years I posted on YouTube a weekly video podcast “Democracy in Action.” I recorded house and senate debate as well as committee discussions and public hearings. All using the General Assembly (GA) cameras. And I inserted graphics, animation and still images to illustrate key issues. I never once set foot inside the Capitol. Does that make me a journalist? I could argue it does. But now in retirement, I do this as a hobby for my own consumption and enjoyment only. However, the YouTube videos are posted with a Public viewing setting so anyone can watch. Given all this, and in retirement, I do not consider myself a journalist any more although given what I describe above, I could assert that I am. But the GA would probably deny me a press credential if I were to apply. So where do we draw the line? Thanks for raising the issue.
Steve, the line is blurry these days, no question. And I don’t know who gets to decide. Clearly, House leaders have appointed themselves arbiters of who is legitimate and who is not. Those decisions could be turned over to the Capitol Press Association, I suppose. My main point is that Belin does a lot more than spout off opinions. She works hard to get factual info. She’s a terrific reporter. Wherever the line is, she certainly qualifies as a journalist.
I would agree on a decision outside the Iowa General Assembly. Politicians should not determine who is a journalist and who is not. Although that debate continues to simmer in other legislative bodies such as Congress. The question is better resolved by one of Iowa's journalism bodies. And I agree that the line is unclear these days.
I certainly agree with you and hope she is able to gain access.
Jane Flagler
Was Rush Limbaugh a journalist? Is Hannity or Carlson? Laura backs up her material with so.id research but she’s much closer to Rush and Hannity. Her writing is almost always angry and suspicious because that’s what sells. There’s money in opinion. Is opinion journalism?
If it’s opinion only, then it’s certainly one kind of journalism. But Belin works hard to dig up facts and figures, so her opinion is based on reality. Limbaugh and Hannity are, or were, blowhards practiced in the art of setting up straw man arguments and then relishing in blowing them down.
If Hannity applied for a credential to cover the Iowa legislature, he should get one, in my view. I’d rather have him observing the process and learning rather than sitting in some remote studio having to create an hour of controversy every night just to fill the time.
Belin works for weeks on end to dig up solid info before she writes a word.
I’m not disagreeing on who is be considered a journalist. Let me remind you Tom Harkin and other liberal politicians wouldn’t appear on talk radio but you’ve missed the point. Leave Berlin out of this for a moment. The question is should someone, well sourced and research driven who is obviously an activist as Hannity/Limbaugh be considered a journalist? Or have we entered a new era as you seem to imply where objectivity is a relic of the past as Atlantic magazine, a leftist publication said last year. Leaving Berlin out this can a leftist be a bloviating loud mouth? Print journalists aren’t saints or even very likable This could mean “journalist” will disrupt at times .They can and will feed the lizard part of our brains as talk radio can. Is objectively, decorum and civility too much to expect. Is the joy of tormenting the political class just to good. “Journalists” could start disrupting the legislative process. Everybody with a website could start screaming at representatives in the state house. Are you suggesting decorum is outmoded, that middle class values give way to “new media.” Laura gets people angry. Like Limbaugh. Like Hannity.
I think it’s better to include people, even those who disagree, and involve them in the process rather than flat-out excluding them. I doubt journalists would disrupt the legislative process by shouting during a session. There are rules prohibiting that kind of disruptive behavior by anyone, be it a journalist or a citizen in the gallery.
If I could wave a magic wand, I would reinstate the old rules of objectivity. But times have changed. Fox, Rush, MSNBC and others have stomped all over the old rules whether I like it or not.
Any story Laura Belin writes, no matter how critical of those in power, would be stronger and more balanced if leaders had input in the story. In my opinion, though, they know many of their actions in recent years are hard to justify in public, and they don’t want to look like fools trying to explain what they’re doing and why. So they simply ignore legitimate and reasonable questions.
I’m not sure, judging by the last election, that they need to justify anything, other than in West Des Moines or the college towns. What you have is a nice sounding theory. I can guarantee you if activists can portray themselves as journalists the process will be disrupted. Someone will pull a fire alarm on the house floor. There will be intimidation. I’ve poked a microphone in the face of a lot of people and seen the look on their faces. Everybody trying to make some one they don’t like look bad. I mean...have you seen Heather Ryan’s TikTok videos from the statehouse? Is she a journalist.
Would it help if all of us reading your column write to the Iowa House to request that Laura Belin's right to cover articles for us be honored immediately?
It couldn’t hurt, but you could join the club of being ignored by statehouse leaders.
Yes, I have been there before. But I think it empowers these people when an article such as yours gets the “0h well” treatment.
My former Iowa State journalism profs are nodding in full agreement from the newsroom in the sky. Me too, although as a current member of an out-of-state county election commission I will admit that it is incredibly frustrating for what we consider a small, activist group that disagrees with our basic decisions to write half-truth letters to the editor. They have that right but incumbents see these types as trouble makers and its not difficult to try to pretend they don't exist.
I understand, Rod. The give and take of public policy is often a painful, messy process. The way to handle those who write half-truths is to respond with facts and point out where they may be wrong. Ignoring them lets those half-truths grow into accepted reality.
I’m glad she’s finally filed a suit. She will win, and she might get attorney fees. The First Amendment doesn’t allow politicians to choose who covers them.
You correctly note that journalism is changing. The same internet that is killing the old news industry is empowering a new one.
There’s nothing magical about having the credentials of a legacy media outlet. In college, I took an independent study class where I was an intern for a Cedar Rapids country station for two months, back when they had news. They laid off their news director just before I started, so I was the (unpaid) news bureau while I was there. They gave me a microphone and a tape recorder, and suddenly I was a credentialed reporter at age 19. I got reporter access to the 1980 caucuses, and I covered the first trial in Linn County that allowed cameras.
The experience left me with respect for the good journalists, but with a lasting cynicism for journalism and politicians. Laura Belin, despite (or maybe because of) her politics, is one of the good ones.
Joe, thanks for your comments. What led to the cynicism?
Old radio guy geek question: Was that tape recorder back then a Sony TC110A? I can’t remember what I had for breakfast, but I remember my first tape recorder! It was a thing of beauty. Looks like they’re available on EBay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/385433240927?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=385433240927&targetid=1529493976702&device=m&mktype=pla&googleloc=9032065&poi=&campaignid=19851828444&mkgroupid=145880009014&rlsatarget=pla-1529493976702&abcId=9307249&merchantid=5305531108&gbraid=0AAAAAD_QDh84fhTffLFcgmzr4L0B0HB6J&gclid=Cj0KCQiA-62tBhDSARIsAO7twbZtAqxLf7-EGc6Pb9ZlILgwsME6DyYMYq2g6Z4Ymi6XgrEpO4pbqikaAgVFEALw_wcB
Nice recorder! I don't remember what kind I had. I do recall repeated mic failures. The news intern didn't get the good equipment, which was reserved for broadcasts from car dealerships and such.
The cynicism came from a combination of things, but a couple incidents might illustrate it.
I covered the first trial in Linn County that allowed cameras and recorders. It was for attempted murder. The guy shot a cop; his defense was that he was mad at his wife and didn't know what he was doing, if I recall correctly. There was a little closet off the courtroom where you could plug in your recorder. I was busy trying to get events from the trial that I could assemble into a good story, which meant I recorded a lot, most of which of course didn’t get used.
Meanwhile, the TV reporters just wanted shots showing they were there. They would go into the courtroom, tape a few seconds of video showing them pretending to take notes, and then retreat to the closet and watch it from there. They didn’t understand why I was trying to actually incorporate the testimony into the story and thought (maybe correctly) that I was foolish. The only other person who seemed to actually wanted to cover the story was the reporter from public radio. The TV reporters were more concerned with how they looked on video.
With politicians, any prolonged exposure causes cynicism. The most eye-opening incident to me was Ted Kennedy flying in to do a press conference at the Cedar Rapids airport. He was hitting a bunch of airports that day. They flew in and parked in a hangar where the press assembled. Out he comes with his wife, who looked awful. He spoke, she spoke about how awesome he was. Remember, this was soon after the disastrous Roger Mudd interview. They announced their divorce the next year. He answered a few not very good questions, and off they went. The whole circus was orchestrated around getting a news bite on all the little Iowa stations evening shows, and it worked. it was such a canned and manipulative event. Yet we all went along. It wasn't a very good look for any parties involved.
Another spot-on article, Dave! The Republicans have a trifecta, of which they have taken full and illegal advantage. They don’t care a bit about these matters that are crucial to Iowans, Because they keep getting elected and they don’t have to. Unfortunately, the legal process has to be invoked, the defense of which is likely paid for by taxpayers. Unless and until the Democrats are able to obtain control of at least one of the houses, I fear nothing will change. This is a sad state of affairs in Iowa.
I'm reminded of the wisdom in Levitsky and Ziblatt's book How Democracies Die where they observed there are a handful of collective understandings (guardrails) necessary for the survival of democracies such as our own Great American Experiment in liberal democratic governance. One of these they label as Institutional Forbearance. This opines that institutions, in this case the Iowa House of Representatives, must not do certain things just because they have can. In this case, barring Laura Belin credentials as a journalist is a really bad idea for democracy writ large and the institution itself. One would think this unforced error by the Republican controlled House would have been avoided in view of Ms. Belin's successful lawsuit, joined in by others, to correct another unforced error by the Governor's Office over a freedom of information issue.
I like that concept. Institutional forbearance is in short supply these days. The problem is Trump and his ilk take advantage of people who practice forbearance. They see it as a sign of weakness. Like Trump saying “only idiots pay taxes.”
I don’t suppose anyone remembers when Gronstahl was bulldozing the opposition. Opinion journalism is tribal politics, nothing more.
Another good article and Belin is one to read.
👍
Excellent column Dave.
"Government leaders who stick their heads in the sand and pretend the websites don’t exist would be better off giving them access and taking advantage of the opportunity to explain why they’re enacting legislation."
Right on. Can't very well include their point of view when they don't talk. You might get a better shake if you gave her access. There's going to be a story whether you're part of it or not. This is still the United States of America and we still have a First Amendment. And I'll tell you what: If you don't talk, the other side sure as hell will.
I remember a spokesperson for a major meatpacking company launching into a tirade with one of our reporters at the Courier and the reporter finally said, "Look do you want to be in the story or not?" Then the spokesperson shut up and started acting like a professional.
The attitude toward Laura and her publication by some in power in state government is dismissive at best, mean spirited and malicious at worst. I've been in her spot several times just covering city government. Usually you just keep doing your job, own up when you make a mistake, and wear them down or they get over it. But it's no fun, and I can't imagine what it's like being in that position over a number of years.
I know very well some Republicans don't like Bleeding Heartland. But I have former Gov. Branstad's words echoing in my head from when he met with our editorial board at the Courier when he was in a primary fight seeking to return to office in 2010. He was being pilloried by social conservative groups (and one Democrat front group posing as one) for having OneIowa supporter and former Cedar Falls state senator Joy Corning as lieutenant governor.
"Look, I'm a social and fiscal conservative," Branstad said. "But that doesn't mean you don't work with people."
Speaker Grassley, if he has any influence in this, would be well served to heed the former governor's remarks. He also should consult his grandfather, who, politics aside, has been one of the most responsible and responsive public officials this state has ever had in terms of accessibility and information flow.
And as far as liberal/conservative goes, well, I was blessed to be able to interview the great I.F. Stone for a class paper at Iowa State. He said, "Jefferson's idea of freedom of the press wasn't to have a bunch of political eunuchs running around."
Stone, as you know, was blacklisted in the '50s, but put out his own weekly in Washington for 20 years and won a George Polk Award. He was a dogged researcher and dug up stores mainline news organizations overlooked.
Kinda like Laura. Questions from the left, right, and in between keep government accountable and make our democracy function better. They also generate ideas for better government and, maybe, help the folks who may be falling through the cracks. A reporter asked President Bush 43, after the Democrats took the House near the end of his administration, if he'd be able to work with them on immigration reform. President Bush actually thanked the reporter for the question.
Here's to Laura and everyone out there continuing to produce good journalism -- which is, as one priest once told me, "a valuable work of humanity."
Great point about Senator Grassley. Branstad also always took the questions, no matter how tough. They became good at answering even the tough questions, although Grassley has a tendency to prattle and on run out the clock in question time. I started covering him in 1980. He was the same then as he is now. But he’s always defended the First Amendment.
It is great to see her finally get the credential. Too bad it took a lawsuit for the Iowa legislature to do the right thing. Locking out journalists, whether by left or right, is the beginning of autocracy. Another further step is what’s happening in the Tennessee legislature, excluding actual elected members because they point out inconvenient facts and advocate for another “side.”
Let’s hope this is the beginning of a turn around. I fear not as it was forced.