The Harry Coates affair — reporting the right way

Posted by
on December 3, 2010M at 1:52 pm
I usually don’t bother responding to critics, especially those of the uninformed variety.
 
Today, I’ll make an exception.
 
Recently two of my colleagues, Ann Kelley and John Estus, have begun reporting on how an extramarital affair between a state Senator and a lobbyist may have affected a $10 million-a-year state contract.
 
When the first story came out on Wednesday, the blogosphere was all up in arms. Many said The Oklahoman held the story for months unlike their blogs which reported it then a long time ago. 
 
So here’s a brief chart so you can tell the difference between their blogs and The Oklahoman’s stories:
 
Them: Sources include “insiders” and “multiple well-placed sources.”
Us: Sources include people with names that we publish. Doing so seems to give a story so much more credibility. Helps with accuracy, too.
 
Them: Blogs are posted by anonymous writers.
Us: Ann Kelley and John Estus wrote the first story and Barbara Hoberock of the Tulsa World also has been working on the scandal. It says so right there between the headline and the story.
 
Them: No mention of how the affair was an actual conflict of interest.
Us: Details about how the awarding of juvenile justice contract may have been influenced. Funny how all those blog reports are much more interested in the titillating aspects of the story and don’t mention anything about how policy could be affected.
 
Them: Are happy to state they are “reporting” rumors and innuendo.
Us: If we held the story it was so we could confirm these rumors and innuendo that others are so blasé about “reporting.” Again you’ll actually find named sources in the articles.
 
Them: Did not report on attempts to contact either Sen. Harry Coates or Haley Atwood
Us: Quoted both in our first story and have done further interviews. It’s doctrine us in the journalism business like to call “fairness.”
 
I’ll admit we didn’t rush to put rumors in the newspaper and on NewsOK when we first heard them. There was nothing nefarious about that. In fact, it was just the opposite.
 
We waited to verify our information so we could give readers a full story with actual sources. And I think most readers are grateful for that.
 
Ann Kelley and John Estus should be applauded for their work. They took the time to get it right.
 
I think our readers want and should expect such work from us.
 
“Reporting” any other way is just gossip.
Michael Baker
Categorized under:
Behind the story, Uncategorized, Watchdog

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments
Pingback by Okie Pundit » Surprise: Oklahoman misses point on Coates story on December 3, 2010 @ 4:41 pm

[...] Baker of The Oklahoman really needs to do a better job.  Today he posted on his NewsOK blog, slamming critics of the paper who claimed The Oklahoman held back the Harry Coates affair story.  [...]

Comment by Linda Stark on December 4, 2010 @ 8:55 am

Another difference:

Them: Pseudo news, mostly for entertainment and shock value. No one’s responsible for accuracy.

The Oklahoman: Real reliable news, reported responsibly as it should be. Reporters fact check and stand behind their facts.

Unfortunately too many people can no longer tell the difference between the two.

Kudos to you all.

Comment by Dustie on December 6, 2010 @ 1:07 pm

Fantastic Article!! BRAVO! GREAT REPORTING OKLAHOMAN KEEP IT UP! :)

Comment by Nick Baker on December 7, 2010 @ 10:18 am

First, I am not in a position to judge the factual aspect, but this issue is certainly important and should be reported.

The beef is the way this paper avoids other issues, and fails to keep the public informed. Some of that could be because of the time required for investigative journalism. Fine, if a paper can’t fulfill its role, and abide by the journalistic creed, then it is time to forego the privileges of a news paper.

The paper can’t have it both ways, limit reporting to insure the desired profit, and claim privileges: like sales tax exemption, press passes and parking, etc.

Not to mention presenting the paper as something it isn’t, reporting the truth. Reporting is superficial at best. That means accepting what public officials and other public figures say at face value; without verifying or questioning. Instead of reporting the truth, and facts, this paper resorts to printing two opposing views. Using some excuse letting the public decide for itself.

There are some very specific issues, that are obvious for a “Watch Dog.” A Watch Dog, that hasn’t even noticed information missing from Open Books. Incorrect information substituted for the required information. And, calling those responsible for the missing explanation for their explanation, is not justice. What are they going to say. Gosh, we never notice that? Here we will get right on this.

There are going to claim they do not have to, or some other excuses. If that is the case then we don’t have sunlight, so let’s get that cleared up.

Here is some of the missing information and there is a reason this particular information is missing. To find out why would investigative journalism. I can even show you where to go to find out.

Missing information – notice

“nonappropriated” in 2.

“refunds” in d.

“Tax credit” in 4.

There at least 3 missing “Tax credits” and the tax credits reported are identities and amounts of “redeemed” tax credits. The law requires the identities and amounts of those “receiving” tax credits. There are several significant differences.

Title 62 O.S. § 46 Taxpayer Transparency Act
at http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=450012

2. “Expenditure of state funds” means the disbursement of state funds, whether appropriated or nonappropriated, excluding:

d. refunds issued by the Oklahoma Tax Commission resulting from the overpayment of tax;

3. “Incentive payments” means payments made under the Oklahoma Quality Jobs Program Act, Saving Quality Jobs Act, Oklahoma Quality Jobs Incentive Leverage Act, Small Employer Quality Jobs Incentive Act, Oklahoma Specialized Quality Investment Act and Oklahoma Quality Investment Act;

4. “Tax credit” means a credit pursuant to the Oklahoma Income Tax Act against tax liability which is taken by a taxpayer, excluding credits authorized under paragraphs 1 and 2 of subsection B of Section 2357 and Sections 2357.29 and 2357.43 of Title 68 of the Oklahoma Statutes; and

That is one story, and the bigger story is what is the above hiding?

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)