Alabama Blogger: "Deconstructing Eddie Curran" (Counters Siegelman Hit Piece)

[Hissyspit]

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/02/deconstructing-eddie-curran.html

Sunday, February 24, 2008
Deconstructing Eddie Curran

If we learn anything from part one of Eddie Curran's op-ed piece in the the Montgomery Independent, it is this: A good copy editor is worth his or her weight in gold.

- snip -

Curran's op-ed piece, which hit the Web yesterday, is another matter. The journalist comes across as a petulant fifth grader, firing spitballs at kids he doesn't like. In this case, the kids he doesn't like are named Jill Simpson (Republican whistleblower who will be at the heart of the 60 Minutes piece) and Scott Horton (legal-affairs reporter for Harper's). Curran fires plenty of spitballs at his targets, but his aim is way off line.

The goal of Curran's op-ed apparently is to convince readers that the Siegelman prosecutors were ethical, U.S. Judge Mark Fuller was honorable, Siegelman was criminal, Simpson is delusional, and Horton is, well, a stain on Harper's considerable legacy.

Curran fails on all counts. And that might be partly because, as Independent editor Bob Martin takes pains to point out in a lengthy editor's note, the piece was published without editing. (You can almost hear the soap and water running over Martin's hands as he attempts to cleanse himself following the decision to run Curran's piece.)

This all makes me think the Mobile Press-Register must have some outstanding copy editors on board. In fact, if I were a copy editor at a major newspaper, I would save Curran's op-ed and take it with me the next time I go to my boss asking for a raise. I would plop the article on my boss' desk and say, "Without people like me, this is the kind of stuff you would have running in your newspaper every day. So pay up, bub."

- snip -

I assume folks at the Press-Register care, at least a little bit, about their reputation. After checking out Curran's op-ed, a reasonable reader might ask: If this is the P-R's ace investigative reporter, unfiltered, what kind of editorial judgment does the paper have? And wouldn't they be wise to keep a fairly tight leash on him?

- snip -

Here's one example of Curran making serious charges but not backing them up. He opens by noting that a friend had sent him a copy of a Scott Horton article that ran in the Jan. 21 issue of the Independent. The friend had found it "disturbing," and Curran tells us that he, too, was disturbed by it. "The article is laden with factual error, innuendo and a level of sourcing that would not be permitted in the lowest rank of newspapers."

But Curran gives no examples of factual error or innuendo or poor sourcing in the story. "Unlike my Montgomery friend, I knew something about the subject of the piece--Mark Fuller--as well as its author." But Curran gives us little, if any, information to support his claim that he is knowledgeable about Fuller and Horton.

Curran observed Fuller during the Siegelman trial and gives him high marks for being a "neutral arbiter." Can Curran present any facts that helped him form this conclusion? Evidently not. Curran also likes the fact that Fuller "never grandstanded or tried to make himself the focus of the trial." That's nice, but what does it mean? You could say the same thing about a department-store mannequin conducting a trial.

As for the two targets of his spitballs, Curran doesn't lay a glove on either Simpson or Horton. He takes healthy swings at some matters on the periphery of Simpson's sworn statements and testimony. But he has no answer for her main point: That she overheard Republican operatives saying they were going to work with the U.S. Justice Department to "take care of" Don Siegelman.

As U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) pointed out in a Congressional hearing on selective prosecution, Simpson has records that show a phone call to the office of Rob Riley (son of Alabama Governor Bob Riley) at the time she says it took place. How does Curran deal with this? It "could be explained by Simpson being placed on hold."

Oh, really. Says who? Why doesn't he quote Rob Riley on this matter?

MORE

[Hissyspit]

1. kick from last night n/t

[EFerrari]

2. I notice there is no forum or comments section at the paper

where feedback is welcome. I guess feedback isn't welcome.

[bleever]

3. I.B. Kickin.

Yes, I be.

[AmandaRuth]

4. I have read on another blog that the ALGOP discussed this openly

(that they were able to "get " Siegelman) and thought the whole was hysterically funny.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

5. Morning kick for this.

I didn't get to see the Siegelman piece on 60 Minutes Sunday night, but I will take some time today to see it. This too important to be sinking like this. But then again I don't get upset over Barack Obama wearing traditional African clothes during a trip to Africa.  :kick:  :kick:

[Truth2Tell]

6. Kick nt

[pacalo]

7. Speaking of editorial judgment, they ran Curran's "opinion piece" on the front page.

I remember reading the editorial comment above the article, stating that opinion pieces are usually run on the editorial page, but they were making an exception for Curran's piece by putting it on the front page. The whining article screamed "temper tantrum" & it was as lame as a political hack's hit piece could possibly get.