Former Birmingham News Reporter Discusses Pulitzer
August 19th, 2008Former Birmingham News staff writer Brett Blackledge discusses his 2007 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting at Auburn University, Montgomery, in this video obtained by the Locust Fork News-Journal.
Part 1:
Part 2:
To some legal experts, his admission that he was handed the information in a box raises some concerns about how he got the information in a highly politicized climate for the Bush Justice Department in Alabama that resulted in the jailing of former Governor Don Siegelman, as well as numerous federal cases against people who work for community colleges in the state and also serve in the state Legislature.
“If the materials include grand jury materials, then this may have been a criminal act,” says New York attorney and writer Scott Horton, who keeps up with the cases in Alabama for his blog “No Comment” on the Harper’s magazine Website at Harpers.org.
It also raises some doubts about the qualifications of the reporting for the award, since it doesn’t look like he did much “investigating,” and was perhaps just handed the information by federal prosecutors in possible violation of judicial codes of ethics.
The stories came preliminary to charges being brought against a number of legislators, including Sue Schmitz of Huntsville, who worked in a program that helps troubled teenagers. Her trial is ongoing in the federal courthouse in Decatur, and her lawyers have indicated an interest in this video as evidence.
Here’s the AP story from opening arguments today:
Prosecutor Tells Decatur Jury Schmitz Did Little for Pay
The Pulitzer committee awards the prizes each year for “a distinguished example of investigative reporting by an individual or team, presented as a single article or series, in print or in print and online.” The prize pays a cash award of $10,000.
Blackledge’s award is billed as a reward for “his exposure of cronyism and corruption in the state’s two-year college system, resulting in the dismissal of the chancellor and other corrective action.” It was moved by the board from the Public Service category.
The 2007 Pulitzer Prize Winners: Investigative Reporting
Blackledge left the News a couple of months ago to take a job with the Washington, D.C., bureau of the Associated Press, where he works for bureau chief Ron Founier. Since Founier took over the bureau a few months ago, critics say the coverage has demonstrated a “clear-cut GOP slant.”
Some bloggers have even gone so far as to connect Fournier to former Bush political adviser Karl Rove as a little bit more than a routine “objective” source, and media news outlets have released e-mails between Rove and Founier showing they were more like “buds” than reporter and source. (Since this report was published, Founier was let go at AP and was last seen at the National Journal, according to Wikipedia).
Blackledge also seemed to have unusual access to Rove at the News, where he quoted him at some length, while editorial writers at the Newhouse papers across the state disparaged the very idea that Rove would have any time for, or care anything about, political goings on in Alabama — since he must have surely been too busy working in the Bush White House.
Birmingham News Ace Reporter Hits the ‘Big Time’
Rove still faces a contempt charge for failing to appear before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to testify under oath about his role in turning the Justice Department into a political arm of the White House. When the House returns from it’s August recess, Speaker Nanci Pelosi has said she will consider bringing the issue of “inherent contempt” before the full House for a vote.
Jill Simpson Calls on Pelosi to Find Rove in Full Contempt
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Tags: Brett Blackledge, Karl Rove, Ron Founier, Scott Horton
August 20th, 2008 at 12:27 am
For the edification of Mr. Blackledge, bloggers don’t have to have a “partisan” political agenda. I suppose I can understand where he formed that opinion since a lot of early bloggers were what I call “political activist” bloggers. But there are also news blogs, like this one and the TPM Muckraker. Our only agenda is to play the watchdog role no longer played by newspapers, and to protect and serve the First Amendment to the Constitution on the Web Press
Mr. Blackledge’s idea of “objective” reporting in this case is only objective in the political sense of trying to turn Alabama into a one-party Republican state. In spite of his meager claims that he “investigated” Republicans and Democrats, the truth is the Bush Justice Department in Alabama investigated mostly Democrats.
Just because we have political commentary does not really distinguish us from newspapers, since they do that too. It’s just that ours is more free of corporate and bureaucratic constraints, and frankly better than newspapers. That is to say more interesting. It’s also free online and you don’t have to sign up for it, at least here, and you can make comments.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:42 am
The video clips only make passing comment about the person who brought the box and it is obvious that he referred to it earlier. I also gather from what you write that there was more about the box than what we see in this edited set of video clips. I really would like to see the video of the apparent earlier reference to the box.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Good catch Jim. You are right. There was an earlier mention. The editing team is working on that today. Apparently a glitch happened when it was being loaded into YouTube. Should be fixed shortly…
August 20th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
We think this is a good time to do a bit more educatin’ on how all this blogging and e-mail business works for all the newbies to the “Internets” in Alabama and elsewhere.
People who are involved in political stories and scandal often e-mail newspaper stories and columns around to each other and discuss them in small groups. Rarely are those e-mails made public.
But just sometimes, they might become important for the public to know about later on. This is one of those times.
One of the members of a small group of people who was in on some interesting e-mails involving news coverage of the Siegelman case sent me this exchange recently between investigator Mark Bollinger, former Birmingham News reporter Brett Blackledge and former Mobile Press-Register reporter Eddie Curran. (Blackledge’s e-mail address was on the e-mail I received and from the conversation, it is clear he was in on it. But the source of this exchange did not include any comments from Blackledge in the e-mail to me).
The subject of the e-mail was a William Perkins column from the Dothan Eagle in South Alabama from Sunday, July 1, that ran under the headline: “Siegelman’s railroading draws national attention.” It is included below.
The pertinent part of the exchange starts with this missive from Bollinger, who e-mailed the column around.
Here’s the column:
Siegelman’s railroading draws national attention
Sunday, July 1, 2007
By William Perkins
In a June 10 column, I questioned the integrity of the trial and conviction of former Gov. Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, who were found guilty on corruption charges in a federal case that reeks of partisan political assassination.
There are many troubling facets to the case — among them allegations of jury misconduct and the refusal of the Judge Mark Fuller to recuse himself despite obvious conflicts of interest — but an affidavit sworn by Dana Jill Simpson, a former campaign worker for Gov. Bob Riley, lends an air of credibility to Siegelman’s claims of wrongful prosecution. Simpson’s affidavit outlines the content of a conference call that included William Canary, a prominent GOP operative and head of the Business Council of Alabama, saying “his girls” would take care of Siegelman, and referencing the assistance of “Karl” in Washington.
His “girls” include his wife, Leura Canary, and Alice Martin, both U.S. attorneys in Alabama federal court districts. “Karl” is allegedly Karl Rove.
Earlier this year, as Ms. Simpson began her activism, her house burned down; the fire is still under investigation.
In response to the June 10 column, I received a letter to the editor from Ken Moore of Dothan, who wrote:
“I read with interest Bill Perkins’ column today making the case for ‘investigating’ the accusations made by a couple of political enemies of our current governor. I found the entire column to be a sad commentary on the state of politics in general, but especially reprehensible due to Bill’s failure to be honest with the Eagle readers.
“First of all, I believe that Bill should have clarified the relationship that he has with Siegelman, a man who he has supported for years. Second, if one reads only the Perkins column, one would conclude that Jill Dana Simpson must be some sort of reluctant warrior, ex-supporter of Bob Riley, who just had to purge her conscience and tell the ugly truth about nasty partisan attacks on the wonderful Don Siegelman, champion of the little man.
“Unfortunately for Bill, two pages later in (the June 10) Eagle, the alternate explanation is reported, this time fairly by the usually questionable Associated Press. It seems that Ms. Simpson had quite a big axe to grind against Mr. Riley, whose administration made the egregious error of actually awarding a $7 million tire hauling contract to the lowest bidder instead of to her client, who joined her in the attack affidavit against various Republican conspirators, including of course the most notorious of all, the evil Karl Rove.
“I’m not saying that the truth of all these allegations and counter-allegations is really known, although it is a fact that a jury has found Mr. Siegelman to be a crooked politico who is probably on his way to the Big House. What irks me is that Bill knew the facts as reported in his own paper on the same day as his opinion column, but he chose to ignore very pertinent background information, including the fact that he is a long-time supporter of Siegelman and has expressed his view that he is an innocent man prior to this column.
“That is just wrong, and, I hope, embarrassing.”
I refute only two points of Mr. Moore’s letter. The column was written days before the release of the AP report he cites; had the information been available at that time, it would certainly have been mentioned.
With regard to my “relationship” with Siegelman, Mr. Moore’s implication that I am “a supporter” is misleading. As a journalist and opinion writer, I have written many commentaries disagreeing with Siegelman’s administration. He made mistakes in judgement — most notably in assuming his election to the governor’s office was a de facto public endorsement of the “lottery for education” component of his campaign — and he placed his trust in associates who were untrustworthy. At least one of those, Nick Bailey, pleaded guilty to corruption charges of his own and agreed to testify against the former governor in the hope of mitigating his own punishment.
“Supporter,” in a political sense, implies favoritism, campaign donations and sign-waving. In that sense, I am a “supporter” of no politician.
My relationship with Siegelman is no different than my relationship with any other newsmaker with whom I am acquainted. Personally, I find the former governor a congenial man, and have no compunction in saying I believe his prosecution and conviction was an affront to justice.
I have no respect for Mr. Scrushy, who I believe was knee-deep in the HealthSouth fraud scandal, although prosecutors failed to convict him. He deserves to be in jail. But just as I believe Siegelman committed no crime in soliciting Scrushy to pay off the $500,000 debt of the Lottery for Education campaign — a transaction that did not enrich Siegelman personally — and later reappointing the former CEO to a state board on which he had served under three governors, I believe Scrushy is innocent of the charges that have landed him in prison.
Siegelman and Scrushy were sentenced to federal prison last week and were denied the opportunity to remain free while their attorneys appeal their convictions. That, in my mind, exacerbates this injustice.
An editorial in Saturday’s New York Times underscores points I raised on June 10. Further, the Times calls for a Congressional investigation into the case, drawing the obvious conclusion that Siegelman ‘s prosecution — and I would add, by extension, Scrushy ‘s — is ensnared in the larger U.S. attorney scandal within the Bush administration.
The Canarys, prosecutor Martin, the assistant U.S. attorneys in the case, Judge Fuller and, yes, even “the evil Karl Rove,” should be dragged before a congressional investigatory committee to answer, under oath, the allegations swirling around this travesty.
And until the truth is revealed, Siegelman and Scrushy should be released from federal prison on appeals bond. That is the first step toward justice.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Part 1 of the video is now fixed. Some of it got lost in the upload conversion to YouTube. Thanks to the video crew for this.
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
This all began with a Republican scheme to try to force Sue to retire from the legislature because county school board, at the behest of a Republican member who wanted to run for her seat, got a ruling that she couldn’t continue in the school retirement plan. Sue wasnt really looking for a job — she was looking for a way to stay in the retirement plan. That generated all of this. The Republicans, via Alice Martin, are still trying to get her out of the legislature.
Ivan