Doing the Brancaccio Mescolare

by lewwaters

PinocchioThere are times I am left thinking that the most ardent follower of this blog and Clark County Politics blog is none other than Columbian Editor Lou Brancaccio, who although relegates us to a realm of distant obscurity as well as the blame for the local paper of record seeing decreasing subscriptions rates, often targets us in his Saturday Press Talk column.

Such is the case in his latest Saturday column that appears today, Sunday: A fun blog and conspiracies where two thirds of the column is devoted to “correcting” posts earlier this week exposing the papers obvious bias, The Columbian: Busted Again On Their Pro-Democrat Bias on this blog and Remember the democrats lying over Boldt getting booted out of the GOP? over on Clark County Politics where we shed some light on the bias of the Columbian favoring Democrats and a few missing paragraphs in an AP story showing a darker underside of the Democrat Party they claim does not exist.

About an hour after the posts were put up, the missing paragraphs appeared in an updated version of the Columbian’s article as was acknowledged in my earlier post.

With all of the things happening in today’s world, I find it curious, considering we bloggers are considered to be so inconsequential to the community that the Editor of the so called largest newspaper in Southwest Washington would expend as much energy as he does countering what we write and doing what I will now call, with thanks to Google Translate the Brancaccio Mescolare (shuffle).

After brief coverage of a fun local blog by “Community conquistadors Jim Mains and Gary Bock,” the Vancouver Side, Brancaccio launches into his revelation of the “Conspiracy theory” we bloggers exposed earlier this week of the “missing parapgraphs.”

We might better label the effort as “coprire il culo.” Or in our English, “cover your ass.”

As we showed in the posts, the Columbian ran several articles condemning the local Republican Party for “sanctioning” soon to be former County Commissioner Marc Boldt including denials by the Democrat Party that they would ever do the same thing.

The missing paragraphs consisted of words of condemnation from Washington State Democrat Party Chair Dwight Pelz condemning and indicating he no longer considered two Democrats, Rodney Tom and Tim Sheldon to be Democrats since they have joined with Republicans to form what they label a “philosophical Majority” in the state legislature to get the two parties working together to solve our many problems.

Brancaccio seems to take exception to our indicating the paragraphs were “edited out,” saying he contacted the Associated Press to ask and lo and behold, we read now that the section not initially seen in the Columbian article were not included in the original AP feed they ran at 10:53 AM on December 10, 2012 and edited at 11:56 AM.

Brancaccio states,

“The original story we ran made no mention of what the Senate Democrats were thinking of these rogue Democrats siding with the Republicans. And some of my conservative Internet friends found a state wire story that noted the Democratic hierarchy would — indeed — disown them.”

I saw the Columbian’s article in the early afternoon and thought little of it until I saw in the Oregonian, Leader of Washington State Democrats disowns 2 senators working with GOP posted at 2:30 PM, and updated at 2:33 PM.

I had already put up a post on a Press Release sent to me from State Senator Don Benton and referenced the AP feed article that was in the Olympian at 11:35 AM. Since the Olympian does not time stamp their articles, I cannot verify what time that day they posted it, but I did notice after seeing the Oregonian article that the Olympian’s article showed those “missing paragrpahs” where the Columbian did not.

Looking around some more I found that the Seattle PI ran it at 2:39 PM.

The Kitsap Sun ran it at 10:37 AM. with an update at 2:36 PM. posted it at 2:32 PM.

It was even referenced on the far left website Democratic Underground at 2:40 PM.

Far from my finding that “a state wire story” had the full article, I found the full wire story in several places, but not the Columbian. I wrote and posted the above referenced post at 6:49 PM when the Columbian’s article still did not include the paragraphs.

A 7:44 PM update to the Columbian’s article included the missing paragraphs.

Brancaccio, after stating the premise of our posts was “completely false” now says,

Here’s what happened:

Today, stories continually evolve on the Web. Early stories on the Internet are often incomplete.

Because we didn’t write this story — again, it was from the wire services — I wanted to make sure I had this right. So I spoke to Chris Grygiel, the Associated Press’ state news editor. He said I had the facts correct.

“The version that moved (early in the day) was filed during the press conference, so it didn’t yet have comment from Dems.”

Then, later in the afternoon — several hours after the first version ran — it “added comment from the Democratic Party disowning the two Democrats,” he said.

Unlike Brancaccio, I’ll give him benefit of doubt since the Oregonian still has a version without the paragraphs, choosing to run those paragraphs separately. So I have little doubt the AP’s initial release did not include those paragraphs.

But, “several hours later?” No, as can be seen in all of the other media outlets that ran the full AP article in the early afternoon. Are we seriously to believe that the AP sent an updated to other media outlets hours before they sent it to the Columbian?

I have a hard time with that considering that the Columbian did update their article almost a full hour after the post showing they did not have it up on their site.

I will admit I might be mistaken on their “editing it out” of the original article, but I stand behind they did not have it included until an hour after it was revealed on our blogs. Apparently they were not in a hurry to update the story in a timely manner.

Why did the Columbian take 5 hours longer to update their article, and only did so after blogs revealed it, when so many other media outlets in the state ran it in the early afternoon? Was it deliberate or just inattention to updates? Don’t they have someone to monitor their wire feeds?

Lou Brancaccio can dance around it all he wants, label us conspiracists if he chooses and condescend to us with

“Honestly, I don’t blame my friends on the Internet. They really do the best they can with the information they have available. But every once in a while, it’s good to show the real story behind the story.”

It doesn’t change the fact that we saw accurate updates in other state media hours before the Columbian decided to chime in and finally update an article to include words that clearly showed the Columbian’s favored Democrats act no different than do the Republicans they condemned.

Maybe I shouldn’t be too harsh on Brancaccio. After all, how can we expect them to stay on top of story feeds when much of the day seems spent on monitoring blogs nobody reads in order to know when to “coprire il culo.”

10 Comments to “Doing the Brancaccio Mescolare”

  1. Cute picture of Pinnochio! Unfortunately news reporting is not so cute these days but maybe the referrence to the cartoon is appropriate.

  2. The problem here (among many others) is the deliberate effort to frequently refuse to provide the “real story behind the story,” as Light Heel Lou tells it.

    The Columbian failed, for example, to mention that the newly minted chair of the Clark County dems is none other but D. Michael Heywood, fired former editorial page editor of this very newspaper… fired for his at-work porn fixation.

    Lou didn’t know that? After all, Lou fired him. Odd that it didn’t make the story. But then, since it IS about a democrat and all, and man, those leftists are SO concerned about that bogus “war on women” that you’d think they wouldn’t miss the opportunity ot center punch one of the leading practitioners… wouldn’t you?

    And then y FAVORITE “story behind the story” is Loose Fact Lou’s failure to ever run the story concerning the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision that outlined how Vancouver is a willing participant in a scam to get light rail over here. Brancaccio knows all about this story… but he refuses to run it.

    And let’s not forget the “story behind the story” concerning former Rep. Jim Jacks, who was forced out of the legislature for his alcohol-fueled episodes of harassing and other interesting activities with staffers in the legislature.

    Brancaccio’s hypocrisy reeks. He’s lied so much about so many things, either through co-mission or omission, that if he told me it was daylight out I’d have to check for myself.

  3. It’s hard to take Lou’s claim seriously when other papers had the correct story shortly before 3 pm, but The Columbian didn’t print the additional facts until after 7:00 pm.

    I was surprised that the media found it necessary to once again report the controversy over Pam Roach. What’s she got to do with it…oh yeah – she yelled at some staffers or something. Too bad she didn’t get drunk and harass them – then it would have been completely forgotten about and virtually ignored wouldn’t it Lou?

  4. Or Lou would just go into one of his known dream schemes and just forget every thing in reality of real life doesn’t exist like a a former forty-ninth state legislator can’t be demagogued (hmm.. ever hear how much fire power he uses to take aim at any of the right side of the aisle?) for the actions he did in the state legislature and if my memory serves me correctly, was he not asked by the state democratic house party leadership people to step down?

    I won’t go on, because Lou likes to ride dead or dying political dead horses into the ground, at the right times and places he chooses instead of letting John Laird do his job FOR him….

  5. FYI, as I write this I am unable to do anything with the Columbian website’s reader comments. Hopefully this is a temporary bug. I am unable to sort comments by chronological order (I prefer to read oldest to newest) or expand the “more” link. I am browsing via IE 8 in private mode, *not* signed in to Facebook.

    Again, I hope this is a bug not a feature. If the Columbian will require Facebook registration to do the most basic of tasks I will simply remove them from my reading list. I hope someone there is listening.

  6. Josef, if I am not mistaken, they do go through facebook now

  7. Josef and Lew – I believe all commenting functions that were setup by Libby and Matt (which no longer work for the paper) are based on facebook AND its web technology… Just like and many other sites. Very few sites have non-facebook based commenting sections, but they ARE out there.
    I might add, they also have Google Plus, twitter and other social media tools, not just facebook. They also have a bunch of useless tracking bugs and cookies to figure out where people go on their site. I might add a few good programs usually takes CARE of that problem… 🙂

  8. Would be interesting to learn where Matt went to.

    I use AdBlock, NoScript & and a variety of other third-part privacy apps for my primary browsing in Firefox. However, the interesting part is that IE 8, in private mode, fails on Columbian’s site. I have to believe this is either a) by design b) a gross oversight.

  9. Josef – Do to privacy reasons of the fellow in question, I am not going to answer that question. If you want, a search on the internet will answer it..

    To your comments about the software you use, yes if you are using that type of software without turning a few of the filters off, you won’t see the comment sections of many of the leading papers in the Pacific Northwest including the local one as well. You may choose to employ those filtering systems, but you have to respect that the websites in question feel they have to make a living and protect their web services through means that those programs block. (What is angering me more now is the Seattle Times has chosen to employ bumper ads, click unders and other like ad shenanigans to get around people’s privacy and ad blockers… The Bellingham Herald and a few other sites are moving to the infamous paywall. I won’t read a site normally if content is like this. I make one exception to a local paper in a former town that I really love to read. But it is NOT the norm..)

    Though I do have my issues with the local snooze media as I twink the local newspaper’s editor at many a time, I don’t have much of a problem of their need to protect the system they run on the web or in ways they need to do various things. I remember an issue within the past three years when their web system was down so much, I could find the local blogs up more often!

    And if someone is simply just not happy with the editorial context or content, there are simple ways to deal with that? Don’t go to those sections fo the web site (the famous like comment of, “If you don’t like what is on television, turn it off?) or use proper filtering (as you have described that you are employing and surmise you have the knowledge to decently employ without a lot of lot of work to learn how..)

    Or better yet, I tell the extensive local whinery pool, (yes, all political STRIPES!) If you have a problem with the local paper, politics, an issue that you really have a hankering on, why not start your OWN blog? Invest your time, energy and work researching the subject and posting your well researched thoughts on a blog that is NOT protected behind social media (google +, facebook groups, etc.) And THERE are a lot of near free platforms to do this out there and won’t use Lew’s blog to describe them…

  10. One more Point that I missed in Joseph’s comments. No, when you use Private Mode, Igconito Modes or similar fair in browser sessions, you have to use some form of saving cookies to be able use the internet functionality. And as more of the internet moves into the social media sphere, the more you and others who use this mode will probably become the minority in being able to use it.

    It really is a personal choice. But the internet for the past five or more years has moved away from the old wild west type of internet that used to be, into an identifiable sphere.. Where not even things like anonymized, encrypted connections (too long to list here) will protect you. And if you think you have the answer that is right, guess who controls or suggests encryption technology here in the US? Don’t think they have the way to get around it if they suggest it?

    And any web server, ISP or online offering *IS* online, usually has extensive technologies to protect or define how a service is offered online. And encrypted communications through various means (and infected cell phones – machines) can be compromised.

    Ok, off with commentary. This isn’t the thread is about….

Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: