Ask me no questions

So, Norm Coleman stopped by the StarTribune to 'set the story straight' as it were.

Of course, this is the same paper that Coleman has repeatedly accused of bias, so it seems rather curious he'd even make the effort, but.. who knows, maybe he actually understands that the StarTribune operates as a reasonable media entity. Maybe he knows the claims of bias come mostly from nut-jobs who simply don't like any media outlet that doesn't mouth and subscribe to their extreme view, but I digress.

At the meeting, Coleman accosted one member of the editorial board when that board member disagreed with Coleman's statement during that meeting that two reporters from the Strib had 'inserted themselves into the campaign' by asking a question at a campaign stop. The question was asked four days prior to the election when the story broke about Coleman's benefactor Nasser Kamenini. Kamemini allegedly funnelled $75,000 to Coleman through a subsidiary company Kamenini owns and which 'employs' Coleman's wife Laurie. Now Laurie is a model, and has no absolutely NO background in the industry she supposedly supplied 'consulting' services for, nor would the company (or Norm) identify what work Laurie does for the company - and that was one of the questions asked during the campaign stop, namely, "What does Laurie do for them?" Now the current investigation around that payment is about one ranking officer of the parent company suing another for payments made without services rendered (by Laurie). Norm is right that no direct allegation of wrong-doing by Coleman (or his wife) is on record, but that's more to do with no current person willing to discuss the work by Laurie Colaman (it seems) than Coleman actually being investigated and/or cleared by anyone at all.

Regardless, the point is, Coleman claimed these reporters, by having the audacity to ask him a question at a campaign stop about a pretty hot topic, had inserted themselves into the campaign because 'they had to know trackers were there, or they were dumber than.. (a saying left unfinished by Coleman.' He then said, there are ALWAYS trackers following both candidates (that would be trackers from the opponents campaign- in this case from Franken's campaign), as such, they had to know their question would be captured by the trackers, and thus, they'd 'inserted themselves' into the campaign.

Here's the thing, if we use that standard, then, as cameras are always rolling, it means ANY questioner is 'inserting themselves into the campaign', and if we are to be sensitive to poor Norm's sensibilities, it means this too, no question can ever be asked in person, face to face, ever again, by any reporter on any subject of a politician.

That's one helluva nice deal, don't have to worry ever again about live questions you don't like, because asking them constitutes irresponsible journalism.

What a load of bullcrap. First, journalists ask questions, they often ask tough ones, and sometimes they ask them JUST for the on-camera response, if you don't like the heat, don't be a politician Norm. Second, by Coleman's standards, no more questions should ever be asked face to face, but apparently instead only questions in writing are permissible, or I suppose recorded questions of some form, to which an answer would only ever be supplied if the politician wanted to. No more answering tough questions, no more looking foolish when you don't have a ready reply, no more embarrassment, no worries.

I suppose that's how Norm would like to conduct his business, but it's surely not right, it's surely nothing less than a sleazy little attempt to rebuke the Strib in an wholly improper way and suggested approach, and one more thing, it surely would represent an attempt to intimidate the press into inaction - i.e. abridge freedom of the press, Norm.

But, I suppose, for Norm, better to not have to be asked an uncomfortable question, than potentially have to lie about $75,000 his wife almost certainly did nothing to earn.