A discussion with Senator Champion Campaign Field Manager Mike Barnett - Part one of three: It wasn’t a debate, Mr. Catanese.
Yesterday I had time to sit down and discuss multiple issues with Senator Champion’s campaign field manager Mike Barnett. The discussion was interesting and at times eye opening. Be sure to check back here in the next couple days when we post parts two and three of the interview.
Part one is about a recent local hub-ub over a forum Senator Champion participated in.
Sources tell me in the past that David Catanese misrepresented Senator Champion’s positions and statements at times. With this unexpected flair up I wanted to take the opportunity to ask Mr. Barnett about the situation.
AA: How did the high school present the event to the Champion campaign?
Barnett: When we were first approached they asked us to participate in a discussion or dialogue about issues in the campaign focusing on what was important to the senator and voters. We said we would not be interested in a debate with Mr. Harpool, for reasons it would obvious that he would be berating the senator. We wanted to talk about the issues. That is what it was brought to us as and it is what it ended up being.
AA: What was your reaction to KY3’s David Catanese posting that Harpool calls it a debate, the high school calls it a debate, but Champion doesn’t post?
Barnett: The first I had heard of that (the post) was through a phone call in the office where someone said Dave Catanese was reporting we (the Champion campaign) were debating after we had stated we were not going to. That kinda caught me by surprise since I knew it was not the case.
When the high school students publicized the forum, their wording was a debate and discussion on the issues. Their definition of debate was a rather liberal term and was different than what politicians use it (definition of debate), where people go back and forth discussing and refuting each others points. It was really just a discussion.
Then it came out on the blog (KY3’s political blog) that they (Glendale Political Debate Club) said in their press release the event was a debate. There was no follow up by Mr. Catanese with us. I guess there was with Mr. Harpool’s campaign and Mr. Woodruff decided not to represent it the way it (the forum) was presented to them.
There was never was any actual discussion between us and the school about a debate. The information came out and the wording was probably not good, but we clearly said before we were not going to debate, so that should set off an alarm of some sort to any journalist that something didn’t make sense. After saying we weren’t going to debate and then this comes up that we weren’t going to debate and then tomorrow we are going to debate, that doesn’t make a lot of sense.
AA: So Mr. Catanese never contacted you to clarify your position?
Mr. Catanese never contacted us. He has the office as well as my cell phone number. He did not contact us either way. I saw his blog that said he had the press release and we were debating. I called him to clarify matters.
There was never any discussion of a debate. That is when he put up his posting about we’re (Champion campaign) saying it’s not a debate when the school and Harpool campaign said it was. When the school hadn’t said anything – he hadn’t followed up with them either. The release said debate and he took it to mean what he thinks a debate is, not what was actually being done.
AA: Is this the first time he has misrepresented or not presented your positions in factual light?
Barnett: Personally he has not presented anything I have said in a nonfactual light. There are other people around the campaign and other Republicans that have said that was a big issue. A couple people came to me before I ever talked to him (Mr. Catanese) to make sure I was very careful in what I said and to double checked and make sure it was presented in the right light.
AA: In one of his more recent post Mr. Catanese said that I was one of the people who had been giving Norma advice not to talk to him. Is that the case?
Barnett: (chuckles) That is not. Tonight is the first time I ever talked to you. We had to introduce our selves. It is very obvious that I never received any information from you. The information I guess he accused you of giving us came from a variety of people. It wasn’t just a single person or one group of people. It came from a variety of different sources.
AA: That said, is there anything you do feel has been portrayed unfairly within the forum that happened tonight?
Barnett: Besides before portraying it (the event) as a debate when in fact the structure proved that it wasn’t and there never any part that was. No, but that remains to be seen.
Dave can call it what he wants. If that was classified as a debate that makes it about the 10th one that has taken place. The Senator has been discussing the issues with voters for months.
It was another example of the Senator discussing the issues and talking about her positive record for Springfield. The fact that he made this forum big news, and has largely ignored the others is strange. I guess he does what needs to be done to make a good story. We do appreciate the coverage of the Senator and hope that the media will do their homework so that they can compare both candidates records. They will see what we have been saying since this campaign began, “Norma Champion works for Springfield.”
AA: How do you think you did in the forum? Did you think you were able to get across Senator Champion’s accomplishments and what you wanted to convey to the audience?
Barnett: I think the senator did a great job of presenting her views and what she got done for the City of Springfield and for her voters. Behind the things they sent her to do like true funding of education, to make City of Springfield safer with the meth bill and funding for the crime lab. She gave her opinion on all of the issues and was very focused on what she had done for the City of Springfield and what she plans to do in the next four years.
Be sure to check out part two and part three.
Posted by Paul Seale on Friday, October 27th, 2006 at 3:23 pm. Filed under Media, Missouri Politics.
tommyguns Says:
Paul, you’ve got some real issues and why you continue to personally attack one reporter doesn’t make any sense to me. I’ve seen you at these events and you’re a political hack pretending to be a journalist by sucking the teet of Champion’s Field Manager. Just because you don’t like what someone is reporting doesn’t mean they are against you. Catanese saw the press release and it said “debate,” I don’t know what you expect him to deduce from that. Truthfully I think it is fair for him to report what is being diseminated to the press…the responsibility is on the campaign to clarify wording before a press release goes out at any event they are attending. If they don’t want it to be termed as a debate, I’m sure they could simply tell the high school DEBATE club not to say that. You are simply on an attack campaign against a reporter who has shown over and over an ability to get politicians to answer questions that aren’t part of their talking points. Constantly in this political process we get rehearsed answers that really don’t tell us shit about what these people are really about and from what I’ve seen he’s been able to sift through some of that shit and actually get some answers. Ask Champion what she thought about his interview with her and whether she thought he was fair…because from everything I’ve heard, she’s didn’t share your hatred of Catanese. Do your homework and get out from behind your keyboard and see that this guy is getting around town and giving you more information than any other political reporter in the market and then maybe you’ll just get off your high horse.
Logged at: October 31st, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Paul Seale Says:
First off, lets stick to the topic at hand and not try to create a straw man. I noticed that you did not deny anything Mr. Barnett said. If that is the truth, then Mr. Catanese got it wrong, case closed.
I do want you to know I have nothing personally against Mr. Catanese. I would say He seemed like an okay guy when I talked to him briefly today after the Talent rally.
From what I hear (and what Mr. Barnett said in the interview above) from the Champion campaign and other various sources this is not the first time Mr. Catanese has mischaracterised somthing. I pointed out some of those refereneces in my “Duh” posting which you sent Mr. Catanese a while back.
I can personally relate to the experience during that time. He made a couple of inaccurate statements about who I work(ed) for and so forth.
Is that MY responsibility to correct him? To say it is, Mr. Guns, is not good journalism. It is bad form, especially when it is your paid job to get the facts of a story right.
That is supposed to be the job, right? Getting the story correct is the goal? Or am I mistaken? Have I struck on somthing that is missing in today’s journalist (or at least for Mr. Catanese)?
So is it fair to report what information is being disseminated? Of course.
However it should be placed in proper context and the facts should be correct. It should not fall on the responsibility of the candidate (or subject of the news) to correct the reporter after said reporter makes a mistake.
That would give the media unbridled power to say what ever they felt like and campaigns would spend most of their time correcting what are in some cases outright lies created by a simple fax by the other side.
In this case I interviewed Mr. Barnett on a number of subjects which included the debate. It is not my fault that Mr. Catanese did not get it right. Mr. Barnett, not I, noted the differences in the definitions and pointed out that if Mr. Catanese really wanted to report it as a debate that was fine by him - but they should note that they have had many other debates.
My guess is that Mr. Harpool was so hard up for a “debate” that he tried to make the forum into one. Mr. Catanese and other Springfield journalist probably got some jawing from the Harpool campaign and he fell for things hook line and sinker. Then again, he might very well have had a hand in the process of creating what would look like some sort of “win” for Harpool after months of nagging to get one so Doug could feel good about himself.
Regarding your comment about sifting through “stuff” to get candidates off their talking points (and I would ask you do NOT use profanity on this site again. Next time I will delete or edit it out of the comment.) - I could not find your remark more laughable. In many cases all Mr. Catanese does is repost Democratic talking points and hand deliver their messages for them to the public.
In my view Mr. Catanese has let the entire Democratic establishment off the hook here in Southwest Missouri. When was the last time Mr. Catanese challenged a Democrat on a topic which was not on their talking sheet or on a subject they feel uncomfortable about.
I have established in my post KY3 Debate analysis and to a point in this interview (and elsewhere) that the local and state media simply rubber stamp Democratic talking points as a basis for questions.
We never get to analyze whether some of the warm, cuddley solutions talked about would actually survive in the real world. Nor do we get to take a peak at voting records of Democrats like Doug Harpool - or what achievements people like Senator Champion have done.
Instead what people get is just one constant stream of Democratic talking points pimped on our air waves.
Want to change my mind? Do some hard hitting expose’s on what solutions Democrats are offering in place of today’s policy. Whoops, there are none.
Finally, I wanted to note that you couldnt have “seen me” at these events (what events?). You and I both know why.
So stop the Catanese cheerleading and lets talk about discussing issues, shall we? I might suggest instead of him doing searches on the site then emailing a response to you so you can post here for him to drop a line if he wishes to discuss issues.
I don’t bite, but I want to stress that I discuss issues first and foremost. He might not be that bad of a guy, but he most certainly needs to get his journalism squared away.
Logged at: November 1st, 2006 at 1:07 am