Monday, February 27, 2012

Political press releases: When The Free Press is not "free"

It happens every election year.

A new candidate will send us a press release and a few days later call to ask why we haven't "printed it" yet.

I'm always a bit surprised by these candidates, many of who are sometimes running for high statewide offices.

They don't seem to understand how a newspaper works to cover politics.

Newspapers (real ones anyway) do not print political press releases word for word. If we did, we wouldn't need reporters. We'd need transcribers. Still, many expect newspapers to print their "views" because they people have a right to know.

They sometimes come to understand this is the case with our newspaper because other mostly smaller-town weekly papers do exactly what we don't. They print the press releases, word for word.

We're happy to review and read press releases as a starting point to what may or may not be a story about the candidate and their election. But many of these press releases are fraught with hyperbole and opinion and what have come to be known as "talking points."

"Talking points" are ways of saying things and raising issues that one's political party has determined will be a good way to "stay on message,"  i.e. to not answer questions directly or answer questions that veers from these talking points.

There are very few press releases that become stories. That's because we believe our readers and our reporters working with our readers are better able to set the agenda, define the issues than the political party handlers.

Just about the time the uninitiated candidates figure out you're not going to print their press releases verbatim in the news columns, they go for the opinion page. After all, they have their opinions and it's the newspaper's duty to print them.

Actually, we usually do not print their opinions on the opinion page either, at least not during the heat of an election. For one thing, we feel they have access to the media and many avenues to get their views across through regular election coverage.

They will at some point likely be interviewed by a reporter. They'll be at a debate or forum where their views will be covered.

Most of the opinion columns I am sent by political candidates of all stripes are basic talking points. They offer very little new information or details on a policy position.

There will be exceptions as always. If a candidate is somehow directly criticized by name by our own editorial or those by others, they will get a chance to respond in a similar number of words.

If they have greater knowledge on a topic of particular importance to our readers, they will be given a chance to write a longer essay on that topic.

All in all, our job is to ask questions of our elected leaders and those running for office, not just let them repeat talking points again and again.

We keep our readers in mind when we pursue these questions. What would readers want to know about this candidate's position?

But, no, we don't republish press releases. That's not what "Free Press" refers to.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Ethical dilemma in man taping girls case

A Waseca County man was written up in a police report but not charged with a crime for his activities taping a girls basketball game at West last week.

Parents reported the man taping the game and focusing on one girl. The West athletic director confronted the man and police were later called in. The man says he tapes lots of girls basketball games.

He allowed officials to look at his tape. There were various scenes, some from the basketball game and others showed him masturbating and involved what appeared to be game crowd noises in the background. Our full story is here. The man seemed to be videotaping one girl.

Police looked at the tape and determined he did not commit a crime. The school has banned him from all schools and may notify other schools.

The police report contained his name, but The Free Press did not publish it because the main did not commit a crime and does not have a criminal record.

However, I wonder if our readers feel they have a need to know this man's name. (Could he live in their neighborhood?).

The ethical dilemma here is: The public's right to know vs. a man's right to not be falsely accused of a crime.

Connected to this whole issue is: What responsibility does a news organization have to reveal the name of individuals involved in this type of behavior if they are not charged with a crime?

Here's the full story:

MANKATO — A man with two video cameras who was questioned by a police officer during a West High School girls basketball game last week has been banned from all of Mankato’s schools.
Police were called to West at 8:45 p.m. Feb. 17 after two other men noticed the 58-year-old Waseca County man was filming a West player.
 When that player was on the court, the man — whose name is not being published because he hasn’t been charged with a crime and has no criminal record — would film her. When the player was on the bench, the man would put his camera down, according to Mankato officer Dale Stoltman’s report.
Another man who noticed what was going on and the father of the player confronted the man with the camera during the second half of the game. They told Stoltman the man with the camera became nervous and couldn’t explain why he was at the game or why he was recording one of the players.
West activities director Ken Essay had brought the man and his cameras to Essay’s office. The man was there when Stoltman arrived.
He told Stoltman he had bought a new camera and wanted to compare it to his old one. He also said he does a lot of recording of girls basketball games. Before Stoltman arrived, he told Essay he had been at a Lake Crystal game earlier that night. The man eventually said he travels often and regularly films girls sporting events.
Stoltman eventually left Essay’s office to talk to the two other men. While he was gone, the Waseca County man apparently gave Essay permission to watch a recording on one of the video cameras. Stoltman described the video as “rather disturbing.”
“The video was of (the man) sitting in an office-style chair masturbating,” Stoltman’s report said.
“He was also yelling out individual girl(s) names and appeared to be watching a video of something, possibly basketball as it sounded like cheering in the background. I only watched for a moment before I told Ken to shut it down.”
Essay told Stoltman there were numerous videos of high school girls basketball games on the camera, including videos from the game in Lake Crystal.
As Stoltman’s questioning continued, the man repeatedly said he didn’t see any problem with what he had recorded. He also said he travels all over the world, and was planning trips to China and Alaska.
“(The man) focused most of his ‘story telling’ on his travels and love for filming rather than why we (school and law enforcement) had concerns of his unusual behavior.”
Stoltman’s report said he and Essay encouraged the man to seek psychological help. The incident was reviewed by an investigator who determined the man hadn’t committed a crime.
The man allowed Essay to keep his cameras. Essay told the officer he planned to notify state school officials about the incident and was considering sending out an alert to other schools. The man was told he would be charged with trespassing if he was caught on Mankato school property again.
A notice that was sent out to parents of Mankato students Thursday told them about the incident. It also encouraged parents to report suspicious activity to school authorities.
“We are committed to keeping our students and school community safe,” the notice said. “We ask for your continued partnership in reporting suspicious behavior as was done in this case.”

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

How do you feel about political candidates who don't answer questions directly?

OK folks. Here's the hot topic I really would like people to address.

Maybe you've invested your time in watching a political debate or attending one. At some point, a candidate comes nowhere close to answering a question directly.

What do you think of that?

Case in point. Republican debate last night on CNN. Last question. CNN John King asks "What is the biggest misconception people have about you." He urged them to help people figure out who to vote for.

Ron Paul got to answer first. He answer it. He said, it's that people don't think he can win. And he elaborated.

Newt Gingrich was next. As far as I could tell, he didn't answer it. Not even close. He went to his talking points and a closing speech.

Romney, possibly taking Newt's lead and seeing King didn't call him on it, did the same thing. Not even close to the question. Went into talking points, highlighting his attributes compared to Obama.

King pressed him. The question was "misconceptions," he said. Romney replied, seemed surprised King held him to it, but not Gingrich.

Romney said something like: "You get to choose the questions and I get to choose the answers." King grinned, Cheshire cat like, and said "fair enough" and let Romney go on. More talking points.

Santorum basically answered the questions directly, reiterating Paul's point, that people don't think he can win.

So, should journalists or questioners allow officials to get away with this? Or is it OK. Are the journalist questions too leading, and if they are should, candidates be given a pass?

I have an "evil reporter" idea on this. Let the audience vote on if the candidate answered the question, and they have to keep talking until they get 50 percent who say they answered it. What do we think?

Intrigue in new political boundaries

There's a fair amount of intrigue in the redrawing of the Mankato area political boundaries via the redistricting maps that came out Tuesday.

The top ones:

Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, might either run in a primary against the less senior incumbent Republican Paul Torkelson because they're both in the same district, or might run for Republican Julie Rosen's Senate seat should she decide not to go against Republican Sen. Al DeKruif in a primary election.

St. Peter DFL Rep. Terry Morrow, if he wins, will end up representing about 4,000 people in West Mankato, the first time I can remember anyone from St. Peter or Nicollet County representing anyone from Mankato.

Morrow's new district will be interesting as well, pairing an upper income contingent of West Mankato with places like rural Le Sueur County and Kasota.

Morrow will no longer have to campaign in rural Sibley County, which from memory was probably the place that was toughest sledding for him.

Cornish told The Free Press he wasn't "ready to retire" so he'll be running somewhere, against someone.

I've talked to several political observers and many note that Rep. Cornish seems to be emerging as the "moderate" "wise old sage" of area Republicans. A few years ago, he would've been considered very conservative by the same folks.

But, as I've always said, the Mankato region is pretty "purple" -- a mix between red and blue. People vote for the person and they tend to be independent.

Cornish might note that he was related to Minnesota's last "independent" governor Jesse Ventura

This year's election also should be interesting to watch because even the incumbents have new voters who they've not had to convince in the past.

DFL Rep. Kathy Brynaert has always been elected mostly be people in Mankato city. But now she'll need to convince some folks in Eagle Lake to vote for her.

DFL Sen. Kathy Sheran also loses parts of Sibley County but picks up Kasota and Eagle Lake, both areas it seems would have a propensity to lean Democratic more than Sibley County.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Dow over 13,000: Today's good news? Maybe

The Dow Jones Industrial Average broke what many are calling a "psychological" barrier today surpassing the 13,000 mark.

Here's how the Associated Press story describes the event:

"It came and went in a flash each time, a number on a board for mere seconds, but its symbolic power couldn't be dismissed.

The Dow Jones industrial average, powered higher all year by optimism that the economic recovery is finally for real, crossed 13,000 on Tuesday for the first time since May 2008.

The last time the Dow was there, unemployment was 5.4 percent, and Lehman Brothers was a solvent investment bank. Financial crises happened in other countries, or the history books.

The milestone Tuesday came about two hours into the trading day. The Dow was above 13,000 for about 30 seconds, and for slightly longer at about noon and 1:30 p.m., but couldn't hold its gains. It finished up 15.82 points at 12,965.69.

Still, Wall Street took note of the marker.

It was just last summer that the Dow unburdened itself of 2,000 points in three terrifying weeks. Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States' credit rating, Washington was fighting over the federal borrowing limit, and the European debt crisis was raging.

A second recession in the United States was a real fear. But the economy grew faster every quarter last year, and gains in the job market have been impressive, including 243,000 jobs added in January alone.

"Essentially over the last couple of months you've taken the two biggest fears off the table, that Europe is going to melt down and that we're going to have another recession here," said Scott Brown, chief economist for Raymond James."

People smarter than me would say now we have to watch to see if it can close above 13,000 and then hold it.

That indicates market psychology. In the old days when I used to talk to more traders, they would say if the Dow can keep finishing higher or in a small range, but today's low trade level isn't broken, the trend can be postivie.

Traders will watch the opening tomorrow.

For most of us, it seems like a bit of relief as we watch our 401ks continue to climb back to 2008 levels.

But there's also been numerous stories that the Dow doesn't function on the "fundamentals" anymore....i.e.corporate earnings, productivity, employment, wages...but more these odd world events and even political events....of which we still have many.

My two cents: I feel we're on a positive swing, but as they say: "Don't bet on that."

Saturday, February 18, 2012

The minefield of letters to the editor: No quotas on ideas

There is perhaps no other more controversial, more democratic and more misunderstood feature of newspapers than the "Letters to the editor."

Ever since 16-year old Ben Franklin created the fictional Silence Dogood letters to his brother James at the New England Courant in 1722, letters to the editor have intrigued newspaper readers.

Of course, young Ben posed as the middle aged widow in "Silence Dogood" and penned a total of 14 letters on everything from love and marriage to the gossip of the day.

Of course, newspapers no longer publish fictional letters, and we have a system of verification where we must call the letter writer and verify the letter's authenticity.

Still, letters to the editor are one of the most read sections of the newspaper and online.

Maybe it's the notion that anyone can basically have their say in front of a substantial audience. In the case of The Free Press, that would be approximately 60,000 readers of the daily print edition and about 15,000 daily viewers of the www.mankatofreepress.com

The letters to the editor section is one of the few remaining vehicles where average folks can be heard, can criticize their own newspaper and have it published without fear or favor.

But, of course, what complicates this pure seeming exchange for the better of democracy is the "editor" part of "letters to the editor." That would be me.

You see, democracy and freedom of speech is one thing, but it doesn't give one a right as the Supreme Court has said to "yell fire in a crowded theater" (if of course, there indeed is no fire.).

So, the editor part of this equation must decide if the letters meet the standards in general, of accuracy, decency, fairness and civility.

Most people have the biggest problem with accuracy and civility. If we know a letter writer is stating as facts things that are provably untrue, the gong and buzzer go off, and the red X flashes.

But many people confuse a "fact" and an "opinion." One can state a matter of opinion like "Mark Dayton is a bad governor." It's not provably true or false really, and "bad" is a very subjective word. So, that passes as an opinion letter.

One cannot have an opinion however that "Mark Dayton embezzled from the taxpayers." This is not provably true. Embezzling is crime. It may be one's "unsubstantiated opinion" but it won't fly. If we were to print that as a letter to the editor, we could be sued for libel.

Yes, even if it's something we did not author, but nonetheless published. We are liable.

We also require that if people are stating facts that are not "common knowledge" we ask them to cite the source of these facts so readers can evaluate the credibility of the source.

Certainly, it's a judgment call about what's common knowledge. But if it's that common, why not cite the source?

And third, people wonder why the newspaper has "bias" in selecting letters to the editor. As far as I can tell, they come to this conclusions because there are more letters from one side of a political spectrum than the other.

They're always surprised to learn that we have no quotas. If 100 people write in favoring candidate A, and 50 write favoring candidate B, and their letters meet the standards, that's how many of each we print.

I've had people say: "Well, if you go more letters favoring one candidate, why don't you just not print those and make it even." Seriously, I say to myself. They would have me be a "quota editor" making sure there is an equal numbers of letters, and thereby denying rights to those for no other reason than they were in the majority.

This, by the way, would also have me violating my own stated policy. If you meet the requirements of accuracy, fairness, civility and the 275 word limit, you're in.

I believe in the free marketplace of ideas espoused by conservatives like Milton Freidman and progressives like Oliver Wendell Holmes.

If we get a lot of letters on one side, it's not up to us to be the "nanny state" and cut people off. The other side needs to buck up and write more letters.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

How do we decide what to cover?

There's no real secret or intense science to how newspapers or news organizations decide what to cover as a story.

It starts with judgment, and it's based on experience and actually a little bit of science.

The science comes from knowing something about our readers.

We had a readership survey done a couple of years ago that asked readers dozens of questions about what they would like to see covered but also more generally what their information needs are, and of course, what influences their decision to read and buy a newspaper or subscribe to news online.

But we also try to ask ourselves every day: How does this story impact our readers? Will this affect their finances, their health, their safety? Will this story affect how they think about their community or cause them to take some action? Even better.

And this is not a one or two person decision. Every reporter - and The Free Press has roughly a dozen including sports - is supposed to ask themselves this question when they tell their editors what story or stories they'll be covering.

Experience plays a role. Many of us have worked at The Free Press for several years, so we're aware of the kind of stories that get reader reaction, positive or negative. Anything with pets always strikes a chord.

On the demographic side, we know we have a lot of readers over 60 or 65. So clearly stories about things like Medicare and Social Security are likely to be read.

We know we have more baby boomer readers than 20 somethings, so covering music of the baby boom is likely to garner more interest than the latest garage band.

Businesses and other organizations often misunderstand a news organization's coverage decisions. They may have a new product or new service and wonder why that isn't always top of the page news. Well, it is when it's a product like cable TV, something that affects almost everyone.

It isn't such a big story, when say it's a new technology that helps farmers find yield per acre. While that may be somewhat interesting to farmers, it probably isn't as interesting to the general audience of a newspaper.

If you're wondering why your event didn't get covered, ask yourself: Who would be interested in this event? Who is the audience? News organizations avoid covering things that are special and narrow interests simply because they don't appeal to the broad audience we are trying to build.

News organizations have to focus on serving and building a fairly specific audience. That doesn't mean we pander to every weird interest that audience may have. At some point, news organizations can try to build interest  in a topic that the audience may know nothing about.

That's also part of our role. It may be something that will improve the community or right a wrong.

In the end, we have to focus on what will impact our readers and help them sort through the increasingly complex world as they travel down the information highway.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

News that's weird, sign of the times: From iTunes and Whitney to war with Iran

The New York Times reported that a few hours after the death of Whitney Houston, iTunes doubled the price of her Greatest Hits Album and another "Ultimate" album.

But there apparently wasn't enough time for people to get really indignant about it, and justifiably so.

Sony later said the price hike was a mistake, and they apologized for anyone who took offense.

Here's the story. 

Free Press editors choose the Iran threat story for page one for Wednesday as things seem to be getting more serious and worrisome about hostilities between Iran and Israel and the rest of the world.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was sort of quoted by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius earlier saying he thought Israel would attack Iran because of Iran's continuing nuclear threat.

The defense secretary backed off that statement when other journalists and other members of Congress questioned him, but when pressed, said "we talked" and "talked about a lot of things, frankly."

He said he was not using Ignatius to send a signal to the world.

Interesting. Here's the Politico story on it.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Obama budget: Deficit and spending issues: the good the bad

President Barack Obama released his budget today, here's my quick take.

Total 2013 budget is $3.8 trillion, a 0.2 percent increase in spending from 2012, but 10 percent higher than spending from Obama's first budget that went from Oct. 2009 to Oct. 2010, according to figures from the Office of Management and Budget.

Includes plan for cutting the deficit by $4 trillion in 10 years. Good. I believe that is near the highest number Republicans have ever proposed as well.

The rub will come in how Obama achieves that reduction. Letting Bush tax cuts expire for those families making over $250,000 a year along with some other tax increases on oil companies and such will bring in about $1.5 trillion, thereby making it about a third of the $4 trillion in deficit reduction.

That will be a contentious issue. Republicans continue to resist. Don't think this will ever pass the House.

Obama cuts Medicare and Medicaid spending, which in my mind does need to be cut, but Obama does it in cuts in payments to providers, doctors and drug companies.

That usually also runs into lots of resistance from both sides of the aisle. It would be a better plan, as Rep. Paul Ryan, Republican House Budget Committee Chair has proposed, to restructure Medicare and Medicaid to control costs overall. He is also working on this plan with Democrat Rep. from Washington state.

Obama doesn't appear to be engaging on this with them.

Some of those plans include giving chunks of money to teams of health care providers, and limiting total funding and basing future funding on patient outcomes.

Obama's plan seems to continue the highly inefficient fee for service plan that really needs to be scrapped and the sooner the better.

Obama's budget proposing a lot of new spending on community college-employer training programs for workers, and additional money to keep teachers and firefighters from being laid off by states.

But I wonder if there aren't already a lot of those college-employer programs and do they really need $8 billion more? Also, structurally, the employment of teachers and firefighters probably needs to be adjusted according to local government funding. In my view, feds should really be too involved in these local-local decisions.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Fact-checking Obama's first ad

By all accounts, it's going to be one doozy of an election year for political ads.

Dozens of "super pacs" are now in the game, with unlimited funds to buy political ads in relation to whatever candidate they like.

They can raise lots of money, unlimited, in fact.

Obama too is in this game, with lots of super pacs supporting him.

In his first ad, he makes claims that FactCheck.org say are mostly false and misleading at best.

Here's the link.

Our friends at FactCheck have lots of facts to check on Republican candidates for president as well.

Their site is a treasure trove of truth. But Politifact and the Washington Post have good fact checkers as well.

In Minnesota, the best fact checkers I've found are at Minnesota Public Radio. Here's the link to their fact check site.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Who's responsible for the federal debt: a surprising fact check

Factcheck.org has put together the most comprehensive and factual report I have seen on which president has piled on the national debt the most, or at the highest rate.

There are several e-mails circulating, most of them false, that say Obama has the highest debt, and others that claim Republican presidents piled on the debt.

Both are partially true and partially false.

What is false is the e-mail circulating that Obama has increased the national debt more than all presidents combined.

Also false, that Obama increased the national debt more than George W. Bush. That's not true just yet, but it soon will be.

Anyway, here's the link all should read to see who was responsible for how much debt going back to the Reagan presidency.

Factcheck.org's report.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Should gallows timber be part of historical display?

A Sunday Free Press story about Mankato's place as the site of the largest mass execution in U.S. history raised questions about just how far we're willing to go to "show and tell" a history that remains very ugly in the minds of many.

The timber that was used as part of the gallows where 38 Dakota were hanged is apparently tucked away in some storage area under supervision of the Blue Earth County Historical Society.

Historical society officials says it's not clear whether the timber is authentic and that its historical roots can not be easily determined. But a story in the 1927 Free Press indicated it had been given to the historical society by the University of Minnesota. They had apparently received it from longtime Mankato man who had salvaged it and used it in his hardware store for several years.

The controversy of course, as with much of history, is the message one will be sending by using such an artifact in a historical display.

One has to be careful not to "celebrate" the instruments of hanging, but at the same time, one cannot hide a history just because it is unpleasant.

So what would be accomplished by displaying the timber or, for that matter, the noose from one of the 38 that is in the possession of the Minnesota Historical Society? That organization also does not plan on displaying it.

I compare it to the telling of a compelling, yet unsettling newspaper story, of which we've done many over the years. A gruesome murder, an unspeakable act against children. These are never easy stories to do.

The reasoning might be useful in the case of the historical exhibits. Will the display of these artifacts draw such an emotional response that it will, in effect, mute the other more valuable lessons to be learned from history?

Or will the emotions the exhibit might evoke have a deeper impact on our thoughts about such violence going forward?

It's a tough call. It's a judgment call.

But in the end, I always ask: Do we gain by having less information or do we gain by having more? We'll never be able to control how people feel about facts and historical exhibits, we can only hope a larger number will gain from the information and, as we say with history, be destined not to repeat it.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Gallows humor, by Rep. Tony Cornish

Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, made a few waves this past week at the Legislature when he sent around an e-mail to Republicans and Democrats that attempted to lighten the atmosphere a bit.

Unfortunately, some people did not think it was funny.

Cornish, as chairman of the House Public Safety Committee, sent around an e-mail with the words "I have a crime bill at my desk," and included a picture of a historic gallows from his last trip to Tombstone, Ariz.

Some DFLers were insulted and they brought up the incident to Republican Speaker Kurt Zellers who apparently was unaware of it or hadn't seen it yet, though Cornish said he sent it to members of both parties.

Some left leaning blogs stopped short of excoriating him, but chided him nonetheless for his taste etc.

In fairness, I asked him to explain the incident a bit.

Here's his e-mail verbatim.


" Well, for years we've been sending pictures back and forth on each side, some very funny and giving each other a hard time. It's always been fun and in jest. We send studies, Internet jokes and the like in past years.

 "This year, I had gone to Tombstone Arizona and taken pictures of "Boot Hill" the famous cemetery and of a "gallows" in the Museum Courtyard that was a replica of the gallows used there in the 1800s. It is a museum display that is visited by thousands of people each year with an appropriate plaque.

"So, I was sitting there and had the Tombstone Pics on my desktop. I attached one to an email to all GOP and all GOP staff. Then I sent one to all DFL. All it said was, "I have a Crime Bill at my Desk" and the actual color pic of the museum gallows was attached.

"I received no negative comments whatsoever in person or on email. Then all of a sudden the minority leader jumps up and asks the speaker why I sent a picture of an empty gallows on the email. The speaker did not know what he was talking about and went on to the next question of the day. Since then, I have not received one complaint or comment from anyone.

"Personally, I think we should have taken a recess so that the minority leader could have run down to Walmart and bought himself a sense of humor. Everyone is always talking about taking it easy and getting along, so it seemed ridiculous for him to have this reaction to a simple joke."

Well, I can appreciate the explanation. Rep. Cornish might want to check out the crowds before he goes for any stand-up comedy gig.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

A Facebook talker: TV anchor and DWI

I'm torn about the amount of coverage we have given Annie Stensrud, the former? KEYC TV anchor who appeared drunk on the air, then was picked up for DWI.

We reported both facts, the fact that she was highlighted on David Letterman and that her case was progressing through the courts.

Our Facebook fans have a lot to say about it, and it's a worthwhile discussion.

I'm torn because I know we have a duty to report such things, and we reported on this more than the "normal DWI" because Annie was a "public figure."

Whether you agree she should be held up to more scrutiny because of her role in the media is debatable, or just because she was on Letterman, her case is more newsworthy.

Ultimately, we ask ourselves: Would the majority of our readers want to know this? This answer for me has been "Yes."

Having said that, our fans have many legitimate points about the case. We may be hurting her more by publicizing this unfortunate event and this may make her getting help more difficult and painful. Many of us personally hope she does get help and we support her in that way.

It sometimes comes down to "news is news." It isn't always easy not to hurt people by publishing stories of public interest and importance.

Here's are the 24 Facebook comments we got on the latest story. You can find our Facebook Page here.


  • Keith Michels she will most likely slide by like the mayor brady and officer baker, water under the bridge.
    Yesterday at 8:09am ·  ·  1

  • Katie Jo Lynette George But if it were you or me, we would get the worst...
    Yesterday at 8:19am ·  ·  4

  • Connie Darko I don't know about Baker, but Brady didn't "slide by." He got the same type of sentence as any other first-time DWI offender -- a fine, probation and community service, plus about $700 in DL reinstatement fees if he wants to drive again, plus the $130 chemical assessment fee, plus probably much higher insurance rates, plus attorney's fees, and on and on.

    Sentencing guidelines are at the link below, but note they don't kick in until the second offense -- and even repeat offenders are only subject to two days in jail the first time around. What more did you expect? Public lashing?

    http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/dwiover.pdf

    Yesterday at 8:23am ·  ·  1

  • Charlie Hurd Just an FYI, it was Brady's second DWI, but the first was long enough in the past that the judge didn't take it into consideration.
    Yesterday at 8:31am ·  ·  2

  • Connie Darko Okay, but even had that been a factor he was only looking at a couple days in jail and community service. Not much difference even if it had been considered. Some people seem to think he should have been crucified. I'm not excusing drunk driving for any person under any circumstance but simply suggesting that sentencing guidelines are there for a reason. I'm tired of the know-nothings who act like Brady got off easier than anyone else in that situation. I don't know if these people are ignorant of the law, if they think that some people should be treated more harshly simply because of who they are, or if they are so far out of touch with reality that they honestly believe that first-time (or even second-time) drunk drivers get sent to prison rather than being given a slap on the wrist and a fine (which is the reality when other factors such as injuries or death aren't involved).
    Yesterday at 8:45am · 

  • Duke Thompson Connie, of course, is correct.
    Yesterday at 8:47am ·  ·  1

  • Jeremiah Devlaeminck See cough meds my ass hows treatment treating ya annie LMAO
    Yesterday at 9:21am ·  ·  2

  • Missy Richards Too bad there aren't more people being supportive and trying to help this girl rather than poking fun at her. Alcoholism is a disease, and she needs all the help she can get.
    Yesterday at 9:56am · 

  • Nathaniel Reynolds ‎@ missy as someone who has been there I can tell you an alcoholic can't be helped until they want help. I have always said this whole thing would have played out differently if she and keyc had been honest from the very beginning instead of playing us all for fools. That being said I hope she. An admit her problem and get some help
    Yesterday at 10:13am ·  ·  4

  • Connie Darko Nathaniel, for what it's worth I think KEYC is an innocent victim in this. They believed what she told them at the time and apparently pulled her off the air (during the broadcast) as soon as they realized there was a problem. The station gets a black eye from this when they did nothing wrong except apparently believing Stensrud in the first place -- the benefit of the doubt I'd hope any one of us got from our respective employer.
    Yesterday at 10:30am · 

  • Lisa Nachreiner Fischer Really? Does this have to be reported like this. What about all the other dwi offenders...you dont see their faces plastered in the paper. This upsets me and I feel bad for her. thumbs down to the free press on this one.
    Yesterday at 10:50am ·  ·  3

  • Nathaniel Reynolds ‎@lisa if she doesnt want her picture on the front page for her DUI she shouldnt have become a tv personality. @Connie, I dont believe KEYC was innocent in it but my bigger issue was with the manager making a statement on air that it is basically our fault for for how we interpreted the situation. I know intoxicated when I see it and that was intoxicated. If they wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt then make a statement Monday saying they are sorry etc etc they will get to the bottom of it etc. Not wait nearly a week and then wag your finger at the public and craigslist. Of course that gets to the root of the problem KEYC believes everyone in the viewing area is 80 years old.
    Yesterday at 11:00am · 

  • Andy Thompson Justice has been served.
    Yesterday at 11:14am · 

  • Connie Darko Nathaniel, would you want your employer hashing out your private personnel issues in public?
    Yesterday at 12:19pm ·  ·  1

  • Katie Jo Lynette George Sadly Connie some employers do because they make it their business. Even if it isn't
    Yesterday at 1:03pm ·  ·  1

  • Nathaniel Reynolds It's not like she worked at wal Mary she is a public media figure who chose to do her job drunk. I don't think it's her employer that aired her issues
    Yesterday at 1:11pm · 

  • Connie Darko Wherever she made her mistake -- and don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not defending her! -- the bottom line as far as that goes is that it is a private matter between her and the station. It boggles my mind that you seem to think they should devote more on-air time to detailing how they're handling this private matter. That's vulture mentality that doesn't say much about your character, to be quite frank. The station is handling the bad situation they were given with professionalism.
    Yesterday at 1:30pm ·  ·  3

  • Nathaniel Reynolds ‎@ you have obviously misunderstood my point I don't care if they dedicate one more minute to her my point is when they chose to make a statement the very first time they should have been honest and forthcoming and none of this would have become an issue instead they told us we didn't see what we saw and we were all getting carried away on that darned interweb. Honesty will almost always make a problem go away if it is at the beginning and not the end just look at former pres Clinton or Rep Weiner. I just don't like being lied to. Be an adult and own up to your mistakes.
    23 hours ago ·  ·  1

  • Robert John Kolbe Mankato was founded by drunks we have a street named balcerzak.
    22 hours ago ·  ·  4

  • Connie Darko And what I'm saying is that they (the station, probably not Stensrud) is that they WERE being honest given the information they knew at the time. They took her at her word that it was a drug reaction and not just staggering drunkenness, and they made a statement based on that. Beyond that initial statement, made in good faith, they owe no further explanation to the public. It's a personnel matter. Stensrud probably lied to you, but don't blame the station for that. As I said, in my opinion they did the best they could with the information they had available. If they were misled, that was not KEYC's fault because they are neither medical professionals nor law enforcement officials trained with making a judgment as to whether she was drunk or adversely medicated -- nor is it our business either way.

    I can't find any place where KEYC actually says anything one way or another about the cause of the event. Stensrud blamed meds in this statement (her own, not the station's):

    http://www.keyc.tv/story/16223596/annie-stensrud-makes-first-statement

    KEYC's official (and only) statement said nothing about the cause:

    http://www.keyc.tv/story/16213718/keyc-statement-regarding-12411-newscast

    Do you still think KEYC lied to you?

    22 hours ago ·  ·  1

  • Tom Brown ‎"Stensrud was stopped on Highway 14 just before noon on Dec. 21 after police received an anonymous tip.." Sounds like McNally's at it again!!
    22 hours ago ·  ·  3

  • Connie Darko The only other comment I can find where KEYC makes any mention of cause is a paraphrase in this Free Press article:

    http://mankatofreepress.com/local/x91294119/KEYC-weekend-anchors-broadcast-captures-national-attention

    "Dan Ruiter, KEYC news director, said viewers are jumping to conclusions if they assume Stensrud was intoxicated. There is no proof of that, he said." I don't see any lies in that. In fact, it seems utterly factual. It doesn't say whether she was or wasn't drunk, simply that there's no proof either way. And that's a fact, Jack, and I don't think any of us wants a TV station reporting conjecture (such as whether she was or wasn't drunk on-air) as fact.

    22 hours ago · 

  • Mary Mabee Peterson KEYC did NOt say she was on medication, they said that MAY HAVE BEEN THE REASON. And until it was proven otherwise, I thought that was very admirable of them.
    20 hours ago · 

  • Keith Michels for those that forgot bakers one that crash his car while drunk and used his badge to cover it up as for brady he crashed in to 2 cars open bottle and got off easy!
    19 hours ago ·