Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services provides news content to many of Arizona's news outlets, including our sad small-town newspaper the Arizona Daily Star.
Fischer has been publishing what would appear to be nothing more than publisher PR press releases for Jan Brewer's new book "Scorpions for Breakfast" for several months now, including this most recent release on Tuesday, the date of release of her book. Brewer book tells different story of Arizona governor's meeting with Obama.
Color me skeptical of Fischer's ability to be objective in his reporting. He frequently inserts his own editorial opinion into what is purported to be objective factual reporting. Because his reporting is used by so many news outlets in Arizona, Fischer enjoys an outsized influence over public opinion through his reporting not enjoyed by any other political reporter in Arizona, and that is a problem.
Case in point is his reporting on Gov. Jan Brewer and her Star Chamber's violation of the Arizona Constitution and the rule of law in trampling on the will of the voters of this state in enacting an Independent Redistricting Commission by removing the independent chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
Who does Fischer turn to for quotes on the propriety of this action? Not a lawyer, or a retired judge, or — here's a novel idea, the authors of Prop. 106 for their "original intent" — but rather to the Tea-Publican senators/co-conspirators in this coup d'état and the Governor's press aid, Matthew Benson, a former Arizona Republic political reporter. Ousted Arizona redistricting panel chair turns to state's high court – East Valley Tribune:
Brewer, however, does not intend to back down. Press aide Matthew Benson said she was legally entitled to do what she did.
“The constitution specifically prescribes an oversight role for the governor and the state Senate when it comes to the redistricting process,’’ he said.
He pointed out that the voter-approved initiative that created the commission specifically allows the governor to remove any commission member guilty of gross misconduct.
“The governor has to make specific allegations to the IRC member,’’ he explained.
“They’re allowed to respond,’’ Benson said. “And if the governor finds gross misconduct or neglect of duty, then she can remove the member as long as she has a two-thirds vote of the state Senate.’’
He said the fact that Brewer got that margin proves there was sufficient evidence to remove Mathis, brushing aside the fact that Republicans control 21 of the 30 seats and all the votes came from party members.
“The letter of the law has been followed here,’’ Benson said.
* * *
“Nothing in the constitution says you can remove an IRC member, but first you have to get the OK from a judge,’’ he said.
These are the Tea-Publican talking points that they are all repeating ad nauseam, and media villagers dutifully report these taking points like mere stenographers in the right-wing echo chamber. If you tell a lie often enough, the people begin to believe it is true. This is the "big lie" technique of propaganda. Media villagers need to stop playing this role in disseminating propaganda.
To be fair, Fischer does couch the Tea-Publican talking point in counter-points quoted from Chair Colleen Mathis' attorney, former U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Paul Charlton:
Paul Charlton contends there was no legal basis for the claim by Gov. Jan Brewer that his client is guilty of gross misconduct. And he said that made the 21-6 vote late Tuesday by the state Senate to ratify the governor’s action illegal.
* * *
Charlton said the legal issue is even more basic than that: He said the commission believes that the Open Meeting Law does not apply to its work. At the very least, Charlton said it’s an open question, pointing out that the applicability of the law is currently before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Dean Fink.
Another charge is that the maps the commission crafted do not comply with constitutional requirements, such as keeping “communities of interest’’ in the same districts. Charlton said that’s not for Brewer to decide.
“Any issue regarding the drawing of the maps should be before the courts and not before the Legislature,’’ he said. “That’s why the public passed the law that puts this in the hands of the Independent Redistricting Commission.’
* * *
Charlton said the outcome of the legal dispute over whether the Republican governor and the Republican-controlled Legislature can fire his client is important for whomever is named the independent chair of the commission, whether now or a decade from now when a new group will be named.
“Just as they used to do in Eastern Europe, you take out one of the villagers, shoot him, and the rest of the villagers fall in line,’’ he said. “You can only imagine what kind of an “independent’’ chair the next one will be, knowing that it’s easy to gather 20 votes any time you draw a map that makes the governor and Republicans unhappy.’’
Now, you know what the typical response will be: "Of course he said that, he's her lawyer!" I would ask you to consider that a media villager, Matthew Benson, who gets paid to promote a media narrative for his boss, is expounding on the law, a subject on which he is not qualified to offer any opinion. If I want a legal opinion I sure as hell do not ask a media villager for it.
This is what is wrong with this point/counter-point, he-said/she-said "balanced" style of reporting. Paul Charlton, who is an exceptional attorney and whose legal opinion I would take to the bank is given equal status to Jan Brewer's media villager, Matthew Benson, who knows bupkis about the law. One is a legal scholar, the other is a media propagandist.
There is one political reporter in Arizona who asked the obvious questions of the right people: "What do the authors of Prop. 106 think of the actions of Governor Brewer and her Star Chamber? Is this what the authors originally intended when they drafted Prop. 106?" Kudos to Mary Jo Pitzl of the Arizona Republic for getting it right. Brewer, GOP blasted over Ariz. redistrict panel ouster:
Authors of the law that established the state's redistricting commission criticized Gov. Jan Brewer and GOP senators Wednesday, saying their reasons for ousting the chairwoman were inappropriate.
They said the "gross misconduct" clause Brewer and the Senate cited Tuesday when they removed Colleen Coyle Mathis as head of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission falls far short of the original intent of the law.
The Democratic, Republican and independent authors of Proposition 106, which established the panel in 2000, suggested the politicians had overreached their powers.
Dennis Michael Burke, the Democrat author, said they inserted the "gross misconduct" clause to give the governor and the Senate an "emergency out" if a redistricting commissioner did something "terribly egregious."
Burke defined "egregious" as taking a bribe, peddling influence, or being physically or mentally incapable of doing the job.
What he saw at the state Capitol Tuesday, he said, was not punishment for "gross misconduct" but a power play by the Republican governor and senators.
"We did not intend for it to be a backdoor way for sitting politicians to get back into the process," said Burke,
* * *
Turner said he and his co-authors failed to anticipate the current situation, where one party controls the Governor's Office and holds a two-thirds super-majority in the Senate.
That effectively takes away the check and balance of the removal procedure. A divided government, or a Senate without a single-party super majority, would be more hesitant to oust a commissioner, he said.
Eschinger, the independent member, said the governor overreached.
"Gross misconduct is more personal," she said, explaining she viewed it as relating to a commissioner's individual behavior, not to how the commission draws congressional and legislative maps.
She also questioned the move as the commission has produced only draft maps, not final products.
"One does not expect the draft maps to be perfect," Eschinger said. "That is why we have the 30-day comment period."
Mary Jo Pitzl also spoke to attorney and constitutional law professor, Paul Bender:
Paul Bender made the short list of independent candidates considered for the commission late last year but said he questions how any appointee can truly act independently, given Mathis' removal. He said the abrupt action to remove her and lack of detail about her alleged "gross misconduct" creates a chilling effect.
"The Arizona Supreme Court needs to stop this," said Bender, a constitutional law professor. "If not, you lose the independent commission."
I strongly urge the media villagers to follow Mary Jo Pitzl's example by speaking to the right people, knowledgeable people who actually know the law, and not just reporting the tweets and email messages you receive from media spokespersons and self-serving politicians advancing the Tea-Publican talking points.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.