Media Caught Up in Webb
I'm glad the tough Chicago press is so mesmerized by Dan Webb, the "star" defense lawyer representing former Gov. George Ryan, because it exposes just how easy it is to buffalo reporters and their editors.
We'll see if the Ryan jurors are equally as susceptible to rhetorical skills perhaps only matched in America by Kevin Trudeau, or whether they will prefer to analyze the evidence.
The media raves for Webb's "performance" had been building all week. Now I'm eagerly awaiting the DVD with commentary from the jury consultants.
The Chicago Tribune, thinking it was clever and imaginative, even assigned theater critic Chris Jones to write a review for today's front page.
Not that that would trivialize one of the most important cases in Illinois history when it comes to striking at the heart of the state's political culture of sleaze. Not to mention those six kids who died in that van crash. What were their names again?
But why send a legal analyst to do a theater critic's job? It's not as if a skeptical parsing of Webb's closing arguments would be helpful to readers.
No, let's talk a little bit more instead about how impressed we are by Webb's fake aw-shucks demeanor.
Because it is fake. We all know that, right?
I'm no legal analyst, but I do have a few questions.
For example, I'm confused about Webb's central argument from even before the trial started that no witness would testify that Ryan personally benefitted from any of the actions described by the prosecution.
But didn't the prosecution's case describe one big politically-beneficient machine designed to propel Ryan through a series of elected offices, culminating with the governorship?
I can't figure out why Ryan's bulging campaign fund, of which our fair ex-governor hoped to slice a mil or so out of to retire on, doesn't qualify.
Or, just to pick one of the more venal examples from the endless ones available, how the money allegedly swindled from Phil Gramm's presidential campaign that found its way into the pockets of Ryan's daughters wasn't somehow beneficial to him.
I thought the entire trial was about the benefits Ryan accrued, even if he did favors for his friends to get them.
See what I mean?
Who Ryan Is: Does anyone really believe that Ryan didn't understand that the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of a juror were under seal? Or do we believe that this former governor, two-term lieutenant governor, two-term secretary of state, two-term state House Minority Leader, one-term state Speaker of the House, and former member of the rough-and-tumble Kankakee County Board known as a master of back-room politics really didn't understand what "sealed" meant?
Or am I forgetting that Ryan is just a pharmacist, and pharmacists couldn't be expected to know what "sealed" means?
Who Lura Lynn Is: And does anyone really believe that Lura Lynn believes her husband is being prosecuted because he emptied out Death Row?
Funny how Ryan's Death Row commutations are both the reason for his prosecution and a reason why he should be acquitted. I'd say both sides are using the Death Row thing for political gain in this trial, but it's just one side tying to have it both ways.
Covering Their First Trial: I'm glad we have experienced reporters who wouldn't fall for Webb's PR campaign about how his client was raring to take the stand.
Unasked Question: From the second he took Ryan on as his client, Webb has argued that the government's case was flimsy at best. Does that mean, Mr. Webb, that if you were still the U.S. Attorney you would not have brought this case?
- cross-posted on beachwoodreporter.com
5 comments:
I think they're just covering their bets. If Ryan is acquitted, they can say I told you so. If Ryan is convicted, they can cheer with everybody else and just forget what they wrote earlier. If it's a mixed verdict, they can pull snippets showing how they were right that Webb is a genius but that the facts just overcame his skills. It's all about managing expectations.
Check today's papers genius, now they're all about how the prosecutor punched holes in Webb's closing arguement.
Ironically, the coming of March marks the 13th anniversary of the police raid on the SOS offices in Libertyville --- the first sign of corruption in the Ryan Administration. Many police units were involved. Media too.
All sides ought to hang their heads for letting this get past the '94 reelect or 1996 presidential. As far as the theater critics, remember it was the Tribune that sent out rookie writers to tell Illinois how hard is was to get a CDL about two weeks before the '98 general and some swift U.S. Atty who declared George not a target.
What are you, a young, thin Tom Roeser? Geez, get over yourself.
I posted this reply to Rhodes' blog. I copy it here:
Steve:
We're all still waiting with baited breath your answer to Eric Zorn's question: What days were you in court last week, and were you there for the entire day every day?
While we wait for your answer, let me (the reporter covering the trial for the Daily Herald) make my case for why you are wrong about the coverage we in the press have given it.
You are confusing writing a column in which opinions and slant are not only permissible but encouraged. Yes, taken in a vacuum, the three biggest Chicago area newspapers had stories in their Wednesday, March 8 editions favorable to George Ryan. You know why? Because Tuesday, March 7, the three biggest Chicago area newspapers had stories in which he came off little better than a three-card Monty swindler on the el. And why was that? Because the stories were recounting the arguments made Monday (Prosecutors' case) and Tuesday (Webb's case).
Wait, wait -- I can hear you already, ready to spout something like "Objectivity does not require reporter to be actively naive." I agree. That's why for the last six months, the stories have looked pretty bad for George Ryan. And I would submit to you that the arguments Webb made Tuesday were lucid. Were we just supposed to ignore Webb's biggest point that day, which was that on days and times Ryan was supposedly accepting cash from Ron Swanson, Ryan's calendar showed him attending other functions or, in one case, out of the country? I'm sorry, but no matter how much you may want George Ryan to go to prison, that is a relevant fact and we would have been remiss not to report it. Dan Webb is a good defense attorney who knew that jurors had just sat through a day and a half of listening to prosecutors vilify his client, and that he had little time left that day to change their minds so that they would at least hear him out. So in the little time he had left on Tuesday, he put forth his best foot, which was a gotcha, and it had merit and we reported on it. Had the three newspapers done stories saying the same thing we said the day before, we would have been guilty of not giving Ryan objective coverage. Even so, that day was not just a Ryan love fest. The following was in the Daily Herald's Web and print editions. Do you honestly think these snippets are indicative of uncritical reporting?
--But prosecutors contend that they don’t have to show Ryan took cash payoffs - just that he took gifts and benefits for himself and family. Of that, they have direct evidence, they said. If jurors believe Ryan took kickbacks, prosecutor Joel Levin said Monday, that would be “icing on the cake: you don’t need it, but it’s there.”
--But so far, he has not addressed why Ryan created a false paper trail to cover up free vacations he took to Jamaica every year for nine years at businessman Harry Klein’s resort. Ryan’s former chief of staff, Scott Fawell, and Klein have testified that Ryan would give Klein a $1,000 check every year and then get $1,000 back in cash. Ryan later told investigators he paid his own lodging on those trips. Ryan later gave Klein a lease with the state and made administrative decisions that benefited Klein’s currency exchanges.
It was the next day, Wednesday, when Webb got down to details less favorable to Ryan, that he started to show his feet of clay. And it was the Thursday papers that you were critiquing. And I would submit to you that the Daily Herald and Sun-Times Thursday papers reflected Webb's stumbles. Honestly, can you really contend that these points (published Thursday, the same day you were calling us Webb apologists) were not a critical analysis of Webb's performance?:
--On Wednesday, Webb tackled thornier issues and had to rely on less sure-footed explanations, such as witnesses were “lying on the edges,” or government investigators “didn’t ask him (Ryan) that question,” or “What difference does it make?” The Achilles heel was why Ryan, every year for nine years, gave businessman Harry Klein a $1,000 check in exchange for $1,000 cash when he stayed at Klein’s resort in Jamaica. Ryan’s chief of staff Scott Fawell has testified Ryan did it to have a sham paper trail to falsely show reporters he had paid for the lodging.
--“Klein testified that George Ryan had nothing to do with this screwy procedure,” Webb added. In fact, Klein’s testimony vacillated depending on who was asking him. One time, when he was cross-examined by prosecutors and they asked whose idea the check was, Klein responded “his,” meaning Ryan. Webb did not address those Klein responses or Fawell’s testimony on the checks Wednesday. Klein would go on to lease a building he owned to Ryan’s secretary of state office. --“You know what the evidence established? They didn’t ask him that question (about who paid for the lodging),” Webb continued. Left unspoken by Webb was the fact that Ryan and his attorneys voluntarily turned over the checks in question to investigators. Collins likely will ask why, if the question about lodging never was asked, were the checks presented?
--But on some points, Webb left out key details. For instance, when the secretary of state leased an office that friend and lobbyist Ron Swanson got a commission on, Webb said Ryan simply asked his people to see if the office was suitable. “It (the lease) didn’t even come back to George Ryan,” he said. In fact, Fawell testified that after looking at the proposal and finding it too expensive, he brought it back to Ryan and Ryan told him again to try and make it work. Fawell said they then fudged the square-footage figures in order to make it appear more affordable. And in addressing a job Ryan helped Swanson get as a lobbyist for the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, Webb said Ryan simply phoned Fawell, then the head of the agency, to ask if he had a job for Swanson. “What we do know is that George Ryan tried to help a friend,” Webb said. “There’s nothing else. Absolutely nothing.” Not mentioned by Webb was that Fawell testified when Ryan called, Fawell told him the agency didn’t need any lobbyists. An agitated Ryan called back a few weeks later when Swanson had not been hired and wanted to know what was going on, Fawell testified. Fawell then found a way to hide the hire as a subcontract so that the agency board didn’t have to approve it, he testified.
Believe me, Steve, I agree with the general premise that reporters often let spokesmen/lawyers/politicians get away with statements that are not in line with the facts. Last week was not one of those cases. And it hasn't been the case throughout Ryan's license-for-bribes debacle. It was the media that kicked prosecutors into addressing this issue in the first place, not the other way around. And just to ensure that we don't let you get away with ignoring the facts, let me point out these thoughts and citations:
Rhodes on 3/9/06 writes: "Covering Their First Trial: I'm glad we have experienced reporters who wouldn't fall for Webb's PR campaign about how his client was raring to take the stand." The story links to a Nov. 18, 2005 Daily Herald story recounting how Webb vowed on 11/17/05 his client would take the stand. Come on Steve. Nov. 18? Had to go far with the way-back machine for that one, didn't you? Were we not supposed to report an in-court statement that was the first indication of whether Ryan would or would not testify? Since that time the Daily Herald has run the following:
--“In every criminal case, the jury is always thinking, ‘If I were innocent, I’d want to get there on the stand and say so.’ So juries are always wanting to hear from a defendant, and it definitely is a bit of a gamble not to have them hear from him,” said Richard Kling, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law and a practicing defense attorney. Feb. 23, 2006
--"George Ryan's attorneys kept the guessing game going Tuesday, refusing to say if the former governor will take the stand, possibly as early as today." Feb. 22, 2006
--"As former Gov. George Ryan’s trial draws to a close, one of the biggest questions remains unanswered: Will he testify?" Feb. 19, 2006
Rhodes on 3/9/06 wrote "And does anyone really believe that Lura Lynn believes her husband is being prosecuted because he emptied out Death Row?" It linked to a Feb. 23, 2006 story in the Daily Herald story in which Lura Lynn espoused that view. Steve, I don't know if Lura Lynn believes it or not. As an objective reporter, I'm not paid to mind-read, I'm paid to report facts. And this fact was reported way in the back pages of the Daily Herald while the more relevant fact, that Ryan had announced he wouldn't testify, was reported on page 1 that day. Further, even within this story, the proper skepticism on her statements, and its incongruity with the facts were reported, a fact you choose to overlook:
--“I think the reason that he’s here is because (of) his stand on the death penalty,” Lura Lynn said Wednesday night in an interview in her husband’s lawyers’ offices. Asked if she still held to that belief in light of the fact that prosecutors and FBI agents had begun investigating her husband years before his controversial death penalty decision in 2003, Lura Lynn Ryan said she did.
Mrs. Ryan made an outrageous statement. That's news. It's not out of line to report that. (That non-columnist thing about giving both sides their due, remember?) As long as the proper context was put to it, it's not taking sides.
On 3/9/06, Rhodes wrote: "Does anyone really believe that Ryan didn't understand that the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of a juror were under seal?" With a link to March 2, 2006 Daily Herald article headlined "Ryan leaked sealed info, transcript says." You call that headline apologetic for Ryan? Further, the story went on to note that when Webb was uttering that line, the judge, "apparently incredulous" interrupted Webb to grill him on that idea. That doesn't get across the idea that people didn't believe Webb's explanation?
On 3/9/06, Rhodes wrote "I'm confused about Webb's central argument from even before the trial started that no witness would testify that Ryan personally benefited from any of the actions described by the prosecution."
No, he didn't. He argued that not one single witness would say they saw or heard about Ryan taking a cash bribe to influence government business. None did.
In short, you wrote a column about Thursday newspapers that was based on Wednesday newspapers (the day Webb started his arguments) and was wrong even when looking at Wednesday's papers. You used that day (coverage of Webb's turn) and cherry-picked stuff from days gone by to reinforce your proposal. I guess columnists have to fill the Web page every day. But again, the columnist enjoys a luxury news reporters don't, which is to have an opinion and then skew the facts to fit it. Reporters, on the other hand, have to cover what happened, regardless of whether they agree with it or not, and to put those events in proper context with the facts. I submit that was done on the first day Webb argued closings, the second day Web argued closings, and throughout the nearly six months of this trial.
Rob Olmstead
Post a Comment