Friday: Leo and the C-J post very different stories on this at almost exactly the same time. Leo reports that Fischer is trying to “pressure” Green to get out of the race, whatever that means. The C-J posts a story that correctly reports that the two campaigns have been in negotiations for several days, and that Green is demanding that Fischer either adopt his platform related to transit and development, or allow him to name the head of a new environmental department to get him out of the race and earn his endorsement. If one of those conditions is met, the C-J accurately reported on-line, Green would make an exit from the race and endorse the Democrat.

There is a significant and sustentative difference in those two stories, particularly if you believe that Fischer has offered a job to Green in exchange for getting him off the ballot.

Hours later, Green announces he has dropped out and endorsed Fischer in exchange for the promise of “significant input” in the creation of that environmental office. The C-J runs a top of the Front Page story on Saturday, reporting all of that, and Heiner calling the deal “horse trading” and “inappropriate.” The story also reported that Green really had no idea what “significant input” meant when he agreed to it.

Monday: Heiner has a press conference to (again) call the deal improper and say Fischer should release all e-mails between his office and Green. We run a story at the top of the Metro Page saying that, and reporting that Fischer refused to give us the e-mails despite running a campaign with transparent government as a major theme.

Tuesday morning: I hear Heiner is about to air an attack ad on this situation. We get the ad and review it. There’s nothing in the ad that hasn’t already been reported on our news pages, so we hold off on writing about it.

Tuesday afternoon: A source tells me there are Green e-mails to his staff on this situation, and that at least some of them have been given to Leo, which is working on a story. My source doesn’t know the content of the e-mails. I correctly suspect Tyler Hess as Leo’s source, and call him. Voice mail. I leave a message saying I would like to see the e-mails, would he consider giving them to me?

Tuesday evening: Fischer campaign tells us that they will release the e-mails in response to Heiner’s attack ad, and says Heiner should stop airing the commercial. We make the decision to do a story, mainly because Heiner called for a public release of the e-mails on Monday, and now we have access to them. The e-mails say what I expected: Green asked for the things we know he asked for; Fischer offered what we know he offered. I redouble my effort with Hess. Voice mail again. I tell him I’m now working on a story for the next day, I think the internal e-mails would be a significant aspect to that, and I really would like to see them. “Please call me back.”

Tuesday deadline: No return call from Hess. We report on the Metro page what we can verify, which is the content of the e-mails between Fischer’s campaign and Green.

Wednesday: Leo’s story comes out. It hangs its’ hat on two major things: An anonymous source saying the deal is “illegal” and one line from the several emails they received, in which Green tells his staff that Fischer raised the possibility of him having a “role” in metro gvt. Two thoughts on that: First, we would not have used the anonymous source, even if we had it. We won’t allow “anonymous” to accuse anyone of a crime, whether their name is Fischer, Heiner or Green. Second: would we have reported the internal e-mail if we had it. Yes, certainly. But we didn’t have it.

Leo appears to have a lot invested in that sentence from Green meaning Fischer offered him a job. But the reality is that it stops far short of that. It could mean a job offer, or it could mean exactly what actually took place, Fischer offering Green “input” into the creation of the environmental office. I don’t know which is true, but certainly both are plausible.

Later Wednesday: Leo’s “story” runs, saying the C-J committed the “sin of omission,” that we either knew or should have known about Green’s internal e-mails and raises the possibility without anything to back it up that the political stance of the newspaper may have played a role in us not reporting on the internal Green e-mails.

Later later Wednesday: Hess sends an e-mail to me and Leo reporters Bailey and Meador, saying I did call him in search of the e-mails and that he didn’t return the calls. I respond to all saying thanks, but Leo isn’t interested in facts like that. Bailey then e-mails me saying there are “important questions” about why the C-J did not have or report on the Green e-mails to his staff. Will I talk to him?

A couple things on this. First, isn’t it interesting that both Meador and Bailey now know, directly from their own source, that I did try to get the documents, but have not added that information to their “story” or in any way communicated that to their readers. Since the central issue is the C-J’s “sin of omission” I would think that is an important piece of information. I wonder why they don’t think so.

I also find it interesting that Leo had “important questions” about the C-J’s reporting on this story, yet never raised them to me or Hess until after they formed their opinion, slapped together their “story” without a molecule of reporting, threw it up on the internet and circulated it on Facebook and Twitter.

That doesn’t seem very fair to me, nor does it reflect any sort of journalism that is recognizable by me. Maybe that’s why they call it a blog.

One other sidebar. Hess called me Wednesday and said he didn’t return my calls because he was in North Carolina with poor cell phone coverage, but also because he gave the e-mails to Leo and didn’t want to share them with the competition. I understand and respect that decision. But for Leo to then write the story they did and then to ignore information from Hess that the C-J tried its level best to get the documents seems irresponsible and disingenuous, at best. Regardless, I congratulate them on their scoop.

I guess that’s about it. If you’re still reading, thanks for sticking with me. I appreciate your time very much.

Dan Klepal