It's usually not a good thing when a newspaperman writes himself into the story. Writing oneself into the story usually represents a failure to do real journalistic work. Sometimes, though, something happens to a journalist that he should write about; there is a legitimate story to be told. I believe this is such an occasion. The community deserves to know that an elected official believes he is entitled to minimal public opposition, and that he would resort to threats against people to guarantee it.
Last week I wrote a column sharply critical of the new ban on smoking in Madison bars. I wrote that column because my inner libertarian believed it to be a needless government intrusion into people's lives and legitimate choices. In that column I made a brief reference to four alders who voted for final passage of the ban: Brenda Konkel, District 2, Zach Brandon, District 7, Santiago Rosas, District 17, and Austin King, District 8. I have yet to hear any negative feedback from Brandon and Rosas, whose districts aren't really impacted by coverage in the student press, or Konkel, who apparently understands that criticism for one's public actions is par for the course of politics.
I wish I could say the same thing about Austin King. Thursday night, King called my editors, demanding my column be retracted. He could have written a letter to the editor explaining why he felt his vote was the right thing to do. However, he saw fit to call The Daily Cardinal office and demand someone take back their criticism of that vote.
Friday afternoon, I ran into King at the Cardinal-Herald softball game. I said hello. I knew he was sore at me, so I attempted to smooth things over by offering a toast to Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, whose gubernatorial campaign we had both worked on. He continued to berate me about my treatment of him and his vote.
If things had ended there, the interaction would have been within the sanctity of private conversations between journalists and politicians. However, later that night I ran into King at a house party. He took me aside and said a few things that were simply inexcusable. He complained to me that any public criticism of him would be used at the next election by his opponents. After I pointed out that he is incredibly secure in his seat, he acknowledged it but said that his time could be better spent campaigning for progressive causes than working on his own re-election. King believes it is in the public's best interest that he run without opposition, that his political efforts for progressive causes are the difference between freedom and tyranny.
King told me that it was in his power to call around in journalism circles and prevent me from getting a big internship he knows I've been angling for. I asked him if he was threatening me. He replied in the sly fashion that one is prone to use in such a situation that he was not threatening me but simply telling me what he could do if he wanted. In all seriousness, he couldn't even do that if he wanted to. One angry city councilman cannot ruin a journalist's professional prospects. One could be excused for thinking he was joking. However, there was no tone of humor in his voice at all. Make no mistake: Austin King made a specific threat against a journalist's career because he didn't like the write-up he got in the newspaper.
I hesitate to make myself the story. However, if a city councilman had behaved in this fashion toward another reporter and I were not involved, I would want the general public to know about it. For instance, in March 2000, then-Ald. Mike Staude was accused of threatening the management of a bar that he would use his position on the council to undermine their alcohol license if they didn't give his sister back her confiscated I.D. The ensuing scandal ended his political career. Likewise, the public deserves to know that an elected official would similarly threaten a journalist in order to pressure that journalist away from public criticism.
The democratic process relies on a free press that is able to examine public events. Thomas Jefferson said that given the choice between government without newspapers and newspapers but no government, he would choose the newspapers. It is important that the press not even appear to be intimidated by such aggressive acts, but rather expose them for all to see. In a place like Madison, with its proud progressive tradition, such dirty tricks must not be allowed to stand.
opinion@dailycardinal.com.
