There are many great reporters out there in the MSM. I like many of them on a personal basis. They are regular people who know the issues, the players and the game well. They are fair and report honestly. There are very few reporters I won't talk with.
There are a few who make it quite difficult to trust them.
I don't mind a reporter taking their own slant on an issue. Even if it is contrary to my own. Actually, some of my favorite interviews were done by people who probably see things completely opposite of the way I do. For some reasons those situations seem to happen most on liberal radio talk shows.
I am not sure why but that does not always hold true with liberal print media.
While I have had a few print reporters go so far as to say "I am going to do a report on this and let me say up front I don't agree with you." I respected the reporter being open and honest with their point of view. I went ahead with the interview and was fine with what was printed even though the piece pretty much hammered me.
Everyone is entitled to their own erroneous opinion. Even Reporters.
Sometimes though I do not feel like what I said or the issue reported on was not given an honest shake or what was printed was twisted in a way to give the complete opposite meaning of what I clearly intended. That is a quick way to burn a bridge with me.
This Jeff Woods article borders on twisting the intent of what I said to the point it looking the opposite of its intention.
The quote in question is talking about Susan Lynns idea of opting out of the federal health care spending bill...
But even two of Lynn’s most conservative House colleagues told The City Paper they were skeptical about whether states can choose which federal laws to follow and which to ignore.
“I don’t think we can do it, honestly,” said Rep. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville.
The quote makes it look like I don't support the idea. I do. It is even funnier because I have been talking with legal for the last few months to find a way to do the same thing she is trying to do. While those words might have come out of my mouth at some point in the interview I think they were couched with something like....
"I am sure you know I am a big believer in the 10th amendment. I think the states have always had a lot of power in opting in and out of things the federal government does. Usually it is all tied to money. We opt out and don't take the money or stay in and take the money. That is how it usually goes.
I think I saw a comment on one of the blogs talking about one state suing to opt out of speed limits. I think it was Montana. It was just a comment so I don't know if it was fact or not. I will have to do more research on the issue but I don't think a law would be the best way to do it. I don't think one general assembly can bind another so it would only be in effect a year or two. I do think her idea of a constitutional change would have the same effect she is looking for and would last longer. It would probably work better that way."
I kidded Jeff Woods when he called about getting a quote to do another puff piece on me. We all know Jeff is a lefty who does lefty pieces but it is getting to where some legislators don't trust him when they talk with him. He is playing with matches on the kindling bridge.