News-Miner Editorial
Silver linings
Clark's plea, apology a sign of change
Published Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!EDITORIAL
There is no end to the negativity that is unfortunately becoming almost typical of Alaskans’ conversations about our state’s leaders. With former Gov. Frank Murkowski’s chief of staff Jim Clark pleading guilty Tuesday to conspiracy charges, there is plenty more disappointment to go around.
It is increasingly clear that the dust raised by the attempted government meddling of oil field services giant VECO and its boss, Bill Allen, is far from settled.
Perhaps, just as an attempt to gasp a little fresh air above the dust cloud, an exercise in finding some silver linings is a worthy exercise:
• Clark ’fesses up — Jim Clark’s wrongs can’t be put right, but his page of apology was fittingly contrite and was the right move. “Not only were my violations of Alaska’s campaign finance laws wrong and unethical, they were stupid.” Yep, that pretty well sums it up.
• Clark cooperates — The ongoing FBI investigation will make use of Jim Clark’s knowledge. As a central figure in gas line negotiations and politics of the past, few were in as informed a position as Clark. Moving forward, he is in a position to help cleanse the state of the remnants of corruption. It’s a necessary step toward restoring public confidence.
• Justice prevails — A round of applause, please, for the diligent agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a job well done. As much as we hate to see the results of these investigations, we all must be thankful they are apparently extremely effective and on target.
• Palin 90 / VECO 0 — Jim Clark said he grabbed VECO money to give the Murkowski primary campaign a quick leg up, unfairly and illegally, against Republican primary candidates Sarah Palin and John Binkley. But the result of the primary was a sweeping victory for Palin, who still enjoys an incredible approval rating. Above all, we can be thankful Murkowski did not win re-election. Had Clark’s dealings been uncovered within the framework of a sitting administration, it would have been disastrous indeed.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Give me a break. You're commending this guy because he's pleading for his life in the face of the FBI?? There's 'no end to the negativity' that's needed to properly criticize this regular column and its lack of intelligible arguments...
Jim Clark was deeply involved in the push to give away billions of dollars in the PPT- a move that got all sorts of endorsement from the News-Miner.
We lost billions of dollars before Sarah Palin fixed that disaster with a revised system of oil sales taxation.
How about a little introspection on the part of the News-Miner and how the hundreds of thousands of dollars the News-Miner receives from Big Oil- particularly Conoco- has led the E board to promote corporate interest over Alaska's interest?
Some of those 'conspiracy theories' were well backed by factual evidence that many chose to ignore. Murkowski's letter to Sen. Domenici (now under investigation for corruption himself) was clearly an effort to give a nod to violating Alaska's right to fair compensation at maximum benefit to the citizens, and without even formally consulting the legislature..
Jim Clark got caught with his hand in the till, plain and simple, and it was glowing red when he pulled it out under duress.
Did you expect him to turn to the Judge, and the People, and say "Screw you, your honor. Prove each and every point in my charges, as well as those that were investigated, but which they HAVEN'T charged me with yet, and let me know when it's over."??
Nope. He did what every criminal in a suit does, and acted the role of Lord Fontleroy, presenting as a contrite school boy, being scolded for getting caught taking the teacher's apple.
If he -really- believed what he said, he wouldn't have done it in the first place.
Personally, I wouldn't buy a used car from him or his cohorts.
I will miss the opportunity to read citizens comments on stories. It's nice to read most of them. Unfortunately some just can't stop from ruining for others. News-Miner, I commend your bravery for doing it in the first place. Perhaps if you are forced to disable comments, a forum could be put in it's stead. There are many many examples of self-moderating forums and evidently, the community is highly open to discussion.
Isn't it nice that Clark, like so many others in positions of authority, trust and leadership, apologize once they are caught? The only silver lining I'll acknowledge is when one of these men stands up BEFORE they are forced to do so, admit their wrongdoing and voluntarily help to clean up the messes they made.
5050 wrote:
"How about a little introspection on the part of the News-Miner and how the hundreds of thousands of dollars the News-Miner receives from Big Oil- particularly Conoco- has led the E board to promote corporate interest over Alaska's interest?"
As challenged as the intelligence of virtually every argument is here, that's still the real story that needs to be addressed....
Thanks for reminding us of the need for corporate news decoding...
Please reveal more about these contributions in this anonymous editorial forum so more understand more than TV presents fictional news programs...
Oh, this is too much fun, Decoder.
A full page color ad in the News-Miner can run in the $4,000 to $5,000 dollar range.
Uncanny, isn't it, that when the News-Miner is reaping a financial windfall for those full page ads, it also runs those pro Big Oil editorials?
Does Conoco really need to spend all that money to tell us how wonderful it is? Or are those ads merely quid pro quo for editorial support?
Hmmm, the News-Miner is not here to be the "Voice of the Interior", as they proclaim- but to make money. For enough money, they may be just a little to happy to be the voice of Big Oil.
Again, Nothing wrong with the News-Miner making money. That is their number one objective. Its when they pretend to be the voice of regular Alaskans that it gets hard to tolerate.
Other Alaska newspapers are trying to make amends for their years of disservice in failing to investigate the corruption Big Oil has brought to Alaska.
Some of the best, recent, editorials have come from the Anchorage Daily News. It seems they are trying to make amends for all those years they got big bucks from VECO...
Hey there, c_d_n, I'd be happy to invite you to attend a meeting of the editorial board if I knew your name. You also are welcome to stop by any time to discuss these issues with me personally. Just call and make an appointment. My door is always open.
By the way, here, folks, there is no applause whatsoever for Jim Clark in this editorial. 'His wrongs can't be put right.' We do encourage applause for the FBI, however. We were just looking for something positive and forward-looking to say rather than piling on with the predictable agreement with everyone's obvious disgust at this situation.
Introspectively, the News-Miner does not allow advertising dollars to figure into its editorial positions. Our positions are not unique among Alaskans with the state's best interest at heart, nor are they always consistent with what oil companies would probably prefer. There is broad debate over how best to proceed with the gas line and on other natural resource issues. That debate is healthy and important for our state. The question is whether this forum can exist as something that is a valuable part of that debate or a detriment to that debate.
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
Sorry. Please stick to subject at hand and address it in terms consistent with the user agreement. We're way off-topic here.
Kelly B.,
While there have been many entries in the comments features of various articles that have devolved into childish and really harsh name-calling, and while some of those have left me feeling out of sorts, personally, I think that there will always be a positive aspect and need to the blogs/comments section.
Whether it be a matter of revealing misunderstandings or misinformation, data, histories that some might not be aware of, etc., it is more valuable than not.
I've written some pretty strong opinions, both in the form of lte's and guest opinions over the past bunch-o-years, and have never been refused being published by Rod's discerning eye. I'll admit that I've had less interaction with yourself.
Have I sometimes been skeptical about the quality of 'investigative reporting,' or the possible influence of the personal political stance of the News Miner's owners? I'd be lying if I denied that.
But the blogs and comments serve many purposes, often different for each of those reading them. Even when ugly or truly morbid, they inevitably serve a just purpose, and should be continued.
If worse comes to worse, and some of the more coarse name-calling, etc., ensues, (which, in my opinion, isn't so much an issue with this particular article, but has been with some others), I can always eat another ant-acid tablet, and put the grumbling in my belly better to ease.
c_n_d - not threatened, but told "suggest you ease up on the comments a bit -- you're crossing the line as far as baiting other readers."
Which, I took as a true statement... I was baiting at the time.
I think the news-miner is providing an interesting (possibly valuable?) forum here. I too, would hate to see it go away because individuals (like you) are directly attacking the news-miner staff.
What sort of "threat" did you receive?
Kelly - you stated "The question is whether this forum can exist as something that is a valuable part of that debate or a detriment to that debate."
In what circumstances could this forum be a detriment? I don't get that. This is somewhere that all can state their opinions. Why would that be a detriment?
Let me say this (and hopefully it won't be removed like my previous comment that was completely APPROPRIATE and RESPECTFUL):
My views only help out your paper a great deal (regardless of what level of journalism you think you're at...).
What was just removed also included: no thanks, I don't want to take you up on your invitation to your editorial roundtable, but I am looking for a job and would love a daily column with MY NAME ON IT.
I can't believe you removed my comment after insulting me for remaining anonymous.
Kelly, The folks in your newsroom are decent, hardworking people. No question about that.
You write that the E board is not influenced by advertising dollars. The NM editorials are so often in favor with the positions of the major oil companies- and your major advertisers, that it is hard to not draw the inference that money does influence NM editorials.
There have been numerous NM editorials that have been supportive of PPT, generally, and critical of the new governor and her reforms- particularly when she worked to revise the oil tax structure with ACES.
I find it incredible that the NM editorials can be so far out of the mainstream view that most Alaskans- and even this legislature- hold when it comes to oil taxes. Why is that?
How much veto power does the publisher hold when the E board meets? Does she get the same vote as all other members of the E board? How often, when oil taxes were discussed, did the E board vote unanimously to berate Governor Palin for her ACES plan?
I know of one instance where Governor Palin met with your board- after the AGIA signing, where she brought her top people with her as a favor to you. She wanted your board to be able to ask her top people questions, and your editorials only criticized her for that.
It still seems like a very low blow.
Maybe if, with the passage of time, the positions taken in your editorials are proven demonstrably wrong- and you apologized to your readers- that would mend some fences.
We all make mistakes.
This editorial was a reaction to Jim Clark's guilty plea and an invitation to share reactions and perhaps attempt to look at the bright side as Alaska tries to clean house.
The comments here have become an example of how these strings can swing way off topic. C_n_d invites that diversion nearly daily with his challenge about anonymous editorials.
Attacking the messenger is off-topic and it distracts from the purpose of the forum. Challenge our assertions. Put up some facts and say we're plain wrong. Sure, let's have it out. But baseless aspersions serve no good purpose.
This is my last posting in this string.
I have a blog on this site where I can address questions about the newspaper and its policies and coverage and whether we will continue the comments forum. We can debate these topics there until our fingers bleed. But as for editorials, lets stick to the topic at hand.
This is my last comment on your paper. I stopped criticizing the anonymous nature of your editorial a long time ago (please search my comments in the upper right corner). I hope all of my fellow readers and Alaskans continue to challenge and question all media. Alaska is the last great place and deserves the utmost respect and protection. Please continue to question.
That CND's post was removed proved his point. This makes it impossible to believe that the money from Big Oil doesn't influence and bias the News Miner.
I'm very disappointed in the interference Kelly is running here.
Editorials without a name attached smacks of bad jorunalism. Big Oil has run this state long enough; the amount of corruption charges proves that point. This forum can only exist if it is a proponent of Free Speech. Every post I've seen shows that Decoder was a champion of that.
We don't need another corporate mouthpiece. Either stand by your commitment, News Miner, to being non-biased and free. Or own up to the fact that you, no longer speak for the people of Fairbanks unless they own oil stock.
Why is Kelly even editing the posts here? I've followed the Roe VS Wade posts extensively and:
Julie Stricker
Online Content Director
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
Is the online content directer who weighed in there when the comments started veering too far off course. Open discussion may, at times call for a very broad forum. Broader than the News Miner (and Ms Kelly) are willing to tolerate?
Freedom of speech is absolutely vital to the well-being of our country. However, in order for any of us to post here, we had to agree to the DNM user agreement. If someone violates this, and thus has their comment removed, it is not a blatant violation of freedom of speech, because like any contract, we have agreed to it. Don't violate the agreement, and you don't have your comment removed. Seems pretty simple to me. The newsminer has printed everything I have ever written (and I have been writing letters to the editor for 17 years or so), and much of what I've written has not been complimentary to the newsminer - yet they print it.
To sum up, when we willingly join a group and sign a contract, we have to follow the terms of that contract or suck up the consequences.
Quite unfortunately, I'm not allowed to read and consider CND's comments. Everything else CND wrote here seems very well on-topic.
But it is not CND who prompted me to comment for the first time, it is this appalling editorial. I and four co-workers nearly spit out our lunch reading this today. The whole tone of the piece, as I and others read it, is inexplicably supportive of Clark. The final sentence of the piece confirms this, when the E board states that what would have been disastrous would be these discoveries coming about in a sitting administration. Apparently the E board believes that a second Murkowski term would not have been the 'disastrous' thing.
I found it appalling that the E board would describe Clark's 'fessing up' as a "silver lining." This man appears to me, and to many people, to be basically dishonest. He did not come forward to confess until the Feds had him nailed. It appears to me and many others that he is doing his standard m.o.--doing what's best for himself at any given moment. Since there will hopefully be some benefit to his "cooperation" with the Feds, I would give the DNM that there is a "lining," but I would say it's pewter or aluminum at best, certainly not "silver."
Furthermore, the pro-Clark bent to this paper seems quite clearly evidenced in the front page headline that reads, "Once-powerful Jim Clark falls victim to VECO's web."
Clark is a "victim"?
What dictionary does the DNM use?
Can the DNM provide other examples of federal criminals, or those who sought to sellout the state, whom the DNM described as "victims"?
DNM, this last comment speaks volumes as to how many Alaskans feel. I think that the comments that are ripping the DNM for supporting Jim Clark, calling him a "victim" are not "off topic" but hit the bullseye! I think the E-board should once again look at what they are putting out as the "platform" of the DNM. It does not reflect the opinions of many true Alaskans. I ask people I work with, socialize with and even see in the grocery store, and almost to the person, they STRONGLY DISAGREE with the editorials that are showing up in the DNM.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.