Photos
I’ve been holding off on writing a commentary about the story I broke about the person who claimed he collected recall petitions, but wasn’t going to turn them into the recall committee.
A number of people who have read the stories have questioned whether or not the person is really a democratic plant, why I chose to go with the story without having seen the documents personally, and why I haven’t turned him into the authorities. These are all very good questions and I have been addressing these issues through email, but I had to sort out my own thoughts a little before answering them publicly.
The short answer to the first question is: I know this person. He’s a professional acquaintance of mine that I’ve had numerous conversations with and he is a self-proclaimed Republican and TEA Party member. Both groups have denounced his actions and he was not under their direction when he collected the signatures. He told me there is a group of people on Facebook that have been talking about collecting and diverting/burning/destroying petitions. When I asked him about Operation Burn Notice, he said he had never heard of the group and didn’t know about it until I asked him about it.
So how do I know that he’s telling the truth since I didn’t see the petitions? I don’t. But I do know him, his words and his actions – and I can tell you he supports Governor Scott Walker and he laughed at the idea of people calling him a Democratic plant. Still, I wanted to build transparency in the story and let the public know that I asked to see the documents and he denied the request. I felt that was an important aspect to this story. I wanted you to know that yes, I have some doubts too.
But I also felt it was an important story to tell and here’s why. This wasn’t a political story, it's a story about the democratic process. And yes, I know some of you may disagree with that and you have questioned my journalistic integrity, but you can’t ignore the rhetorical implications of a body of people who are talking about undermining the democratic process by breaking the law in a public space like Facebook. So let’s say he’s not telling the truth; that he didn’t collect the signatures, or if he did collect them and really didn’t turn them into the recall committee. Let’s say everyone on Facebook that is talking about burning the petitions and not turning them in is also not telling the truth.
What do their words say about their faith in the democratic process? While I was working on this story, I could tell by the sound of my source’s voice that he was starting to question his decision in keeping the petitions. “How are you feeling about this decision morally?” I asked. There was a long pause. Then he said: “Well, I’m a Christian. And at first, my thought was that we had to play dirty, that we had to make sure the Union thugs didn’t even have a chance. The gloves had to be off.” Then he asked if he could call me back. A few hours later, he called back and said he had changed his mind, and that he would be turning the petitions in.
Why the change of heart, I asked?
Here’s what he said:
"It’s not the right thing to do, we should have known better. The whole thing wasn’t our idea. It’s something we just stumbled on and we did it, 24 hours later we realized that it’s not a good thing to do. I’ve been thinking about it and it’s just not right. But when I think about what’s been going on all year with the protests, and what this has been doing to people, families, and friends…is making normal people do really stupid things and feel stupid things. And it’s crazy. It's absolutely crazy."
I felt this was his most salient point.
So this leads me to my next point, my moral obligation as a journalist. Change of heart aside, he still admitted to me that he either participated and/or has knowledge of criminal activity. But I have no proof that a crime has actually been committed. Still, I am protected under Wisconsin’s Shield Law, which allows me to not disclose the identity of an unnamed source unless I am compelled to do so through the court or law enforcement. I also believe I have a moral obligation to protect his identity because I promised him that I would not disclose his identity. This may not be convenient for the Democrats, but I also believe in the promise that I made to him. If I wouldn’t have made the promise, then I wouldn’t have gotten the story and the story was, in my mind, important enough to bring to the attention of the Government Accountability Board.
Again, I don’t believe this story is about politics, being pro-Walker or anti-Walker. I do believe it says a lot about how polarized we are as a community, and as a state. But this story also serves as a token of how we’re feeling about the political process, what we’re willing to do insure that our political view prevails, how influential our emotions are on our behavior right now, how our conversations about politics have been perceived as failing, and how frustrated we truly are with one another.
So, where does this leave us? I’m still working with my source to see if I can verify that he actually turned the petitions in to the recall committee. And he said he’s willing to work with me to give me insight on how he came about this group of people that also claim they are collecting signatures and destroying/holding on to them. I don’t think this storyline is done by any means. But I hope this helps give you some insight into how I gathered this story, and the questions I’m working with as I move forward.
With that said, I also want you to know my coverage plan on this issue. There have been a lot of allegations pertaining to the recall election that are being made at this time by Democrats and Republicans outside of Caledonia. Please know that our website is a hyper-local news source. Caledonia Patch is committed to covering both sides of this issue as it pertains to our local residents. If you know of any allegations of fraud or any election issues about the recall going on from either side happening in Caledonia, I’m happy to report on it. Feel free to email me at denise.lockwood@patch.com.
John Doe
5:18 pm on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
I have to ask this question if this is so true then release his name. You claim he is a tea party member then if this is true he would never turn it in. It seems to me you are trying to write your way out of this. You also had no problem going on the local news channel to report this ILLEGAL activity. Yet you say I know him and these actions are alright because he said he would not do it. You are making yourself look very foolish with these stories. Also going through all your news and columns you have never wrote a negative story against the democratic supporters. Yet everything negative you can report local against a republican is published. Please this was nothing but an excuse to cover your lie. Or show some hard proof before you jump the gun and get local media coverage to air on tv. I think you should be ashamed of yourself for this act of journalism with no valid source!
Heather Asiyanbi
7:52 pm on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
@John - If the report is factual, how is it negative? Shouldn't you blame the participants for doing something negative and not the reporter/editor who talks about it? Also - Denise was following journalistic ethics by promising and protecting her source for the story. She is going further by asking for proof from her source that corrective action was taken. The story being true and releasing the source's name are not tied together. Denise has never said the actions of this individual or any others involved in these activities are alright - reporting the story isn't permission. It's just reporting the story.
Denise and I both pride ourselves on providing as fair and balanced reporting as possible on the issues. That is why if there is news coming out of Madison, we will get comment from Representatives Vos and Mason as well as Sen. Wanggaard. Ask around, John, and I would bet that most readers feel like we're doing a good job.
Kelly from the Pacific Northwest
1:28 pm on Sunday, November 27, 2011
John, I AM a journalist and it is sometimes not possible to identify a source and there are several valid reasons for this that each come to the forefront depending on the situation. One of the most important reasons a source remains unidentified is for their safety. Besides, according to the Wisconsin Shield Law, if law enforcement or the court requires her to identify the source, she is legally obligated to do so. She is correct, however, in that there is no evidence of a crime actually being committed, so she doesn't have to do anything about this. I'm sure if this reporter found definative evidence, she would take the appropriate action.
I've also read some of her past reports, specifically about the protests, and I can't see where she is being more supportive of one side over the other. If her article is about the anger against Scott Walker, she isn't going to spend a lot of time interviewing people who love him, but she will (and she does) talk to people on both sides.
Denise Lockwood
9:17 pm on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
@John Doe -- when you prove that I'm lying I guess we'll have something to talk about then, won't we.
Kelly from the Pacific Northwest
1:33 pm on Sunday, November 27, 2011
Denise, you have a nice flow to your writing, like you're talking to people across the table at a sidewalk cafe. I can also see that you don't take any undue shiatzu from anybody and that makes for a good reporter. Keep it up! I'll be reading.
Denise Lockwood
10:04 pm on Sunday, November 27, 2011
Kelly,
I appreciate the feedback. It's been an interesting last few weeks.
Ed Willing
1:42 pm on Saturday, December 3, 2011
"I have to ask this question if this is so true then release his name."
From, ironically, "John Doe"
"Please this was nothing but an excuse to cover your lie."
There is nothing indicated or implied there was a lie on the part of Denise. What lie are you accusing her of? It's ridiculous to say so. You have now committed the same error you accuse her of, twice. Hiding your name from the public, and making a statement that is unproven.
"I think you should be ashamed of yourself for this act of journalism with no valid source!"
It's news. And it's local. And I appreciate being kept up on it. Ad I happen to know many tea party folks, and this kind of act is so against our ethics, it would never be tolerated. In fact, with a very rare exception, it is not even something that NEEDS to be untolerated, since the action is so unlikely to begin with. No one believes in the integrity of the law and REPRESENTATIVE democratic process more than those of the Tea Party philosophy.
Attacking our local journalist for lighting a fire reminding people how illegal (not just unethical) this is did our community a service and YOU should be ashamed of hiding behind a pseudonym and throwing tomatoes at our local reporter caught in the middle of a story she didn't even need to report.
Heather Rayne Geyer
9:28 pm on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Great commentary Denise. Its been harsh reading the critiques you have gotten. Unfair and illogical in my opinion. Also, didn't the guy end up commenting with his real full name on the article? So he IDed himself, right? Maybe I am confused.
Another things to consider...is that these people aren't necessarily really planning on collecting signatures. By the way some of them talk (reading their FB) I dont think they could stomach being around that many progressives anyway. But maybe it is more just trying to give a false sense of INsecurity about the recall process/petitions. They want to give as much doubt to the whole thing as possible. And they want to scare people out of signing. Most people try to avoid conflict. And a lot of people don't even go out of their way to vote. If they think there is shaddiness with their name attached, they will probably make even less of an effort. Am I making any sense...I am so tired.
Anyway - I respect and appreciate everything you have said. And trust me Patch has PLENTY of right, left AND balanced pieces. There is no way I would consider this site to be liberal biased. Yours and Heathers news stories are to the point and are not at all one sided. That claim is just ridicudonk. (new favorite word)
Ed Willing
1:43 pm on Saturday, December 3, 2011
I just used this word because I loved it so much
Denise Lockwood
11:24 pm on Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Heather -- I gave my word... I'm not confirming or denying.
Stormy Weather
1:54 am on Thursday, November 24, 2011
Denise, Heather & Heather - I think what John was trying to say, is that just because Denise says that her friend told her that he collected signatures, doesn't prove that it is true. The only way to know if it's true, is to see the signatures. I find it troubling that anyone would even consider taking signatures that they planned to throw away.
Your friend should man up, show the signatures and admit publicly that what he did was wrong. I do understand his frustration though and sometimes wonder where Wisconsin would be right now if people weren't in a constant protest mode! I tell my kids that sometimes in life you don't always get what you want. You can cry about it, or become a stronger person and move forward. Democrats lost the election last year. It's time to move forward so that our state can get back on track... Happy Thanksgiving to all of you!
Brian Dey
6:59 am on Thursday, November 24, 2011
Denise, I'm not a journalist, nor profess to be. Obviously, this was a tough call for you, and give you credit for going with your instincts. There are those that will automatically go to media bias because of the association with the Huffington Post. For me, where I see bias is not interviewing any official from the Tea Party or local Republican party. Sometimes what is not said, is what would lead to the opinion of bias.
I, as one of the critics, would think fair and balance would include statements of support or non-support from what he affiliated him self to; i.e. the Tea Party and the Republican party. Again, him just stating his affiliation, does not make it so, and would have been a very easy fact to verify. By ommission of this easy fact check, or by giving those affiliations the chance to reply, tainted the story. It is very easy, once the story in my mind is tainted, to jump to assumptions.
Why would I jump to assumptions? Because Graeme Zielinski and local union leaders have in the past used those type of slimy tactics and tried to pin them on the Racine GOP, none ever confirmed. As someone who has a lose affiliation with the local party, but number many of them as long-time friends, know that they, as well as our Republican elected officials would never condone such actions and would immediately drop their memberships. That's how they operate, and your article left open the possibility that they condoned it.
Denise Lockwood
9:13 am on Thursday, November 24, 2011
I spoke to Bill Folk, of the Racine Republican Party and Laura Halberstat of the Racine Tea Party -- both said this person wasn't acting in their direction and they did denounce the effort. I included that in the first story and reiterated it in this commentary. You know me Brian... I'm not lazy. I talk to everyone and treat everyone with respect. I value people's perspectives... that's how i got the story in the first place. And I assure you, the Huffington Post may pull one of our stories up to their page, but they aren't involved in the editorial process when I'm writing the story. And yeah, this was a tough one, but I've also been doing this for 12 years. I'm sleeping well on this one.
Brian Dey
9:42 am on Thursday, November 24, 2011
Sorry Denise, as I did not see the 11:52 update and based it off the original story. What threw me was the last paragraph in the original story about you trying to contact the Democratic Party for comment, but not the party your friend claimed to be affiliated with.
My reference to the Huffington Post was not that they have influenced your story or editing, but that they are very well known for their left leaning bias, at least amongst conservative groups.
Anyway, have a Happy Thanksgiving and may your family have continued blessing today and always!
Denise Lockwood
2:13 pm on Sunday, November 27, 2011
Brian... you are forgiven.
JW
9:22 am on Thursday, November 24, 2011
I think you do a great job Denise.
I wish people on all sides of the political spectrum would just apply common sense in terms of right and wrong. I have always been a fan of going with the votes. I did not vote for Walker... but he won through votes... so I think it is ridiculous for the other side to then leave the state or start up recalls because Walker is following the political beliefs he has. He was voted in. If you do not like it, recall is not the answer, voting the other part IN the next time is the answer. Are we heading into a climate where we have essentially double elections? First up is the standard election... then comes the recall election? If we recall only on the basis of disagreeing with the politics, there really would be a recall election attempt every chance there can be. That is dumb... waste of time and money.
As for election fraud... it is absolutely wrong and I think those who do it do deserve some punishment. I am not sure the punishments that happen really fit the crime per se, but then again, I am not concerned with it personally because I would never do anything election fraud related. So... if the punishments are clear and someone crosses the line... I am relatively ok with the consequences they fall into. Now, as Denise pointed out... there is no way of knowing a crime actually even happened. Some people get overcome with emotion, do not think clearly, and may start out with a misguided idea and later see the light.
unreasonable
10:34 pm on Monday, November 28, 2011
JW, A breath of fresh air! Common sense and fairness, this is what most people identify with. Respect elections and eliminate any fraud on the recalls. Thanks!
Lyle Ruble
12:48 pm on Thursday, November 24, 2011
These are only the opening rounds. It's going to get a great deal more contentious before it gets better.
jt
7:22 pm on Thursday, November 24, 2011
i'm really sick of the whole thing and i think walker is a very divisive man who is not good for our state. proof of that would be illinois , the state that he claimed we were going to take jobs from, created 30,000 jobs last month 3 times what wisconsin did! that alone says that #1 companies think that wisconsin is now a volitile place to do buisiness and #2 his ideas are not working. and#3 any company that is hiring here is going to expect a huge taxbreak from state and local taxpayers! just to create 11-12 dollar an hour jobs. again, NOT WORKING!
Ed Willing
1:47 pm on Saturday, December 3, 2011
Volitile? Because walker passed a law he was elected to, or because our senators left the state out of protest? Wow.... Talk about bias.
Eric
9:49 pm on Thursday, November 24, 2011
I always thought journalists needed either two sources or verified documents in hand before they published a story?
Interesting how inconsistent some people are on the subject of election integrity - recall petition process versus voter id.
Gerrymandered districts at all levels, a near anonymous filibuster in the US Senate, the Wis "Frankenstein" veto, a quarum rule created to insure a small number of state reps don't create legisilation enables a smaller number of state reps to instead flee Wis and stop legislation - why worry about cheating when you have rules that facilitate and/or institute it?
Morninmist Same
10:30 am on Friday, December 2, 2011
A person can sign the recall petition twice if he/she believes in good faith that the first signature was destroyed or tossed or torn up -or as in this case--the potential that their petition will not be turned in.
Like the instance in Madison--actually two of them where the petitions were torn up. If I had signed up --lets say around 3 pm and then read in the newspaper later that at the certain address and time a clipboard with signatures was stolen or torn up, I would, in good faith, sign again. (I had been there about that time).
...
Our conclusion
We can’t predict whether all multiple signers will be found, but state law makes clear that one -- and only one -- signature is to be counted. And it’s perfectly legal to sign more than once. That was the focus of the statement from One Wisconsin Now.
We rate it True.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/dec/02/one-wisconsin-now/one-wisconsin-now-says-its-legal-sign-walker-recal/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
".... "If a challenger can establish that a person signed the recall petition more than once, the 2nd and subsequent signatures may not be counted."
That means the first signature is still good, but duplicates can be thrown out, said Reid Magney, spokesman for the Government Accountability Board, which oversees elections the recall process."