Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Friday mid-morning news roundup
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
Posted in:
* Richard Irvin campaign…
The Irvin for Illinois campaign today is questioning the changing standards in coverage from the Chicago Tribune after the Tribune approached the campaign with the intention of writing a misleading story attempting to connect Richard Irvin to a 2008/2009 court case in which he had no involvement.
Following the Tribune’s inquiry, the campaign became aware that 10 years before Gary Martin killed six people at Henry Pratt, a law partner (now-Judge Reginald Campbell) of Richard Irvin represented Martin in local court proceedings. Irvin did not have knowledge of his partner’s clients and had no knowledge of his representation of Martin. Irvin and Campbell had no profit-sharing agreement, therefore Irvin never made money off Campbell’s clients and Campbell did not make money off Irvin’s clients. The two merely shared office space and split the cost of overhead.
In their initial request to the campaign, the Tribune acknowledges, “according to court records, he wasn’t the lawyer who represented Martin in court.” It has also come to our attention that Judge Campbell even told the Tribune that Mayor Irvin had nothing to do with this case. Yet, despite the facts presented to a reporter and a top editor, the Tribune has chosen to ignore the facts, pushing forward with a narrative that only serves to mislead the public into believing that Mayor Irvin was somehow involved in these cases from 2008/2009.
Unfortunately, it is clear that the paper’s intent is to imply that Irvin represented Martin or somehow had an association with Martin, which is not something we would expect from reputable journalists. Nor is it a standard we have seen applied to other candidates.
We do not make this statement lightly, however, the campaign is deeply disturbed by the changing standard and the willful refusal of the reporter and top editors to acknowledge the plain facts. This incident further erodes public confidence in the media.
I’ve seen this done by a campaign before, but it’s rare and it’s bold. And, in this case, the campaign looks to be justified. But stay tuned to see how this goes.
*** UPDATE *** Greg Hinz…
Tribune Editor Mitch Pugh declined to comment in an email, so I guess we’ll find out when and if the story actually runs.
But the case is a little more complicated than Team Irvin is conceding. For instance, the statement refers to the other lawyer as Irvin’s “partner.” And the website of the law firm, which has been disbanded, indicates that Irvin was its sole owner and the other lawyer the firm’s only “associate.” Yet, Irvin knew nothing?
The Irvin folks say privately they’re just trying to knock down a bad story. Perhaps. But perhaps they’re taking anti-media politics to a new level by trying to spin a story before it’s even published. Either way, it’s a risky strategy. We’ll see how it plays out.
Also, comments are now open.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 11, 22 @ 12:30 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Friday mid-morning news roundup
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The reference to “partner” in the Irvin press release jumped out at me, too. Being careful to not misstate a provable fact, but a fact that very much runs counter to the rest of the statement about merely sharing office space.
And if Hinz’s note is accurate, that seems to make Irvin’s statement more misleading.
Comment by Chris Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 10:24 am
I also noticed the contradiction between “partner” and “just shared office space”.
Now, I can well believe that Irvin had no involvement in the case. BUT, if they were, in fact, partners, then Irvin *should* have known about the representation, because any law firm, large or small, should be checking for conflicts of interest. It’s standard practice. For example, you check to see if anyone in the firm has represented witnesses, or has sued or prosecuted the proposed client.
Comment by JoanP Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 10:40 am
Wait what would this scandal even be? The firm represented someone who sought representation and then went on to do something horrible? How is that news?
And I’d agree with Hinz about not going anti-media before the story is published except for the fact that we all know stories like these are front page and retractions and clarifications are always fine print…
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 10:41 am
- JJJJJJJJJJ - Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 10:41 am:
Since you’re apparently not capable of reading comprehension, the news is that Irvin’s campaign made this a story.
Reporters chase leads and story possibilities all the time that don’t pan out. I’m sure Rich has his own examples. The fact is that right now, no one would have heard about this if not for the Irvin campaign.
Comment by Google Is Your Friend Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 10:57 am
I’m willing to believe Irvin had little connection to this- I wouldn’t necessarily expect one partner to know what the other is doing- but I don’t understand why they’re attacking the Trib here. The Trib hasn’t published the story, right? So Irvin is just mad that the Trib is asking questions?
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Feb 14, 22 @ 11:18 am