April 28, 2008 08:51 PM UTC

Schaffer, Wadhams block Politicker on Marianas trip, abortion

• 0 Comments
• by: RedGreen

Jeremy Pelzer of PolitickerCO.com interviewed Bob Schaffer and Dick Wadhams last week and almost immediately hit a roadblock when he asked Schaffer about the Marianas controversy.

Read the entire interview here:

https://www.politickerco.com/je…

Schaffer: Why don’t you take the opportunity to substantiate your comment just now?

PolitickerCO: Sure, sure. This is just -well, what is your take on the controversy? Why don’t you fill me in?

Schaffer: Why don’t you describe the controversy?

PolitickerCO: The controversy?

Schaffer: Yeah.

PolitickerCO: Well, just what’s been in the papers, and there’s a whole series of things – and I’m not asking you so much to talk about the controversy itself, but how’s it’s played out and what the reaction’s been in the media and — that’s what I’m going for.

Schaffer: Well, the Denver Post has a hard time arriving at a factual and truthful representation of a 1998 event (Editor’s Note: Schaffer visited the Marianas in August of 1999). And that probably causes controversy for the Denver Post. Maybe you should take it up with them.

PolitickerCO: Just trying to get your take on it. Just trying to get your take on it.

Schaffer: I’m not sure what “it” is. I’m asking you to describe that.

The exchange continues after the break.

PolitickerCO: The controversy-the reaction to the Denver Post articles. That’s what I mean by “it.” And what you see as the effect–

Schaffer: Jeremy, if you’re going to ask me-anyway, now listen, I love questions. I love talking about campaigns. If you’ve got something you want me to answer, you’ve got to tell me what you want me to answer.

PolitickerCO: I’m trying to tell you right now. I’m asking what your take is on the reaction and the effect of the Denver Post articles on this topic- that’s my question.

Schaffer: I think it’s probably hurt the credibility of the Denver Post.

PolitickerCO: Why?

Schaffer: Well, because when any news organization fails to report accurately and completely on any topic, readers tend to, um, assign lower and lower levels of credibility to reporters that make no pretense for objectivity – a political reporter, any kind of reporter.

PolitickerCO: What specifically – when you say inaccurate, what do you mean?

Schaffer: Things that they stated that were not true.

PolitickerCO: Like what?

Schaffer: You can, uh…Well, there were several. But frankly, I’m not here to talk about the Denver Post. If that’s an interest to you-I mean, it’s nice that you ask about the Denver Post, and I’ve made some comments, but you probably ought to talk to the Denver Post about their stories, their reporting, their controversies. I’m just not hired by them to do that.

When Pelzer tried to shift attention to Steve Curtis and the dispute fringe anti-abortion groups have with Schaffer, he ran into the same tactics from Schaffer and Wadhams. Eventually, Wadhams threatened to halt the interview.

Wadhams: Jeremy, this whole interview stands in stark contrast to that fluff piece you did on Udall. I don’t know if we’re going to go any further on this. So if you want to continue with this line of questioning, we’re going to cut it off right now.

PolitickerCO: All right, I’ll move on to the next question.

Wadhams: Very good.

PolitickerCO: Not a problem.

Wadhams: Keep moving.

PolitickerCO: Sure. [Turning to Schaffer] What has been your take on the campaign in general so far? Has it played out the way that you expected it to, or has there been surprises for you?

Schaffer: It’s going great. {…]