»» Columnists

Anatomy Of A Dead News Story: Chicago Media Lament Lack Of ‘Drama’ In Blagojevich Trial

by Frances Martel | 12:18 pm, May 14th, 2011

» 12 comments

You can’t please everyone: nearly two years after former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich became the face of disgraceful political mischief worldwide, the ethics lecturer and warrior poet has become so predictable and trite that even Chicago media– who actually have to deal with the circumstances of his governorship, are bored with his current trial.

The Chicago Sun-Times ran an editorial yesterday not decrying Blagojevich’s corrupt behavior, or his attorneys’ insistence on being disruptive and unhelpful, but on how boring the entire operation had become. While columnist Denise Crosby admits she isn’t a “fan of reruns,” she argues that this second trial is even more difficult to care about than the typical repeat. “Like any second-rate circus act,” she notes, “the novelty has worn off.” Noting the lack of “drama” and “surprises” (despite, once again, the usual threats to hold Blagojevich’s lawyers in contempt), Crosby called various relevant individuals in the area to see if her apathy was unique, and found that most people’s reaction to the fact that this trial was happening was something like “it’s lost its luster” or “there’s more important things out there.”

The Chicago Tribune, from which Blagojevich allegedly tried to have a critic removed, seem a little less overcome by ennui, but the pattern remains: Illinois is just bored, and the nation has forgotten to care, opting instead to follow shiny objects like “violent rappers” and Osama bin Laden‘s extensive porn collection. Part of this, of course, is Blagojevich himself– with jailtime at stake, the larger-than-life corruptocrat has kept the poetry recitals and Elvis impersonations at a minimum. Part of it is the jaded nature of corruption-saturated regions; Blagojevich is about as important to Illinois residents as, say, the fact that former governor Jim McGreevey was rejected from the Episcopal church for “being a jackass” is to New Jersey residents. In areas like Illinois, where three governors have gone to jail in as many decades, it takes a little more than a few f-bombs and kickbacks to say in the news. And if Illinois doesn’t care, the rest of the country is simply not going to bother.

That’s not to say that the Blagojevich trial is as boring as the Sun-Times makes it out to be. In fact, for the scholar of such things, it’s rather fascinating, and the fact that one of its major players, former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is being inaugurated as mayor of Chicago today only helps add to the color. This week, prosecutors played tapes of a profanity-laced rant to former deputy governor Robert Greenlee that demonstrated that, even if President Obama did attempt to give Blagojevich his two cents on who should succeed him, Blagojevich was having none of it:

Blagojevich began to seriously consider Jackson in the beginning of December, Greenlee said. In a Dec. 4 call, Greenlee suggests appointing Tammy Duckworth to appease President-elect Barack Obama.

“Get the f— outta here, Greenlee. I’ll f—— fire you,” Blagojevich snaps. “She’s got no f——chance. I’m gonna f—— take hits in the black community for Durbin and f—— Harry Reid and Rahm, f— them and [David] Axelrod.”

In court, Greenlee said he took the threat seriously.

So, yes, Blagojevich is being pitted against the President who just killed bin Laden, one of his major senior advisers, and the mayor of Chicago in this transcript. It may not be topical material, but it certainly is fun. But ultimately, being interesting in its own sake is not enough to sustain a news story within the cycle, especially in when stories last for years in a 24-hour news cycles– novelty is its own reward, and those eagerly waiting for more of it must hope Blagojevich and his team are saving the best for the day of the verdict.

Blago, Chicago, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, corruption, David Axelrod, Illinois, Rahm Emanuel, Rod Blagojevich

The Lantern of Truth

Who’s corrupt ?

Everybody .
The Lantern of Truth

“Unlike his brothers, lawyer Michael and banker Bill, Mayor Richard M. Daley didn’t use the family name to amass wealth. He used it to amass power. But now, the mayor has a chance to convert his power into wealth. Which is what being a Chicago politician is all about, after all.

Because he chose not to run for re-election, Daley still has $1.1 million in his campaign fund. In 1998, the General Assembly banned politicians from converting leftover campaign money for personal use. But, of course, the law included a grandfather clause, so it didn’t affect any of the politicians voting on it. The goody-goody sponsors, Barack Obama and Kirk Dillard, went along with the amendment, because they knew that was the only way to pass the bill.”

http://www.amazon.com/CHICAGOLAND-Daley-campaign-thanks-Obama-sponsored/forum/Fx3O0GUS5OOQ7GV/Tx1TC2IFF9U1JVK/1?_encoding=UTF8&asin=1936488299
The Lantern of Truth

Why is Antoin “Tony” Rezko under lock and key at an undisclosed location, like some sort of CIA-renditioned al Qaeda operative? And why hasn’t he been sentenced yet?

As the June 3 corruption trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich for allegedly trying to sell Obama’s former Illinois Senate seat approaches, the whereabouts of the former Blago and Obama fundraiser is literally a state secret.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that Rezko was moved from Chicago’s downtown Metropolitan Correctional Center on December 16th, even though it’s right across the street from the federal courthouse where Blago will be tried.

Rezko’s not listed on the federal Bureau of Prisons’ inmate locator, either.

“Nobody knows where he is,” a source in Chicago told The Examiner.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/where-world-tony-rezko#ixzz1MLUf3JmB
da-wdc

It has gotten boring hasn’t it? At least there’s a new soundbite.

Good piece. Frances, IMHO you are by far the best writer on this website and they are lucky to have you here. Just saying.
david r

da-wdc said:
Good piece. Frances, IMHO you are by far the best writer on this website and they are lucky to have you here. Just saying.

I agree. Often failure teaches better than success.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Lysander-Spooner/100002296276481 Lysander Spooner

It is manifest, therefore, that the jury must judge of and try the whole case, and every part and parcel of the case, free of any dictation or authority on the part of the government. They must judge of the existence of the law; of the true exposition of the law; of the justice of the law; and of the admissibility and weight of all the evidence offered; otherwise the government will have everything its own way; the jury will be mere puppets in the hands of the government: and the trial will be, in reality, a trial by the government, and not a “trial by the country.” By such trials the government will determine its own powers over the people, instead of the people’s determining their own liberties against the government; and it will be an entire delusion to talk, as for centuries we have done, of the trial by jury, as a “palladium of liberty,” or as any protection to the people against the oppression and tyranny of the government.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html
http://www.facebook.com/people/Lysander-Spooner/100002296276481 Lysander Spooner

That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object. “The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country” – that is, by the people – as distinguished from a trial by the government.

It was anciently called “trial per pais” – that is, “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.” The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?

Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other – or at least no more accurate – definition of a despotism than this. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.

To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,} from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government.

This is done to prevent the government’s constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government’s packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.

It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of “the country” at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor – that is, with the government.

It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, “a trial by the country.” In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And. as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, “the country,” or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people.

But all this “trial by the country” would be no trial at all “by the country,” but only a trial by the government, if the government ‘could either declare who may, and who may not, be jurors, or could dictate to the jury anything whatever, either of law or evidence, that is of the essence of the trial.

If the government may decide who may, and who may not, be jurors, it will of course select only its partisans, and those friendly to its measures. It may not only prescribe who may, and who may not, be eligible to be drawn as jurors; but it may also question each person drawn as a juror, as to his sentiments in regard to the particular law involved in each trial, before suffering him to be sworn on the panel; and exclude him if he be found unfavorable to the maintenance of such a law. [1]

So, also, if the government may dictate to the jury what laws they are to enforce, it is no longer a ” trial by the country,” but a trial by the government; because the jury then try the accused, not by any standard of their own – not by their own judgments of their rightful liberties – but by a standard. dictated to them by the government. And the standard, thus dictated by the government, becomes the measure of the people’s liberties. If the government dictate the standard of trial, it of course dictates the results of the trial. And such a trial is no trial by the country, but only a trial by the government; and in it the government determines what are its own powers over the people, instead of the people’s determining what are their own liberties against the government. In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.

The jury are also to judge whether the laws are rightly expounded to them by the court. Unless they judge on this point, they do nothing to protect their liberties against the oppressions that are capable of being practiced under cover of a corrupt exposition of the laws. If the judiciary can authoritatively dictate to a jury any exposition of the law, they can dictate to them the law itself, and such laws as they please; because laws are, in practice, one thing or another, according as they are expounded.

The jury must also judge whether there really be any such law, (be it good or bad,) as the accused is charged with having transgressed. Unless they judge on this point, the people are liable to have their liberties taken from them by brute force, without any law at all.

The jury must also judge of the laws of evidence. If the government can dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only shut out any evidence it pleases, tending to vindicate the accused, but it can require that any evidence whatever, that it pleases to offer, be held as conclusive proof of any offence whatever which the government chooses to allege.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html
Georgia999

Ahem—on a lighter note……love when Sheperd Smith refers to HIM as “our Blogo” (with a mockingly sad face) or “Planet Blogo. ” Funny. can’t wait to see how he and his staff cover the trial.
MrTPar_taY

If he starts to talk about Tony “Ratzo” Rizko and all the money laundering he funnelled to Mao-Obama watch the fun start!
Gailvusimone

He is dead, she was just imagining him, l think all the stuff about the guy who should have got the heart that she gave to Denny brought it all back to her. Although it was nice to see him again.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110514014248AAgwwmy
RodBlago

After 2 plus years it time for the truth about the worst political witch hunt in american history to come out. The fact is that people close to Obama and the top leaders from the GOP both saw Blago as a threat. Obama people were worried about a 2012 challenge and were worried that they lose it to Blago. And the GOP knew that if Blago beat Obama in 2012, that they would have not have a chance at the white house for another decade. So the two parties joined forces to bring Blago down. Blago was arrested on December 9 2008, which is almost half way between the day of the 2008 election and January 20, 2009.

But like other greats heroes
Mandela, Gandhi and King, America next great hero Rod Blagojevich shall overcome.
Johnlyvazquez

Each one of these points as it relates to CheapOair Promo Code could be a story by itself. I need to take you by the hand and describe that for you. CheapOair Promo Code is also one good way to bond with CheapOair Promo Code. I can do it easily. That is essential during times like winter when it gets cold. Perhaps you’ll be able to recoup your investment, perhaps not. Nevertheless, it is my fault as I was not cautious with CheapOair Promo Code.

http://couponuses.com/stores/cheapoair-promo-codes-cheapoair-deals-cheapoair-discount-codes.html