I mentioned in a recent post that there were a few new Mississippi law-related blogs worth note. I linked Will Bardwell’s blog. Another one (also from Jackson) is the Mississippi Litigation Review, which is the blog of Phillip Thomas. It does exactly what the name suggests. I enjoy reading it and recommend it.
One recent post is his prediction about the Northern District of Mississippi US Attorney slot. Just as all the other folks opining in public fora, he does not say what sources or bases he may have for his opinions. That’ll give me a chance to take the newspaper reporters to task: The story now, as far as I’m concerned, is no story at all if a source isn’t named. “Sources say” is meaningless. I can now write both of these sentences, and they are both true and convey almost no information:
- Sources say Christi McCoy will be appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi.
- Sources say Christi McCoy will not be appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi.
Whether the time you spent reading these sentences was ill spent entirely depends on the identity of the sources. We are wasting our time reading about this until we know. If the source was someone directly connected to Congressman Bennie Thompson, it means one thing. If the source was someone directly connected to Congressman Travis Childers, it means yet another thing. If the source was connected to a possible candidate, it means yet a third thing. And if it was some lawyer walking into the courthouse on some other errand, it means…
… not much. More than asking the custodian in the courthouse, but I’m not sure how much more.
The stories about this topic have not conveyed meaningful information since the Spring, and I’m not sure even then– I recall one story, in May I think, that named two names that I’d never heard even hinted at. Those names have of course disappeared without a trace. I will say that I keep reading the stories, and even keep quoting and linking them, which I suppose means I am part of the problem. But then, I’ll say what I’m reporting: That a source (Jimmie Gates at the Clarion Ledger, or Patsy Brumfield at the Daily Journal) is publishing reports they heard so-and-so mentioned for this position. So, if Gates are Brumfield are credible…
At some point I’d hope a reporter would say to a tout, I mean a source “you know, this isn’t a story any more until the source is tied to someone in particular.”
Having unloaded myself of that particular tirade, I’ll go back to Phillip Thomas, his blog, and his personal prediction about the Northern District US Attorney slot– about which he’s at least gone one farther than “sources say”– he’s willing to say “my prediction is” (although the corroboration he mentions, from Alan Lange, certainly does not come from a camp that would have inside information about the appointment intentions of Democrats). Thomas wrote down in Jackson after Patsy Brumfield’s last “sources say” story about McCoy and (<i>is this a coincidence?</i>) the day before “sources said” to Jimmie Gates at the Clarion Ledger that McCoy was going to get the nod. Here’s what Thomas wrote:
Back in July I agreed with Alan Lange that, contrary to published reports, Christi McCoy will not be appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi. This week Patsy Brumfiled with the Northeast Daily Journal again predicted that McCoy will get the nod:
Informed sources say the U.S. Department of Justice has begun its work on President Obama’s nomination of a new U.S. Attorney for North Mississippi.
Reports continue to say the choice will be Booneville native Christi R. McCoy, 40, who practices in Oxford.
I have not heard anything to change my July prediction that McCoy is not going to get the appointment.
Not to stick a finger in your eye after the (appreciated) link, NMC, but the use of anonymous sources just goes with the territory in modern journalism. As a former newshound, I assure you that reporters don’t like it any more than readers do. But when the choices are to forgo use of your source’s name or to forgo use of your source’s story, you’ve got a pretty easy choice on your hands.
I’d like to see more detail on this story, too, but ultimately, this is a question about whose sources you trust more.
I understand what you are saying, but I think there is a point where the sources-working-the-press becomes far more of a story than the information the sources are vending, and reporters who just relay-what-they-are-told aren’t reporting any more.
I agree completely. That’s why it’s important to pick your news source in a situation like this. Basically, you’ve got to ask yourself whose ability to dial up sources and filter B.S. is worth more deference.
Ol’ Bardwell is going to go with Patsy’s anonymous sources every time. Even when he, himself, is the source.
Ben’s comment from a previous post:
September 26th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
OSA: They pass the political litmus tests … same as their predecessors did. But these two also have trial experience. Neither had to “marry up” to get appointed.
What is required to pass a “litmus test”? Or how does one fail a “litmus test”?
And re Ben’s last sentence: How does one “marry up” to get appointed? What does that mean, and who has done it in the past?
Good questions, NoMiss. I ignored the comments, because I truly wanted whatever info I could get. Received almost nothing. Googled them and could not find a reported decision or anything about their respective law practices. Amazing, since almost every litigator has at least one reported decision. Then, today, a longtime business man from Oxford asked me, “who is Christi McCoy and what qualifications does she have?” I had to chuckle to myself inasmuch as if he were to ask on this blog, owned by an Oxford atty, with numerous lawyers who regularly contribute, he would be told, uh, well, very little.
NoMiss: google for Monica Goodling and inform yourself about political litmus tests.
As for “marrying up”: explore the backgrounds of the current ND USA and the ND USA appointed during the Reagan administration. Probably mere coincidence ….
As for McCoy’s background … get on PACER and drill thru the ND’s criminal docket for cases in which McCoy was appointed counsel for indigent federal defendants. Those cases seldom get reported … you gotta be a big shot lawyer bribing judges or a hard working physician looking for no-commitments hot date or a pro golfer’s wife de jour to get publicity in criminal cases in the ND.
Just sayin’….
Googling has been conducted about Goodling, and learning that an appointee will be of the same party affiliation as the President and his Attorney General is not news. I don’t think, though, that the practices involving Goodling and the alleged hiring and firing of those USA’s affected all past and present USA’s. I don’t think you can take behavior with specific people in 2007 and generalize to all appointments past and present.
Now to my next project–exploring the backgrounds of the current USA and the one appointed by Reagan: By “marrying up”, are you referring to the fact that current USA Jim Greenlee was an assistant USA when he was appointed to be the USA. Wouldn’t that be good experience for a USA to have? I find that the USA appointed by Reagan that you mention, Current senior Judge Glen Davidson, was Air Force JAG, city prosecutor, assistant district attorney, district attorney, private practice including federal court trial experience, then appointed (married up?) to be USA. That background reveals ample trial experience, so I still don’t understand your term, “had to marry up”. And I see no great similarity between the two men’s backgrounds, as you mentioned–and no great coincidence. I’m way over my head here, so just explain what you mean, please.
Bad history above. Davidson … great choice. So it must have been Bush I’s pick.
You’re leaving a Reagan-era US Atty out, NoMiss.
I’m going to say there’s no problem with US atty’s being political appointees, because that is what they are, by definition, although it’s my recollection that the ND Miss had one from the Kennedy admin, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and got thrown out at the Reagan admin. Perhaps I’m remembering wrong, but I think he was very well respected, and hired a lot of assistants similarly so who defined the professionalism of that office for decades.
Perhaps the political aspect of this set in slightly more when we acquired a “bipartisan” Congressional delegation just before Reagan became president.
Another thing: One possible problem is that everyone is talking in code. So everyone can figure out some of what is being discussed here, I’m going to just state some history– off-hand, here’s my memory of the US atty appointments in NMiss:
HM Ray: early 1960s until just after 1981
Glen Davidson 1981ish until sometime in the mid-80s
Bob Whitwell: Sometime in the mid-to-late 80s until Clinton was elected in 92
Al Moreton: appointed by the District Judges when there was no white house appointment after a certain point with Clinton
Buck Buchanan: appointed by Clinton
Jim Greenlee: appointed by Bush
I don’t personally remember Ray as a US Atty– I got my law license in 1981– but am going on his reputation among lawyers in the area, and the reputation of the staff he built. I can be corrected– I’m sure Ben can, because I think his memory goes back farther than mine. I’m also doing this from memory without checking, but I’m pretty sure I have the outlines right.
At the level of history-level, one interesting story in all this is the resignation of the US Atty that preceded Ray, as Mississippi launched into the civil rights era in the early 60s….
Well, I told you I was over my head in all this. Thanks for clearing that up. Now–back to the project of exploring the two backgrounds—see what coincidences and similarities I can discover.
What is the history about the USA who preceded Ray and resigned? Or is that research homework also?
NoMiss: check names carved into building fronts in Oxford.