This is a Jerry Bader Show Exclusive that we broke on the air this morning.

From: Claire Martin

Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:52 PM
To:

Subject: FW: MacIver Institute
 
Conference Superintendents,
 
Please see the message below from the KMUC Uniserv director that serves our area.  Thought you would find this of interest.  As if we didn’t already have enough things to worry about!
 
Claire

She was referring to this email from Jim Carlson of WEAC
 
From: Carlson, Jim 
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 12:36 PM
To:
Subject: MacIver Institute
 
Superintendents
I thought a heads-up about the following story would be helpful.
 
Last night before a school board meeting, New Holstein Superintendent Chris Nelson was approach(sic) by Bill Osmulski from the MacIver Institute.  Mr. Osmulski presented himself as a reporter from a legitimate news organization, carrying a professional looking video camera.  (Chris noted that he played the role well, appearing very much like a legitimate journalist.)  He wanted to video tape Chris’ response to questions about how the district had spent the ARRA funds.  Fortunately, Chris is new to the district and had no responses to Mr. Osmulski’s questions.
 
Most would not consider the MacIver Institute a legitimate news gathering organization.  Rather, MacIver is an ultra-conservative organization with specific agendas.  Related to education, those agendas appear to include privatization and charters.  It seems likely that Mr. Osmulski wanted to capture Chris on video as a sort of “gotcha” to be used on the organization’s website.  (Google it, it’s there.)
 
Thought you would appreciate the heads-up.  If Mr. Osmulski was willing to drive up to New Holstein for a quick video shoot, I can’t imagine that a trek up 43 to Two Rivers would be much of a hassle for him.
Jim
 
Brian Fraley of the MacIver Insitute told me that Osmulski, a long-time television reporter in Wisconsin IS, in fact, a legitimate journalist. Further, Osmulski's camera clearly has a MacIver Institute sticker on it, Osmulski introduces himself as being from the MacIver Institute and presented a business card from, say it with me, the MacIver institute. Of course libs in the education establishment would call the MacIver institute "ultra" conservative. To them Joe Lieberman and John McCain are conservative and anything to the right of them is "ultra" conservative.

Even if the label was accurate, so what? As Fraley said to me on the phone over the weekend, Joe Blow from the Blow blog has the right to do what Osmulski did. Granted school officials can always decline an interview; the First Amendment doesn't guarantee access. But clearly the libs in the education establishment are use to the MSM being on their side. So they consider anybody who gives the appearance of being a "legitimate journalist" but doesn't tote the MSM liberal line, is a phony in their eyes, or is being deceptive if he doesn't openly pronounce himself to be working for a conservative organization. In there eyes, anybody who works for a conservative organization, by definition, CAN'T be a legitimate journalist. He must be "playing a role" as the WEAC hack put it.

Two items from this thread that shock me:

1) It was "fortunate" that the New Holstein Superintendent is new to the district and didn't have any information on how stimulus funds were spent. If the Super simply provides factual information to the reporter (and yes, Osmulski certainly has the bona fides to be called a legitimate reporter), what do they have to worry about? They make it sound as though the Superintendent was a captured POW, but fortunately had no vital information to be extracted. Yes, the MacIver Insitute is a conservative think tank, but what harm could come from giving them factual information?

2) The Chilton School Superintendent's line: "as if we didn't already have enough things to worry about." Right, having to simply factually explain how the district spends stimulus funds to ANY member of the public, whether they work for a conservative think tank or not, is something to worry about????

One aside, note how MacIver Institute's support for charter schools and privatization is singled out as proof that any reporter who works for them can't be "a legitimate journalist."

And overall, just the alarm detectable in this thread is also frightening; somebody we consider an unfriendly with a camera and a microphone may ask you questions!!! Be afraid!!! And be forewarned!!! Exactly WHAT do they have to hide????