The Questions:

1. _6.9 average_____On a scale of (0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most agreement, what is your view on whether internet reporters are held to looser guidelines on objectivity than those in the traditional media?

2. _6.8 average _____On a scale of (0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most agreement, what is your view on whether campaign fundraising consumes so much time that candidates for Governor aren't able to have more direct contact with the electorate?

3. Any questions missing from this interview that you wish would have been addressed? (see responses below)

Robert J. Brown (10) (8)

Chuck Slocum (8) (8)
Question 3: What can be done to foster a less partisan, more policy engaged campaign environment? Who are the candidates to watch? What are the states’ BIG issues? Can Minnesota afford a $7B plus tax increase in 2011? How important is executive experience for a governor?

David Broden (0) (3)
Question 1: The internet reporters are held to the same level of objectivity as the printed press. I have discussed just this topic with several others and to no surprise most think that perhaps the internet people are even more pressed for objectivity than the print media. As with all media there are and should be some who represent a biased look but that is also appropriate as long as it is stated so or known by the readers. As the trend to internet news grows the integrity of the internet reporters will become more visible and critiques will expand. For now the process of accountability and reaction is working. There is no need to discount one form of media over the other due to reporter objectivity.

Question 2: The fund raising focus has become real because the candidates and their managers have let this become the focus. It is up to the candidate to ask his committee to focus his time on the electorate and to form a strong finance committee to raise the dollars. The approach to campaign is what has to change and can change if the candidates themselves will recognize and be accountable. There is no reason to say that the candidates are not able to have direct contract with the electorate. Further the focus has become to use the electronic TV etc. media vs.. people contact. This again gets to the lack of confidence and trust by the electorate. Draw the analogy to Obama and Twitter--this was a link directly to the people--it worked. The real question is then how with the media and technology of today does a candidate establish a dialogue with the electorate--innovative use of technology as well as direct contact can and must be the focus. The finance committee must grow-up and do the heavy lifting for funds--the candidate is the one who meets the people. This is RULE #1 of a good campaign. The dialogue should be on what is a good campaign focus and structure--people focus and connections always make the difference--and there is lots of evidence to confirm this. Thus bottom line don't blame the fundraising pressure for lack of candidate contact with the electorate.

Question 3:
1. Would like ask the media press to address what the press will do to ensure that the electorate is linked and pays attention to the press reports etc. The media needs to recognize that more of the "same old style" will not capture the electorate or bring the candidate and electorate to the same message etc.

2. How will the press reach to the electorate for ideas that can become useful election topics vs. the press simply telling the public what the candidate thinks on an issue or what some organization, foundation, or academic group says is the solution. The real stakeholders need to participate--the press needs to be forced to make this connection. How will the press connect the stakeholders and the candidates.

3. The press we spoke to last week were metro focused--the question I ask is how will the dialogue in the 2010 become a statewide topic and message campaign and how will the press make that happen. The election is statewide does the press really work this approach or do they go only to their readers?

4. Many others too many to list--basically the question I would focus on if we did this again is the first question we asked--what will the press do differently in 2010? Getting an answer that reflects changes in media, technology, and how people get the news must be a challenge if the electorate is to be informed and if we expect an in-depth discussion of the issues. We need to keep asking the press to address this topic.

Glenn Dorfman (5) (5)

Malcolm McLean (7) (8)
Question 1: This is not a very informed comment on my part but it makes sense that the more "individualized", even less supervised nature of internet reporting suggest looser and fewer guidelines.

Question 2: This is a terrible drag on candidates. I think we need to control and reduce and better organize political fund-raising but every time there is some reform candidates figure out how to get around it. For example, it erodes the value and quality of a senator or representative to have only three days a week in Washington - the other days traveling to their district to raise money, put out fires, keep their names in front of the public. I think the nature of our society is that we are going to have rough and tumble and very, very expensive races well into the future. It is curious to me that contributions to a candidate are seen by the Supreme Court as a First Amendment right.

Robert A. Freeman (8) (7)
Question 1: This has pros and cons. MinnPost is a world away from blogs though.

Question 2: Yes, but no one has a good plan to fix it. Public funding lends artificial support to candidates who otherwise would not attract it in a "free market".

Peter Hennessey (0) (10)
Question 1: What guidelines on objectivity? The kind that looks at facts and reports the opposite? The kind that looks at a gathering of six people and reports a massive protest movement, but if they see a crowd of many thousands, they don't even mention it? The kind that says if I agree with it, it is true, and if you disagree with me, you are a (take your choice of epithets)?

Question 2: But fundraising is direct contact with the electorate - those with money....
If anybody were serious about campaign finance reform, they would outlaw all donations except those in small amounts from individual live human donors qualified to vote - not from groups and organizations of any sort such as billionaires, PACs, corporations, unions, charities, churches, funds, and all those strange organizations named after sections in the IRS code. People have the right to vote, people make decisions about how to vote and to whom to donate, people write checks. I have never seen any fictitious legal "person" yet who was able to do any of those things. GM does not vote, their employees do. The UAW does not vote, their members do. It should be the same when it comes to donating to candidates.

Question 3:
* What are they doing to stop mixing news with commentary, both within a story and on the same physical page?
* How can we believe that reporters are objective if they admit to and freely practice mixing their own biases into a story?
* How can we believe that a paper is objective if they freely mix news and opinion on the same page? Am I supposed to be intelligent enough to tell the difference -- especially when there is more real news in a well-reasoned opinion piece than in a so-called news item?
* What are they doing to return to the old standard whereby reporters, regardless of their personal biases and preferences, would sharply challenge the news source or news maker, whether they like that person or not, instead of seeking to get into that person's good graces so they would be privy to tips and scoops from that person?
* What are they doing to return to the old standard which was that journalists are supposed to inform their readership, rather than entertain the stupid rubes with fluff and keep them ignorant of important events?
* What are they doing to stop the revolving door between being a journalist and a public or private press agent? Or, while pretending to be a reporter, they act like a press agent?

Donald H. Anderson (6) (10)
Question 3: Who funds the non-traditional news sources?

Kent Eklund (9) (9)
Is the future of the press in the nonprofit sector? The competitive environment ended up with a grand old paper -- the Red Wing paper-- going local and to two days per week.

George Pillsbury (5) (3)

Rick Krueger (10) (10)
I think there is a tendency in the media to report what both (or all) sides say on factual issues. The problem with that is that often times only one is actually correct. The media should be more aggressive in reporting factual inaccuracies in statements by candidates.

Al Quie (10) (0)
Question 2: I don't believe a candidate needs to spend much time fundraising. Give people a good vision for the state; propose solutions for our biggest problems; and get out engaging with the people both supportive and not supportive. People who believe in you will raise the funds.

Question 3: How can the media best serve the middle 60% of the voters in considering the main issues?

Ray Schmitz (10) (1)
Question 1: At lest personally I look at the new style net news as comparable or at least that they need to be comparable. The bloggers etc are a far different story.

But my gripe about both print and other news sources is their unwillingness to get beyond the sound bites, candidates are very well trained to stay on message, we keep hearing the same quotes and no effort seems to be made to either get a detailed answer or not
publish the interview. The budget mess is a good example, the governor and the leadership of the house and senate repeated the same mantra for a month, why not force them to get to the details or not cover them.

Question 2: I really find this hard to accept.

Carolyn Ring (9) (9)
Question 3: What do you see as the effect of bloggers, facebook, and twitter on public opinion?

Bill Hamm (9.5) (2.5)
Question 1: If you don't believe it check the spelling and grammar, it's worse than mine.

Question 2: Only if you’re the Independence Party candidate, otherwise the minions do it for you, are you guys serious. Ask a few ex-gubernatorial candidates.

Question 3: Does or will the tech suaveness of the candidate affect the outcome of the election? Will the candidates position on the 2nd Amendment matter? Is pro-life or pro-choice going to rule this election? Will any real issues be relevant any more or will we just be better served the spin of the day? Does the death of our veterans matter?

Wayne Jennings (8) (8)

Clarence Shallbetter (8) (7)

Terry Stone (5) (10)
Question 1: I’ll assume that the question is whether internet reporters are held to looser guidelines on objectivity than those in the traditional media by the public.
I was unaware that there was any accountability to the public in any media. I don’t recall any stories regarding hostage taking or riots taking place as a result of media bias.
MSNBC seems to have set a precedent by wearing its bias as a badge of honor. It seems that accountability today takes the form of the demographic around which media build their consumer base. MSNBC seems bent on capturing the National Enquirer subscriber base.

It’s unfortunate that a MPR representative wasn’t present. A stunning phenomenon of unaccountable journalism is the packaging of bias as objectivity that is consistently conducted by public broadcasting. The audience of public broadcasting apparently mistakes the lack of Viagra and Shamwow commercials for a warrant of objective reporting. To a democracy, insidious resourcefully feigned objectivity is probably a greater risk than blatant bias.

Question 2: Campaign fundraising does consume a good deal of a candidate’s time; but there is good news. The electorate might consider showing up at a fundraiser and visit with the candidate. If the electorate isn’t contributing, the special interests will be glad to fill the void--and the candidate’s ear.

There are candidates representing both major parties who take no PAC money or lobbyist money. This is a big deal. Media do not seem to understand what this means and what a precedent and paradigm shift this could mean for our state. No serious media interview should be made with a candidate without a no nonsense discussion of what that candidate’s historical base of financial support has been.

Incredibly enough, one DFL gubernatorial candidate told MinnPost this week that what he wanted to be when he grew up was a union president. The campaign finance board reports support this interest. This particular candidate had to take second best; an iron range legislator. It would be refreshing and helpful for Minnesota media to take an objective look at who is buying which candidates for our state’s highest office. It matters not that special interest money has bought leaders in the past. This is wrong; and it should be reported as such.

Question 3: Are there written journalistic standards for your staff and could you share a copy?
Ray Ayotte (6) (8)

Paul Hauge (5)(9)

Jan Hively (4) (9)
It's not just time, it's attention and emphasis -- It's what sets their priorities.
Charles Lutz (7) (6)

David Detert (9) (7)

Shirley Heaton (10) (10)
Question 1: Regulating info and data on the Internet is becoming more and more of a headache. It seems to me a group of lawyers need to look into this, make a decision then transfer their conclusions to the political arena for enactment of laws to deal with the matter. But as for now, it's seems to be open season and I oftimes wish I were back in my role as a newspaper reporter where it appears I could 'stretch the facts' to the nth degree without concern of court action.

Question 2: I've often wondered what our poor, homeless and hungry think every time they see the results of our politicians' fundraising efforts -- especially those which keep the incumbents away from their elected posts so as to raise a few hundred thousand or so just to sell themselves to the electorate

Fred Zimmerman (10) (10)
Question 3: What do any of the candidates from either party know about the status and readiness of Minnesota companies regarding their ability to survive against intense international competition?

Conrad deFiebre (1) (0)
Question 1: What internet reporters? As noted on the Pioneer Press editorial page today (Monday, 8-10-09) there are damn few of them. The few full-time professionals in this field (Eric Black, David Brauer) are every bit as credible as those still published on dead trees. I give your hypothesis a 1 rather than zero because internet organs generally have weaker institutional safeguards for objectivity than long-established newspapers and because many internet organs have undisguised political slants, much like the early press in America.

Question 2: Fundraising does involve direct contact with the electorate, in fact is the chief motivation for politicians to meet folks at all and not just advertise via media. Does that skew to the wealthy? Of course it does. But they are part of the electorate, too.