“You can crush a man with poor journalism, then apologize later at his political gravesite.” - William Randolph Hearst

As Ronald Reagan once said, “Well, there you go again.” The catch phrase, aimed at Jimmy Carter during a 1980 presidential debate and used repeatedly during the ensuing campaign, earned Reagan a debate victory and virtually sewed up his landslide victory over Carter in that watershed election.

The same remark can also be used for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution regarding their relentless attacks – couched as “investigative reporting” – on GOP gubernatorial candidate John Oxendine. It is doubtful that their journalistic prowess will earn them anything – other than more disdain and distrust from a savvy and informed public that has already abandoned their newspaper in droves.

You have to hand it to them, though. Their new publisher, Doug Franklin, realizing that his newspaper’s notorious liberal bias was gutting their readership in the more conservative Atlanta suburbs, promised a more “fair and balanced” editorial approach. He even jettisoned the infamous Cynthia Tucker and her unabashed leftist editorial legacy to their Washington D.C. desk to prove his point.

Then, after reducing the size of their printed product and downsizing their newsroom to less than half of 2007 levels, Franklin promised to maintain the media company’s “watchdog” status, and vowed to devote a dedicated team of professional journalists to pursue legitimate and necessary investigative reporting.

So what is the first “investigative reporting” piece the “new” AJC pursues? They launch a dubious series of attack pieces – six in a span of three-weeks – designed to tear down the conservative Oxendine. What better allocation of their diminishing journalistic resources could be put to use than wounding the one Republican which some polls show could defeat their beloved and preferred candidate, Democrat Roy Barnes?

Normally, investigative journalism focuses on rooting out corruption and holding governments and elected officials accountable to the taxpayers who fund their very existence. 

The thin facts they have presented thus far in their ongoing Oxendine series resembles an investigation in desperate search for a punch line, or external justification.

First, they potentially exposed an Alabama insurance executive who may have engineered $120,000 in Oxendine for Governor campaign donations through a web of complicated PAC’s (Political Action Committees). Oxendine said he didn’t know the details, and rather than fight it in the media, his campaign – which did nothing illegal in accepting the checks – just returned the money for now. Oxendine said he preferred to “err on the side of caution,” and promptly submitted the findings to the election ethics board for a ruling. Yawn.

Then they detailed how most of his early donors are in the insurance business. Oxendine has been  regulating the insurance industry for nearly fifteen years, so it stands to reason that this is where his primary business contacts – and preliminary donors – would come from. Will the AJC investigate Roy Barnes if he raises millions of dollars from lawyers? Does that mean he will oppose legitimate tort reform? No, it means that is where his friends and supporters are: he’s a lawyer. When raising campaign money, you go to your circle of business contacts first. Is it plausible that Oxendine’s insurance company contacts found him to be fair and reasonable in his rulings as commissioner? Does every campaign contribution infer a quid pro quo? Hardly.

After that fizzled, the AJC is now is fixated on the current chairman of the Georgia Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association, Delois “Dee” Yancey, III. This association serves a similar function to the insurance industry as the FDIC does to banks – it oversees insurance companies in the case of financial insolvency to make sure all legitimate claims are paid. Seven board members comprise the Association, and the chairman’s vote only matters in the case of a tie. The positions are non-paid, and Yancey serves in a similar capacity in several other states, including chairman of the Arkansas board, just like Georgia. Yancey’s father served as chairman of this particular board in Georgia until his retirement in the late ‘90’s. Obviously, Yancey is knowledgeable and respected, or he wouldn’t be serving on several state boards simultaneously. So Oxendine appointed him. Typically, the chairman comes from a Georgia based company, of which there are two represented. Oxendine had two choices, and went with Yancey only after the former board chairman retired and his successor at the other company lived in Florida.

The AJC’s smoking gun? Yancey and his wife have been near maximum contributors to Oxendine’s reelection campaigns, as well as his gubernatorial effort. Maybe they just like the guy, or think he is an effective insurance commissioner, or believe he’d be a good governor of Georgia. The AJC reports they are friends and went on a trip together. If they are like many professionals, relationships often grow from one’s work environment. Another snoozer.

As for the “new” AJC, we’ll coin a phrase from President Obama during his 2008 campaign: “You can put lipstick on a pig…”