Monday, September 19, 2011

PD Columnist Connie Schultz resigns after we expose her engaged in political activity. UPDATE: ORP asked PD to keep Schultz off politics

It has just been announced that Plain Dealer Columnist Connie Schultz has resigned from the Plain Dealer.

Recall that we posted a story a couple of weeks ago, with video of her filming Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel at a tea party event. Mandel is the likely opponent for US Senator Sherrod Brown, who is also Schultz's husband. Schultz was at the event to write a story about the tea party for the Plain Dealer, when she put the Plain Dealer into an awkward situation by creating a clear conflict of interest when she filmed Mandel.

This was an exclusive story to Third Base Politics. Schultz wrote a column apologizing the next day after our post. Before that happened, 3BP was the only source for the story.

More often than not, we disagree strongly with her, but let's give credit to Connie Schultz for doing the right thing here. She clearly recognized the situation she was creating for the Plain Dealer.
In recent weeks, it has become painfully clear that my independence, professionally and personally, is possible only if I'm no longer writing for the newspaper that covers my husband's senate race on a daily basis. It's time for me to move on.
Below is the video that started it all.


Third Base Politics has obtained a copy of a letter from the Ohio Republican Party to the Plain Dealer. Last week, they wrote and asked the PD not to let Connie Schultz write any more stories of a political nature, due to the obvious conflict of interest. They agreed to meet about the matter this week, but with today's resignation, it appears that the matter is settled. Here is the letter:
The Plain Dealer
1801 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2198

September 14, 2011

Dear Ms. Simmons:

I respectfully request that Connie Schultz not be allowed to write about political matters for the Plain Dealer as her conflict of interest does not pass the most basic test of journalistic fairness and integrity.

I’m sure you would agree the first priority of any journalist is to avoid instances which the public may regard as a real or perceived conflict of interest with the subject matter they’re covering.

On September 3, 2011 Connie Schultz, a columnist with the Plain Dealer, and the wife of U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, attended a political rally sponsored by the Tea Party Express at All Pro Freight Stadium in Avon.

On September 7, 2011 Ms. Schultz wrote a column about the Tea Party event. She decried many things about the event, and interestingly called into question the integrity of the editor of the Lorain Morning Journal by linking a column he wrote last spring to how the newspaper reported attendance at the event.

Later on September 7, it was reported by Third Base Politics that Ms. Schultz not only attended the event, but when her husband’s potential political opponent for the U.S. Senate in 2012 began speaking, she took out her camera and began filming his speech.

On September 8, Ms. Schultz posted another column offering a highly suspect explanation for her actions. She said “When I held up my camera, I thought the journalist in me was making an in-your-face point about public forums.” With all due respect why didn’t she mention this episode in her September 7 column before she was caught red-handed performing a blatantly political act? I think we all know the answer to that.

In fact, Ms. Schultz’s actions run completely counter to thoughts she offered in her 2007 memoir, entitled “…and His Lovely Wife”:

On page 49, Ms. Schultz writes, “I have to avoid even the appearance of conflict, and that list of topics is growing too long.” On page 51, Ms. Schultz writes, “I had stopped attending newsroom meetings about political coverage, to avoid even the appearance of scouting for the campaign.”

Oftentimes it is print media which serves as the lens through which the general public views information, and in turn ultimately renders its judgments. The faith the public places in the media stems directly from the ability of reporters to remain free from bias. Your readers not only value this relationship, they depend upon it.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.


Kevin DeWine
Chairman, Ohio Republican Party


  1. The PD usually has someone in my local grocery store who hawks subscriptions. My standard line is "Fire Connie Schultz and get back to me".

    Now I will need another reason not to subscribe.

    Any suggestions?

  2. You say: "Fire Connie Schultz and get back to me."
    I just tell them I don't have any fish to wrap.

  3. How is a video filmed by someone else, and put on their YouTube channel YOUR exclusive again? LOL.

    You guys are full of yourselves.

    ThirdBasePolitics: Where anything we write about on YouTube counts as an exclusive. LOL

  4. OMG, you guys switched out the video! LOL.

    After I teased you guys about taking credit for someone else's video on YouTube, you downloaded his footage and then reposted it as your own?!?

    Or maybe you have some other explanation as to why the video you're now linking to was posted three days AFTER (Sept. 10) the post you first (Sept. 7) refer to the video?


  5. After seeing your comments, Modern, our source contacted us and gave us the video directly. We have full permission to host the video.

    In hindsight, we should have hosted it on our YouTube account from the start, after the source came to us. Ah well. Live and learn, eh?

    Our source came directly to us and no one else.

    If you can find one single article about Schultz taping Mandel BEFORE schultz made her apology, OTHER than OURS, please post it here. Once you have posted that link, we'll stop calling it our exclusive story.

    We'll be waiting.

  6. Your "source" is the person who had the video, not you. He then pimped it to you.

    How can you say that your source went to nobody else to promote this video when he first went to YouTube to post it?

    Seriously, get over yourselves. A guy pushed a video of his on YouTube knowing you'd jump on anything closely related to Sherrod Brown. You did nothing but embed the code of his video. No research. No reporting. No calling anyone about it. You embedded someone else's video and then talked about what's in the video. Anyone could have done that.

    Calling that an exclusive "report" is just sad. What's next, piano playing cats commentary?

  7. Bytor, hopefully Andrew and BG will pick this up as a followup. I have lost count of the number of times my respectful commentary on were wiped due to me referring to Connie as the Senator's wife.

    ! down, now hopefully Sherrod is next.

  8. LOL at Modern practicing the politics of distraction. Pathetically trying to make the focus the definition of what is exclusive or not doesn't take away from 3BP's story - and that is Connie abused journalistic privilege to benefit her liberal husband and paid for it with her job.

  9. Your "source" is the person who had the video, not you.

    So, according to Modern's logic, Bob Woodward should not get any credit for breaking the Watergate story, because Deep Throat was the source who had the info.

    We're still waiting for that link, Modern. Come on, you're letting the Plunderdumbs down, man!

    Show us 3BP fools who else reported on Schultz's behavior on the rally before she apologized!

    If it wasn't 3BP, show us the story that led to Schultz' apology!

    Show us who Kevin DeWine SHOULD have credited in his letter to the Plain Dealer.

    Show us a tweet like this from someone else, that led to what must've been a difficult meeting between Schultz and the PD editors.

    By definition, until you provide the EVIDENCE that someone ELSE reported on Schultz before she apologized, it is a 3BP exclusive.

    So go ahead Modern. Back up your big mouth with the proof. Prove us wrong. Prove it wasn't a 3BP exclusive.

    We're waiting, Modern.

  10. "Show us 3BP fools who else reported on Schultz's behavior on the rally before she apologized!"

    Again, you mean other than YOUTUBE? Of course, DeWine would give you guys credit. This site (used to be anways) literally on his payroll.

    The fact is you guys were so embarassed by me pointing out that you were taking credit for someone else's video on someone else's YouTube channel that you then downloaded and reuploaded as your own on your channel. Pathetic.

    Yes, the YouTube video with 83 views is what did it. LOL. It's nice that Jon Keeling makes sure ORP throws you guys a bone so you guys can try to claim relevancy.

    Deep Throat is a horrible analogy. This is like finding something on Wikipedia and calling it an "Exclusive."

    What's worse is you were so embarassed by this sham of an exclusive, you clumbsily tried to cover it up after you got busted for taking someone elses work and passing it off as your own.

  11. YouTube is not a person Modern. It is a computer program.

    We're still waiting.

  12. Modern: Thoughts on Connie's actions and subsequent resignation?

    Heaven forbid you actually discuss the topic.

  13. YouTube is not a person Modern. It is a computer program. Someone has been watching too much "Tron."

    YouTube is not a program, it's a website, like this one, except one people actually view. LOL.

    When is the last time you updated your "YouTube program?" Do you download it straight from the webs or do you have to use a CD-ROM to install it?

    LOL... You took someone else's video from YouTube, called it as your own, labeled it "exclusive," then when caught, tried to upload to your website's channel three days after the fact to hide the fact.

    And then you defend it all by claiming "YouTube is a program." LOL.

    Seriously, bring back Keeling. You guys can't hold a candle to him, and he was on the payroll of the Ohio GOP the whole time.

  14. I'm sorry, I'm too busy laughing at this pathetic attempt to fluff this website up into some big "exclusive" that was already available to any with that "YouTube program" on their personal computing devices, and Bytor's delusions of grandeur that he's pulled a Woodward and Bernstein by learning how to embed someone else's YouTube video into a post and call it reporting.


  15. All your blustering isn't proving us wrong.

    Show us you're right. Show us where someone else put out the story.

    You can't.

  16. Y-O-U-T-U-B-E had it before Y-O-U.

  17. Let me paraphrase Modern.

    "It's incredibly embarrassing for Sherrod Brown, Connie Schultz and the Plain Dealer, and I will do whatever I can to distract from it, even if it means drawing more attention to this post than I initially intended."

  18. Let me paraphrase Modern:

    "In reality, this is very embarrassing for Sherrod, Connie and the PD, and the best thing for me to do is talk about anything but that. Why? Because this is what my life has been reduced to."

  19. Is any one else confused about why Modern spends so much time trolling a site that is, by his own estimation, read by no one?

    Modern, doesn't the Ohio Democratic Party have anything else for you to do?

  20. Jason, don't ya know...

    Michelle Malkin always tweets links to blogs that nobody reads.

    Blogs that nobody reads get contacted by Breitbart asking to post their unread articles.

    I'm done asking Modern to prove that our article didn't lead to Connie's resignation. He can't do it, so obviously keeps repeating the same crap about us that he has been for years now.

    His shtick is old.

  21. Wow, cited by Breitbart and Michelle Malkin... that really does increase, snicker, your credibility. And they ALWAYS cited your blog? Really? It wouldn't have anything to do with your constant self-promotion claiming credit?!/Bytor3BP/status/115851486935789569

    Michelle Malkin doesn't read this blog, just your tweets demanding she give you credit for the story. This is really getting pathetic, Bytor.

    And despite all that promotion, your killer YouTube video that you took from someone else's YouTube video is up to a WHOPPING 100 views.

    Yep, you're so huge your begging the Dispatch to link to
    your "exclusive" story on its website. And now you're pushing it to Joe Hallett too... because you're so widely read.

    Yes, Connie Schultz shot video of a Tea Party event that she was covering. Yep, this is an issue that is wrecking Sherrod's Senate campaign. Josh Mandel's "unusual" bundling of donations? That's not a story. Bytor found video on YouTube of a journalist RECORDING A PUBLIC EVENT!

    Seriously? When John Kasich is giving millions in taxpayer incentives to get a company that has committed massive Medicaid fraud to move from Kentucky back to Ohio, you want to talk about Connie Schultz and your amazing embed something someone else put on YouTube skills? Fine.

  22. Lemme get this straight: Modern is in a 3BP comment thread whining that 3BP isn't covering [lefty topic du jour], and returns to 3BP on a near daily basis to make this same complaint... but 3BP is pathetic.

    I feel bad for President Obama - he has to make up his own straw men, but here in Ohio we've got the Plunderbund Pals!

  23. Notice, readers, that Modern still has not proven that anyone other than 3BP reported on the story that led to the PD and Schultz being aware of it.

    He is all about bluster and distraction. Like pushing the meme that we just "found" a video on youtube, instead of being contacted by an anonymous source with it. A lie to discredit us, that he cant back up with proof.

    As far as making comments on the PD site? You can count mine on one hand. Modern has literally THOUSANDS of comments on every newspaper website and political blog in the state.

    He has more comments on this thread alone, then I have made on the Plain Dealer. Talk about projection.

    Finally, promoting your blog on twitter to national media types is something that Modern does also.

    Projection, lies, and ridicule to distract from the fact that he cant back up his claims.


  24. If it was on Youtube 3 days before you posted it, then you didn't have an exclusive, you just linked something. You arent Woodward and Bernstein, you are just someone who posted a hot link...

  25. As I noted last week the American left is facing significant challenges. The facts are against them. The failure of liberalism is visible to the naked eye. Take a walk around Lorain, Ohio, once the heart of Brown's house district and see what liberalism and the Democrat party wrought.

    So what will they do? Two things:

    (1) Change the subject
    (2) Assault thier critics.

    Modern has been hard at this for weeks now and it reeks. Since he cannot raise an argument in support of the efficacy of his political predilicitions he's reduced to school yard bully tactics.

    Long ago I was a liberal but it became clear to me that although I shared some of the movements goals their preferred strategies would be failures.

    when state employed social workers began bringing welfare checks to the mothers of illegitimate children who were still languishing a bed they did not pay for I knew the programs would do more harm than good.

    And I have been, sadly, vindicated. The welfare system purposely incentivizes young women away from those behaviors that would assure them a decent shot at prosperity. And only the golden seam of union money flowing to crooked politicians sustains this dreadful circumstance.

    So essentially modern is today's terrorist: he, like all liberals, wants what is bad for all of us and he, like all liberals, doesn't care about the cost, human or otherwise.

    Shame, shame on Modern. Shame on the liberal movement.

    Hey, what am I talking about? I forgot that practicing liberals have no sense of shame. For proof, listen to Chuck Schumer for 120 seconds.


  26. How anonymous can a source be when he has his own YouTube channel?

    Yes, I promote our site, but then I don't claim that these people read our site when they immediate tweet a link to me after initially linking the story to the PD. And I don't talk about how they tweet about us "all the time" like you did yesterday. LOL.

    The fact that you can't see the difference is not surprising. This site isn't known for its intellect, just hackery.

    Skip, you can drop the liberals are name calling bullies crap. In the SAME comment you called me a terrorist. A terrorist. That's fighting words you coward.

    Skip, you're the symbol of the conservative movement... you see in the left everything you should hate about yourself. You've got no shame. You belong to this site.

  27. The PD and the Dispatch and others all had this story on their own, no evidence they knew about it from this site... as evidenced by your need to try to tell them they should give you credit.

  28. Skip, we still have actual terrorists - no need to call Modern one. It's bad enough that he's wrong about everything, and desperate to prove it every chance he gets!

  29. Sorry boys but it is long past time to take the gloves off.

    Modern and his ilk have destroyed too many once fine places NOT to call them as we see them.

    Liberalism has destroyed entire cities. Isn't that exactly what a terrorist would do? Tell me how today's Detroit, or Lorain, or Elyria, would be different were it hit by a terror attack.

    Poor modern, all insulted by my calling him a terrorist. It is OK, though to call me a racist or a barbarian or terrorist, all of which has emanated from the mouths of liberals. As I recall I was called a "f*cker" by a prominent Ohio Democrat just a short while ago. Were those fighting words modern?

    As I recall it was Debbie Wasserman-schultz who said that because I support such radical ideas as photo ID's for voting and, gasp, welfare reform that I want a return to jim crow.

    I don't recall reading any denunciations of that language on your little blog.

    Tell me, modern, why is it OK for liberals to be uncivil but not OK for me to make what is a very apt comparison between the results of liberalism and the destruction brought by other terrorists?


    What were the word of Jimmy Hoffa? Spoken while the ONE looked on approvingly? Oh yes, I'm an "SOB", right Modern?

    If Maxine Waters, that bright light of liberal intelligencia, has her way I'll see you in hell, right Modern?

    You want civility? show some. Otherwise you'd best thicken your skin. Why, I'm getting the impression that liberals in America can dish it out, but they just can't take it.

    Oh and leave us not try the "two wrongs don't make a right" argument. In the minds of liberals there is nothing that they do in the name of their movement that could possibly be wrong.



No profanity, keep it clean.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.