News -> INDReporter WED, OCT 10 6:56PM by Walter Pierce

The debate that wasn't: here's what went down

[Clarification: It seems what we have here is a failure to communicate. Drs. Bob Buckman and Ryan Teten at UL evidently each believed the other was in charge of making arrangements with the Boustany and Landry campaigns during the time period in which the Boustany campaign was left out of the loop, based on conversations and emails exchanged Thursday between IND Monthly and the professors. We stand by the accuracy of this report, although we don’t share the Boustany campaign’s suspicion that their candidate was in any way “set up” by either Teten or Buckman.]

UL Lafayette journalism professor Dr. Robert Buckman announced late Tuesday afternoon that the debate scheduled for Monday afternoon in the Angelle Hall auditorium between the two main contenders in the Nov. 6 election for the new 3rd Congressional District — U.S. Reps. Charles Boustany, R-Lafayette, and Jeff Landry, R-New Iberia — has been cancelled. In the press release announcing the cancellation, Buckman cites “unforeseen conflicts involving time, location and format.” But that’s not exactly accurate, and sources close to Boustany are wondering, was the four-term Lafayette congressman being set up for a fall?

boustany-landryIND Monthly has obtained an email thread demonstrating that for nearly three weeks the Boustany camp — Chief of Staff Jeff Dobrozsi and Campaign Manager John Porter, specifically — were not copied on emails between Buckman and the Landry camp concerning details about the format for Monday’s event. Much changed in that interim. According to sources, the last time the Boustany camp was updated on the debate was around Friday, Sept. 21. At that time the event was scheduled for a smaller venue in Burke-Hawthorne Hall, Lake Charles Democrat Ron Richard was supposed to be part of it, KATC was going to broadcast the event live and KATC anchor Hoyt Harris was set to moderate it.

On Tuesday of this week, Dr. Ryan Teten, the UL political science professor who was pegged to moderate the debate, emailed Dobrozsi and Porter at Boustany’s office with the press release Buckman had released to the media earlier that day about the Monday debate. Head scratching ensued at Camp Boustany. Porter emailed Teten back at just after 6 p.m. Tuesday: “Dr. Teten: What happened with Richard? What happened with Hoyt Harris? Now we have a panel? I’m confused here on the changes.”

Teten replied to Dobrozsi and Porter less than a half hour later:

Checking back on all of the communications sent out, it seems as though Dr. Buckman left both you and John completely off of his mailing list that had updates at each step of the process. I apologize profusely for this. Therefore, you have not been getting any of the e-mails that he has been sending over the last three weeks regarding any of the planning going on for the debate (all of the panelists and Landrys [sic] campaign manager are on the list). As soon as KATC suggested that the event would not be televised, Dr. Buckman took the reins quite forcefully and set up the panels, the venue and was sending out the e-mail updates. The format and trying to insert myself as moderator to manage the debate were some of the only ways that I have been able to get any sense of stability to the event. If there is anything that you would like me to do at this point for you all, please let me know immediately.
Shortly after Teten’s hat-in-hand accounting for the communications error, he goes further in an email about an hour later, at 7:20 p.m. and addresses only Dobrozsi:
Jeff, If Boustany has any reservations about the event, I can gladly suggest that I completely screwed up the date or the communications and can issue a press release suggesting that it was completely my fault in terms of a debate organization mishap and we can cancel it. I do not want this event to seem like a gotcha tactic on you guys or make it something that endangers the relationship UL and our department have with you and Rep. Boustany. I feel like I should have been on top of the e-mail list Dr. Buckman was using so that all concerns could be expressed way in advance. Please let me know if there are any steps you need me to take either way.
By this time — yesterday evening, Tuesday, Oct. 9 — the whole debate is sagging into a steaming pile of ain’t gonna happen. The Boustany camp is fuming, fully suspecting FreedomWorks and the Tea Party of Lafayette, which jointly opened a “get out the vote” pro-Landry office in Lafayette on Monday — FreedomWorks is the non-profit, conservative political group that essentially invented the tea party movement in 2009 and has bankrolled much of its “grassroots” activities — played some role in the screw up, a suspicion Buckman seeks to dispel in an email this afternoon to Porter and Dobroszi:
Dear John and Jeff:
I just learned from Ryan Teten about your concerns over the format. I had thought he was forwarding everything to you, but I may have erred in that assumption. He explained to me your concerns about a one-on-one debate and that you may think that we have attempted to “set you up” by excluding the other candidates and presenting you with a fait accompli at the last minute. I can assure you we had no such intention.

...Dr. Teten, bless his heart, is offering to fall on his sword over this. Like me, he had no ulterior motive and no ax to grind with either of your candidates. We both just wanted to provide a service to the voters.
Buckman did not return a phone call Wednesday evening seeking comment.

Walter Pierce
About the author:


Comments (8)add
...
written by Ryan Teten , October 11, 2012 - 09:53 am
Hi Walter,

I was a bit surprised to see the article regarding a UL debate that was published yesterday, primarily due to the fact that I was never contacted with regard to the content or to check the information provided. In no way was the debate any kind of partisan move in an attempt to trap either candidate; it was, and has always been about providing information on the candidates and their positions to all of the voters of the 3rd Congressional District, nothing more. There is no agenda from the Tea Party, the Democratic Party or the Republican Party behind the debate’s organization or cancellation. The article also uses e-mails to suggest more than they actually do and create artificial divisiveness between the candidates and entities at the university. To reiterate, the reason for the cancellation of the debate was miscommunication, and maintenance of communication between all parties involved. It would not have been fair to either candidate to organize something without making sure every single entity involved was on the same page. I would appreciate a retraction on the claims made in the article and consultation to check facts and allegations in the future.

...
written by Kyle Skaggs , October 11, 2012 - 10:13 pm
Actually, this information could not be more incorrect. There were also several graduate and advanced undergraduate students assisting in the set-up and PR surrounding Monday's proposed debate. The involvement of multiple students from varying political and ideological backgrounds makes these unsubstantiated claims of being "set up for a fall" less and less feasible, especially when you consider the reputation that the IND has accumulated for journalism short on ethics. This race has been bloody enough without the help of an instigator with an email thread and a laptop perpetuating negative media surrounding Louisiana politics. Additionally, considering the importance of the relationships between UL and Lafayette political media, including the IND., the irresponsibility of publishing this article without proper research or fact-checking warrants community and professional reaction. This journalist has tarnished the reputations of two highly-regarded and ethical educators at the most important academic institute in Lafayette through unsubstantiated claims. The departments responsible for spearheading this proposed service to our voters will now likely give deeper consideration into the necessity of including a publication that doesn't abide by the SPJ guidelines for ethics in journalism, or require that their rogue journalists even consider fact-checking.

Our support of the IND. stops today until serious changes are made.
...
written by Michael A. Moss , October 12, 2012 - 08:35 am
Ryan, I don't believe you!
...
written by Walter Pierce , October 12, 2012 - 09:34 am
Kyle,
Nothing in the article is inaccurate. The email transcripts are faithfully reproduced. Moreover, the emails were exchanged between a public university and the U.S. House of Representatives, hence they are public record.
Clearly there was a woeful lack of communication between the political science and journalism offices on campus, leaving the Boustany camp feeling as though he was being set up. That, too, was accurately reported.
I'm sorry if the sequence of events leaves a sheen of incompetency and casts UL Lafayette in a poor light, but there's nothing "rogue" about this story.
It's not the media's job to wipe egg off anyone's face.
If you want to assail the journalism behind this article, and you're certainly welcome to do so, be substantive. What facts are wrong? Where does the research falter? My breath is bated as I wait for your response.
...
written by Kyle Skaggs , October 12, 2012 - 09:11 pm
The wrongdoing was in your minimal attempted fact-checking, and your interest in perpetuating a misunderstanding further for the purpose of dramatic reading. If that's your goal, write for the Enquirer. Anybody with half of a brain can read your 'story' and identify a clear framing of the program in a negative light. This attempted influence on how the public views an issue is most certainly irresponsible, especially by the SPJ. You can't honestly say that you didn't have these frames in mind when authoring this piece, as an accusation like that is guaranteed to get you more publicity. Distractions like these are part of the reason why some Americans (IND readers) have no idea what is going on in the political spectrum, they are captured by journalists fantasizing on irrelevant issues that should have been left alone when the initial mistake was identified.
...
written by Ciano Leal , October 14, 2012 - 07:02 pm
A person with a genius I.Q. would never understand any other vista or contemplate any concrete objective without being in the inside looking out and to negate and/or not allow this journalist professional manner of presenting a thorough openness of the issues, " would be a crime !
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it