Dana Loesch's Husband Calls $2,500 Check From Ed Martin a "Non-Story"; Tutors Daily RFT on Journalism

•  Put on your raincoats everybody here comes Dana. EWWWWWW gross.

•  Take that back or Dana is gonna be PISSED. Get it?

•  To give this story the right feel you should post video of Chris Loesch's lame attempt at rap. Knickers ha ha you're killing us Chris. Lame-O cracker.

• Pissing match and Dana Loesch are forever combined. Now that is funny. Although I'm sure her husband has an opinion on that... but nobody cares. Ha Ha.

• Who is keeping you from your dream of salvation?

• There is still a River Front Time? I thought it was dead and gone

• @brian Of course you can start a business without tax credits. You have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

• @annie: That's the part that interests me the most. I think it's awesome that something like Shock City exists here, I really wanted to make it to their opening, I'd love to record (at least some drum tracks!) in a studio at that level... but still. By all accounts, it's a multi-million dollar project, right? Is it just something these guys do because it's their passion, or is it supposed to be a business? Is it possible for something like that to get off the ground without some sort of tax credits?

• du2: I've said nothing to imply that I dislike Loesch, and nothing to imply that I work for the RFT. I haven't talked in the slightest about the politics behind either side. Sorry if it blows your theory about my motivations, but yes, really--what interests me here is the issue of disclosure. As I said, it's in Loesch's own interest to be upfront about any outside business relationship that pokes into her show, to avoid impugning her integrity, and to follow the same standard practices that other jouranlists do--and, to the best of my knowledge, Loesch does present herself as a journalist. Notice, again, that I did not comment on her politics or malign her integrity. I commented on the practice by which journalists ensure that they don't shoot themselves in the foot. "Like when an advertiser in the RFT wins a Best Of award and they state every time "in the interest of transparency"? they don't do that? Oh." Advertisements are obviously advertisements; they're already public and obviously paid. They are not behind-the-scenes business dealings that could put into question the media outlet's activities. The comparison doesn't hold up.

• gee considering Dana's rants against big government, why take a TIF or historic tax credits, or anything from the government to get business up and running. How does she live with the hypocrisy of all this? How long did construction take? After the architects and engineers got rolling along enough to give us a firm grasp of the scope and funds needed, we began the process of getting the Federal and State Historic Tax Credits, TIF's (Tax Incremental Financing) from the City and Brownfield remediation credits in place. So there were a lot of fiery hoops to jump through to even get the cash and bank on board to get the construction going. Once demo and construction started, it took quite a while, even though the main building already existed, because of the highly specialized type of construction -- and the fact that most walls are actually two or three walls with separate foundations, spring hung ceilings, floating floors, layers upon layers of drywall etc... Lots of math in this place.

• Do the Loesches even realize how many people they have shit on to climb to their supposed star status? Then play the victim card when someone calls them out on it?

• Ugh, inappropriate apostrophe. My bad.

• The level of hypocrisy and downright lack of culpability or humility on the part of the Loesch's is astounding. They honestly think they could never, ever be wrong about anything and that everyone is out to get them. I can't wait until they're completely out of the local discourse.

• "In his post on St. Louis Acvist Hub, Shriver also mistakenly wrote that Dana co-owns Shock City with her husband. That is not correct. My post did not repeat that misstatement. I simply said that Chris co-owned the studio and included a link to a story we ran last year in Daily RFT when Chris opened the studio with his business partner, Doug Firley. According to Chris, I should never have never followed Shriver's story, because he got the ownership of Shock City wrong." So why did Dana, on Feb. 4th, 2009 do a post called "The Family Business" At the end she wrote "This is our family business and despite appearances (and unkindly stereotypes) no, we are not rich." So which is it? Dana may not be a co-owner but certainly must profit somehow from the "family business", right?

• Yeah, I must have forgotten that Dana is the victim. Always the victim. That was the error in my thinking. And she did refuse to allow JWT on her show. She did so publicly, stating it would be electioneering. Electioneering defined is: To work actively for a candidate or political party. Is she NOT doing that for Ed Martin?

• The transformation of Dana from a punk rock poser mom to a machiavellian, ego-centric chicken little has truly been astounding. Keep thinking the world is out to get you, darlin'.

• And heeeeeeeeeeere's Chris! Mel Gibson's protege! Careful, or he'll call you, too!

• Adam, the fact is the activist post had deliberately misleading lies information that are still not fixed. Now you state that Loesch's attack was "unprovoked" - another convenient lie... hmmm I guess you chose to not see the months of public stalking and berating on FB and twitter that JWT's staff and followers had done to her. They are quite public and easy to get a hold of. The one that sent her over the edge is viewable as a posting on her FB wall that JWT most def chimes in on. Perhaps you were also too busy to do a little research or fact checking. Her response was in fact provoked. She never said once that she wouldn't allow JWT on her show and the election isn't even close to being over... She was publicly defending herself against a public berating she was getting for no reason. But hey, we wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a big juicy story like this. Disagree - the band review analogy is perfect. By your rules the RFT would have to listen to every single band and post a review for all of them to not be biased towards the ones they feature in editorial sections. Now if you extrapolate the rest of your analogy her is how it would have to go, if following the actual story... Then after months of public berating by one of the bands and their followers against the RFT for not reviewing their band the RFT decided to fire back and say this band and their fans are treating us shitty and we are tired of it, give it a rest. David - the Carnahan story is something you will never ever see in Shiver's blog or in the RFT. They aren't interested in real investigative journalism. Also probably true about the take home pay on the ad, do people really believe she would sell out for that little? They are truly small minded.

• So, let's assume this is all true. Shock City studios got $2500 to produce a video. Shock city has employees, it has rent, it has utility payments, it has co-owners. So, what did the Loeschs make from this? $100? $200? Obviously a huge motivator in their overall life decisions. Stop the press, RFT. You are certainly headed for a PULITZER!!! Say it with me!!! PULITZER!!! I heard Russ Carnahan made $100k in a real estate deal in less than 24 months (bought a donor's property (who financed it for him) and then sold it to another donor for $160k more (unimproved). Anyone at RFT cover that? Let's get on that $200 Dana Loesch's husband made at his small business. For actual work. Toolbags.

• The issue is that Dana REFUSED to have JWT on her show saying it was "electioneering". Therefore, by allowing Martin on her show, and refusing to allow JWT on her show, she was showing favoritism, or at the very least, preferential treatment to someone who had done business with her husband's company. The comparison of band reviews is not applicable. A better analogy would be if the RFT staff went and posted a review of a band they were friends with, but then refused to even attend the show of another band that asked them to come and do a review, and then stated dissing the band in a public forum. du2 - you said "She is Opinion based Commentary not a hard-news journalist" I'm not so sure Loesch herself would agree with you. And lastly, what has made this even more newsworthy isn't just Loesch's refusal to have JWT on her show, but her childish attacks against JWT on public forums.

• kt, he said he doesn't have time to make phone calls for every story, not that he doesn't have time to fact-check. The facts that are relevant for the story are there for everyone to see: (1) Ed Martin wrote a check to Chris Loesch's business, (2) Dana had Ed Martin on her show multiple times, (3) Dana went on a ridiculous, unprovoked PUBLIC rant on Twitter against Ed Martin's primary challenger John Wayne Tucker, whom she has never had on her show. Now I suppose in a perfect world Chad could have gotten quotes from everyone involved, but it wouldn't have changed the facts of the story.

• how come no one is pointing this out.. "(I'll grant him that one. Unfortunately in my job as a blogger -- writing 6-10 posts a day -- I do not have the time to make phone calls for every single topic I cover.)" fuck the Right, fuck the Left... this is an interesing statement for chad to make. is he saying that by being a blogger he can just write whatever about whatever, without taking the time to fact check?

• Mo - Like when an advertiser in the RFT wins a Best Of award and they state every time "in the interest of transparency"? they don't do that? Oh. How about when they write an article about a band or play coming to town and the venue is an advertiser? No? My, where are the standards and why don't you apply them to all your media outlets? She is Opinion based Commentary not a hard-news journalist. Best I can tell is this is sour grapes, outright lies, innuendo and bad/lazy (he even admits that) reporting. If she disclosed it publicly then that's it, end of story. The connection to anyone with a brain cell is apparent. "My husbands business" means just that. One or even 3 appearances on a show when the election isn't even for more months is not showing favoritism. Duh got it right. I can guess who isn't on the fave list now though. Mo this is a blatant attack and a lousy story about nothing that doesn't happen at your publication every single day. Your analysis is biased against someone you don't like.

• @duh - Martin appears to have made at least three separate appearances on Loesch's show. In either case, a single offhand reference to the quality of the ad is not the same as stating (each time Martin appears), "In interest of transparency, Mr. Martin has done business with my husband's company, Shock City, in the past." Acknowledge the connection then and there, and THEN it becomes a non-issue. "By the way, so it's out in the open, I know this guy from elsewhere." The issue is not Martin's opponent or favoritism--the issue is transparency and integrity. As a journalist, Loesch needs to be transparent about her business connections at any point when they might come up on her show, to avoid the appearance of misconduct and defuse those accusations before they arise. That's not a liberal attack, it's what she as a journalist needs to do to protect her integrity. And yes, her business connections DO include the family business. If Shock City DID work with the Natonal Black Caucus, as per her example, then yes, I would expect her to pause before a piece on them (pro OR con) to state that they had previous done business with the company.

• From what I remember Dana had Ed Martin on her show one time and had also mentioned that her husband's company had produced the ad. Shock City and Martin's campaign also note where it was created. Seems upfront to me. These articles are misleading and defamatory, the lack of research or quest for a comment from Dana herself is a glaring error. She isn't showing favoritism by having a guy on ONE TIME to talk about another issue when the other guy still has months to potentially appear his own one time before the election. For the record in looking at her posts she has never once said that JWT couldn't be on her show... Where is the favoritism? There is nothing ethically or legally wrong with any of this despite the hackneyed legal advice above. I doubt backing her into a corner and making her defend herself is going to endear her to his plight though. Odd that all these liberals are going to bat for John Wayne Tucker. And yes the ad/video is fantastic, I would use them. - Peace

• Here is Loesch's response to the story: http://thedanashow.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/setting-the-defamation-and-libel-straight/ It's pretty obvious that she doesn't get it. The childish, petty, and unprofessional name calling is also pretty obvious. It seems Loesch is truly the remedial reader, so let's break it down for her. NO ONE is putting down Shock City or defaming them. IT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR YOU TO SHOW FAVORTISM TOWARDS ED MARTIN BECAUSE HE PAID YOUR HUSBAND'S COMPANY FOR A SERVICE. I sincerely hope Dana's public attitude towards a political candidate ends her joke of a career.

• @4therecord - DANA Loesch is supposed to do what responsible journalists do in this situation: disclose her husband's business relationship with Martin upfront when Martin is mentioned on-air. It's no different than a news article acknowledging ties to a conglomerate it is covering, and the transparency helps fend off claims of bias. Without that openness and transparency, it looks like she's been bought and was trying to hide it.

• I disagree with the above comment. I think Dana's being publicly disrespectful to a political candidate speaks more of her character than his. From the twitter grabs I've seen: http://stlactivisthub.blogspot.com/ Loesch was the one doing the public condescending name-calling. Her forte, of course. No matter what your political leanings are, if a politican contributes to the financial well being of you or someone close to you, using your position to then promote said politician is a conflict of interest. If you read up on how conflict of interests work, you'll find: "conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit." I have never listened to Loesch's show but I see no reason to NOT have Tucker on unless she is showing favortism to Martin. The fact that Martin's campaign paid Shock City for a service, makes doing so, showing favortism, a conflict of interest. So I am sorry Loesch's, this is very much pertinent.

• Tucker has stated a number of times on Twitter and Facebook that he has never asked to be on her show. He has stated that before the facebook exchange, he has never communicated with Dana. I'd like to see proof from Dana that Tucker harassed her. Where in fact did Tucker ask to be on the show? I went through twitter and facebook archives of both people and don't see it. So I am assuming there is email evidence of harassment. Dana???? Care to share???

• If anything, the $2500 paid to Shock City Music was a bargain. Regardless of what you think of the substantive content, that's a really well-produced video! It even got national attention on an NBC political blog shortly after it was released. It probably generated more than $2500 in new contributions. I understand John Wayne Tucker's frustration over his primary rival getting the attention and (at least implicit) support from Dana, but it was really stupid of Tucker to pick a public Twitter fight with her. Picking a public sour-grapes fight with someone that most Republican primary voters hold in high regard does not speak well for Tucker's ability to handle a tough campaign. That may have turned more Republican primary voters to Martin than Martin's appearances on Dana's show.

• There is a legal term, apparent authority, that is used to justify treating someone as if they had authority for something (say to enter into a contract on behalf of his/her employer). When Dana Loesch refers to Shock City Studios as "our family Business", even titling the blog entry as "Our Family Business", she is acting/writing in way that justifies one in treating her as if she is in some way connected in some familial way to the studio, it's liabilities, and it's assets (i.e. $2,500 from a political candidate whose opponent she won't have on her show". Nobody lied in bringing this suspicious, certainly unethical, and possibly illegal dirty little family secret to light...

• I'm not sure what the point of this story is. That Dana Loesch is using her influence to aid Ed Martin's campaign? To show that Chris Loesch is mad because the $2,500 was made public? Are we really trying to engage teabaggers in "rational" debate? I think there are bigger fish to fry; like Obama and Carnahan preventing us from finding/reaching/dreaming of salvation...

• 4therecord, I think you're not focusing on the real issue. The real issue is that she has gone out of her way to vilify John Wayne Tucker, and in light of this other information, that's smelly. Of course she would be biased to someone who's helping her make a living, whether directly or indirectly. That's why people who are really and truly concerned with ethics (as opposed to just saying they are) would either reject the job based on appearance or would disclose it on the air and invite John Wayne Tucker on. That's all.

• @4therecord let's get a screen shot of your driver's license, shall we? $5 says "Loesch" is on there somewhere. the loesches make up their own rules and reserve the right to lambaste anyone who questions them, just like the rest of the teabaggers and GOP wingnuts who are unencumbered by logic and truth. and souls or hearts for that matter. money changing hands between politicians and the people who blow them, (literally or verbally on 97.1) is ALWAYS newsworthy, but we wouldn't expect the loesches to know that, people who watch fox news shouldn't be held to the same standard as the rest of us

• Wondering, is Chris Loesch's company supposed to stop doing their job because Dana may mention a product or candidate or issue on the air? What if they did an ad for Stag Beer and Dana mentioned she loves Stag on the air...? I agree it is a non-story.

• It seems you omitted the specific language Shriver uses "the business co-owned by Loesch and her husband Chris" If you were truly reporting on his story you would have included that bit of info since you knew it to be false from the Shock City post you linked. The company is in fact not owned by Dana Loesch at all. The headline "Ed Martin Gives Dana Loesch $2500 Prior to Loesch Attacking His Primary Opponent" is a complete lie based on the facts and you decided to not post the truth when you knew it. You then fan the flames of this false story further with your headline "Payment of $2,500 at Center of Latest Dana Loesch Pissing Match" like that had even been mentioned by candidate Tucker or Loesch herself up to that point, so the "pissing match" had nothing to do with the lie that was perpetrated by Adam in the first place. So in fact your own headline is another fabricated lie. You then go on to further the lies by stating "The controversy surrounds St. Louis Tea Party co-founder Dana Loesch who's used her bully pulpit at 97.1 FM -- as well as her Facebook and Twitter accounts -- to denounce Republican candidate (and fellow Tea Party cohort) John Wayne Tucker while at the same time throwing her support to G.O.P. candidate Ed Martin." In no way has she ever publicly condemned or backed either candidate as far as I can tell in any of her posts or on her show, she only pushed back against Tucker and his staff for harassing her. So that lie is also in fact on you Chad. Amazing how the lies keep piling up when you try to cover for your buddies lies. I don't suppose you will ever admit that or even correct your own post much less point out the lies on your friends site. Why would you piss-off his 15 readers? Instead you will find some new way to insinuate and insult Mrs. Loesch as you always do, great objective journalism Mr. Garrison. If I were Loesch, I would get a screen-shot of this before it is removed.

• Huh. See, but here's the thing. Dana, whether a direct recipient of the $2500 or not, still benefits from it. I'm a Notary, but I couldn't ethically notarize a will for, say, my husband's grandmother because he would be in line to inherit something, and if he did, I would benefit. I would think that Chris, believing himself to be a businessman, would understand that. Guess not.

TotalComments: 37