How do you react to a non-story?

ABC News The Note:

The Wall Street Journal's story about Jerome Armstrong (www.mydd.com) and Markos Zuniga (www.dailykos.com) being paid by the Dean presidential campaign strikes us as slightly overblown in the sense that the two had already disclosed, on their Web sites and in person to reporters and others, their affiliation with (and for) the former Vermont governor during the presidential campaign.

Not to say that Zephyr Teachout's concerns about blogger ethics is unwarranted at all, just that Kos and Armstrong are not necessarily the poster boys for the problem [...]

During the campaign both gentleman openly discussed with ABC News the work they did for Dean, based largely (at first) on admiring him and then, consulting on his Web-based campaign.

Columbia Journalism Review's (non-partisan) Campaign DeskM:

Sometimes a story is so good, so rich in context and so revealing in detail, that it virtually leaps off the page as something special.

Other times, only by leaving out context, burying important information, and emphasizing misleading details can a reporter dress up a non-story into something that resembles a legitimate article.

They hand out Pulitzers for reporters who track down the former. Alas, William M. Bulkeley and James Bandler, the Wall Street Journal reporters responsible for the latest example of the latter, are going to have to settle for something a bit less prestigious.

Let's call it the "Lipstick On a Pig Award" -- the LOPA for short.

In other words, that piece was so bad that CJR had to invent an entire award for the authors.

Dan Gillmor, tech journalist (non-partisan) [and until recently tech] columnist for the San Jose Mercury News, writes:

The WSJ fell into what I call the "lazy equivalence" trap in this story today about two bloggers who got paid as consultants by the Dean presidential campaign. The article seeks to connect these payments with the vastly more serious Armstrong Williams payola scandal, in which the Bush administration paid the right-wing commentator more than $240,000 to promote an education policy.

There's are differences, big ones. Such as: One of the bloggers shut down postings when he moved to Vermont to join the campaign, and the other prominently (on his homepage) disclosed that he was consulting.

Media Matters takes on Novak for lying about the episode:

In announcing on the January 14 edition of CNN's Crossfire that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean's presidential campaign had hired two political bloggers "to say positive things about Dr. Dean," co-host Robert D. Novak failed to note -- when co-host Paul Begala raised the issue -- that one of the bloggers shut down his site while working for the campaign and the other fully disclosed his financial relationship with Dean.

Novak, of course, is a non-disclosure king, lauding Regnery which has employed his son as director of marketing and publishes his newsletter.

I've gotten word that O'Reiley himself has been making hay of the story using it to smear Howard Dean without noting that the arrangement was completely above board.

You might want to drop the WSJ a line:

James Bandler
Co-author of the piece
[e-mail].

Bill Bulkeley
Co-author of the piece
[e-mail]

Jeanne Cummings
Co-author of the piece
[e-mail]

Melinda Beck
Marketplace editor, where the piece ran
[e-mail]

Bill Grueskin
Managing Editor
[e-mail]
 
Jamie Heller
Deputy Managing Editor
[e-mail]
 
Terri Cullen
Assistant Managing Editor
[e-mail]

Dave Pettit
Deputy Managing Editor
[e-mail]

Jason Fry
Assistant Managing Editor
[e-mail]

Update: Simon Rosenberg weighs in on the matter:

The internet and blogs represent a new way to communicate ideas and talk to voters, and as a party, we need to embrace these opportunities. I have invested a great deal of time and effort work to increase participation in politics through the Internet, starting in the mid-1990s and continuing through this campaign. While there may be only 447 DNC members, my campaign - which includes bloggers, I am proud to say - is using the Internet to open up the process to the increasing number of citizens who are going online to learn and participate in our politics.

Now, some on the right are cynically using the work of bloggers who have helped open up the democratic conversation to try to excuse the actions of Armstrong Williams. It's stunning to me, as someone who has worked in TV news as a producer and writer, that Williams can be talked about in morally equivalent terms to Markos Moulitsas, who was transparent about all his business relationships, or Jerome Armstrong, who shut down his web site to prevent any conflict of interest. Williams was paid with taxpayer money to propagandize for a corrupt Republican party leadership, and what happened deserves a full investigation in which the involved parties are held responsible.

Ultimately, however, we cannot lose sight of what is truly at stake. Williams is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the vast power commanded by the corrupt and radicalized Republicans that control our politics, and to some extent, our media. The power the right can bring to bear on any issue because of its investments in communications and intellectual infrastructure needs to be matched, and exceeded.

The Washington Post and Associated Press came sniffing around, wondering if there was a story here. Tomorrow we'll find out their verdict.