Russ McBee

Today's News Sentinel story on the Knox County Commission trial displays something of a split personality; the headline, subheading, and front-page portion of the article bear little resemblance to the remainder, buried on page A11. The first half states that Commissioner Mark Harmon is accused of having a "political agenda" and that there's an attempt to "discredit" him. The second half details his revelations about back-room dealing on Commission and his role as an outsider in much of that dealing. The impression made by the first half does not fit with the revelations in the second half.

The headline below the fold on the front page of today's paper says, "Harmon accused of political agenda," and the subheading below the headline says "County law official tries to discredit commissioner." The article covers Harmon's time on the witness stand yesterday, testifying in News Sentinel Editor Jack McElroy's lawsuit against Knox County Commission. The opening five paragraphs of the story insinuate that Harmon was one of the commissioners directing the collusion of Black Wednesday. It isn't until later in the article, after the break to page A11, that we finally get to the real meaning of the story: Harmon was testifying against the deal-makers, not in defense of them.

The headline does not say who is making the accusation (although it might be argued that the subheading suggests it); it isn't until page A11 that we realize the accusation is being made after Harmon's damaging testimony against County Commission. Deputy Law Directory Mary Ann Stackhouse, who is representing the accused commissioners, makes the accusation as a way of rebutting Harmon's testimony about the back-room deals made on and before Black Wednesday. Until we get to that point in the story, though, the insinuation is that Harmon was one of the ringleaders of that debacle.

The opening of the article and its headline are misleading in that respect, leaving the impression that Harmon is one of the power players on County Commission, and that he is among those most tainted by the scandal of back-room dealing.

Hardly.

Mark Harmon is the Thurgood Marshall of Knox County Commission. Like Marshall on the Rehnquist Court, Harmon is usually in the minority, a perpetual and often lonely voice of dissent, voting against the tide as the waves of the pro-Ragsdale and pro-Hutchison factions crash against each other. The suggestion that a commissioner who sits firmly in a small minority has any power to enact an "agenda" is diametrically opposite the reality of Knox County government.

The portion of the article on the front page paints a picture of Harmon as one of the insiders (the break to page A11 occurs after the word "dozen"):

A Knox County commissioner Wednesday became the star witness for the people who are suing him, and an attorney paid to defend him tried to discredit him.

"I thought you were my lawyer," Commissioner Mark Harmon joked at the surreal turn of events that had him being grilled by Chief Deputy Law Director Mary Ann Stackhouse.

Stackhouse and Law Director John Owings represent Harmon and his fellow commissioners in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Tennessee Open Meetings Act in the process to name replacements for term-limited officeholders.

Harmon was sent to the witness stand in Knox County Chancery Court by attorney Herbert S. Moncier, who represents nine citizens allowed to join in the lawsuit brought by News Sentinel Editor Jack McElroy.

Harmon's testimony initially was rather rote, needed only to verify documents he had received from the commission office about a special called meeting Jan. 31 to fill a dozen offices after a state Supreme Court ruling backing term limits.

After the headline about "agendas" and the word "discredit" in the subheading, these introductory paragraphs leave the impression that Harmon is in the same camp as Moore, Lambert, Pinkston, and the others on County Commission accused of directing the back-room dealings. It isn't until after the break that the article gets to the heart of the matter; when it does, it becomes clear that the headline is misleading at best:

But what Harmon ultimately did on the witness stand Wednesday was to lay bare the politics of government that the public rarely sees or hears about.

Harmon told jurors that "a majority" of appointments to be made by commission to replace term-limited officeholders were decided before a Jan. 31 meeting at which those slots were filled without public debate.

[...]

Harmon also testified that there are three distinct groups among commissioners.

[Two are the pro-Ragsdale and pro-Hutchison groups.]

A third group, involving only a handful of commissioners, was aligned with no one. Harmon, who is a professor at the University of Tennessee, included himself in this group.

Harmon said he believed Commission Chairman Scott Moore engineered the Jan. 31 meeting by using his fellow pro-Hutchison commissioners and a private polling process.

It was this damaging testimony which prompted Stackhouse to accuse Harmon of having a "political agenda." Her accusation isn't the story here; Harmon's testimony is.

The article mentions one specific agreement Harmon made with Moore on whom to appoint (which was derailed), plus Harmon's suggestion on Black Wednesday that term-limited commissioners not be allowed to vote on their own replacements.

Stackhouse's "agenda" accusation forms a relatively minor sideline in the story of Harmon's testimony. To me, it would seem that a sitting commissioner's testimony confirming the details of back-room deals would be the story of the day, and it would seem that those revelations logically should be reflected in the headline and the paragraphs on the front page. After reading the rest of the article, it becomes clear that the "agenda" thing is merely a sideshow.

So why is the sideshow the headline of the article, and why doesn't the thrust of Harmon's testimony warrant even a mention anywhere in the first five paragraphs?

UPDATE: In the time since I published this post this morning, the headline and subheading of the online article have been changed. Instead of "Harmon accused of political agenda," the headline now reads "Harmon becomes star witness for sunshine plaintiffs, exposes secrecy." The original subheading, which read "County law official tries to discredit commissioner," now reads "County law official tries to discredit commissioner's testimony" instead. The original versions reflected the headline and subheading as they appeared in this morning's printed paper.

UPDATE 2: The URL of the story has changed. The story was originally at this link, and now it's here. I've corrected the post to reflect the new link.