Last week, a prominent national reporter spoke with me about a paper I’m working on for one of my law school classes. I’d asked for his help because I knew he was an expert in the subject, and thankfully, he took the time to answer my questions. At the tail end of our conversation, he asked me about the story I’d helped to break about Bill Cassidy’s work with LSU. He was curious, he said, because he’d actually seen the same documents that I posted a few weeks before I had. He thought it was an important story, but he couldn’t find anyone interested in publishing it, which, he said, was frustrating.

I’d heard this before from other reporters: CNN and NBC News had allegedly passed on it, and so did The Advocate. Yet once Jason Brad Berry and I put the story and the documents online, the very publications that had once dismissed it as a non-issue were suddenly interested. It became a major part of the final two weeks of the Senate campaign between Cassidy and Mary Landrieu. Ethics complaints were filed locally and nationally. LSU was forced to launch its own internal investigation. And it even earned me a profile in my hometown newspaper, The Town Talk, and a handful of interviews on the radio.

I’ve been an outspoken critic of the legacy media for several years, and while I do not entirely fault the national press for not prioritizing the story of a Congressman’s missing time sheets, I thought that the Louisiana state media’s refusal to even report on the issue was negligent, offensive, and a complete abdication of duty. Of course, I am proud of my work on this story and humbled and honored by all of those from Louisiana and elsewhere who have reached out to express their appreciation. It was and it still is an important story.

A few hours after I spoke with the national journalist, I met up with another reporter, a friend of mine, at a bar in the Marigny in New Orleans. “What do you think the LSU audit is going to say about Bill Cassidy?” he asked.

“It’s going to exonerate him,” I said. “It’s not in LSU’s best interest to implicate a sitting United States Senator. They need all the help they can get, and they don’t want to pick a fight with anyone in power.”

He agreed. Jason Brad Berry had been telling me the same thing for months. In fact, I’d wager that almost anyone who pays attention to Louisiana politics would have made the same exact prediction. It was, in many ways, a foregone conclusion: A public university that had been paying a United States Congressman, now a Senator, for work it never sufficiently documented had absolutely no reason or obligation to admit wrongdoing. Besides, LSU didn’t hire an outsider to investigate; they investigated themselves.

On Wednesday, when LSU released its internal audit, the Louisiana media failed once again. Here is a sampling of the headlines that appeared on some of the state’s biggest news websites:

Screen Shot 2015-02-27 at 1.15.21 AM

Screen Shot 2015-02-27 at 1.16.00 AM

Screen Shot 2015-02-27 at 1.16.53 AM

Yesterday, conservative columnist Jim Varney of The Times-Picayune led with this headline:

Screen Shot 2015-02-27 at 3.22.36 AM

Not only are these headlines absolutely incorrect, the stories themselves reveal a fundamental and perhaps dangerously ignorant misapprehension of the controversy at issue and reveal an almost comically misleading editorial or political agenda. It was, as if, no one had actually read or re-read the stories posted here and elsewhere that truly, seriously explored the multiple problems with Dr. Cassidy’s job responsibilities with LSU. First and most importantly, there never was a work agreement, no contract.

Not a single newspaper or news organization asked why or how Congressman Cassidy, on at least 21 occasions, claimed to be spending time in Baton Rouge while he worked in the US Congress. No one addressed Congress’s central requirement: That Dr. Cassidy teach a class for credit, and clearly, that never happened. In fact, the only evidence that Cassidy even showed up for clinics two days a month was hearsay from an employee who claimed Cassidy left his calling card by cluttering up white boards during his lectures.

Why were time sheets missing? Well, according to one of Cassidy’s colleagues, time sheets simply weren’t filled out whenever he wasn’t physically present. But others offered contradictory testimony: No one seemed to know if they should only submit bills for work in LSU or if other work was sufficient. The audit also weakly attempts to argue that similarly-situated physicians are not required to document their work, but that is a specious argument: Cassidy was.

But Bill Cassidy was at least copied into at least 160 e-mails, none of which were released to the public and which were apparently used to justify at least some of his salary.

Put simply, Bill Cassidy was rarely present, sometimes gone for months at a time; LSU never had a written agreement with him, and due to the significant lack of documentation, LSU wasn’t even clear on the work for which he was responsible.

The audit concluded with two major findings: Cassidy needed a contract, and he needed to document his work, the same things about which he had been advised years ago. Notwithstanding those, the audit completely ignored Cassidy’s temporal superpowers, being in DC and Baton Rouge at the same time. The report also revealed that, despite Cassidy’s unequivocal statement in the first and final debate of the runoff, when he claimed to have signed all of his time sheets, he signed almost none of them.

I know I can be accused of beating a dead horse; some will say the story is over. Others have argued that my reporting has been exposed as “B.S.” For many, particularly for conservatives, it’s easy and convenient to dismiss my reporting as nothing more than a liberal hit piece. I understand that it’s often how the game is played. But this audit was bogus and result-driven, and even more offensive and bogus were the ways in which the mainstream media reported the story: Cassidy was not “vindicated;” the report recommends immediate corrective actions. That is not language anyone would use to convey vindication. It’s not language that anyone wants to hear from their auditor.

From the very beginning- the moment that public records surfaced revealing that Bill Cassidy claimed to be working in Baton Rouge on the same days he was voting in DC and that he failed to submit 75% of his time sheets (despite the explicit demand that he account for all of his work)- the Louisiana media has been absolutely, shamefully, epically derelict in its duties. They refused to ask the tough questions. They refused to hold him or LSU accountable. Two days ago, LSU released a report that it conducted itself; they called it an audit, and they implied it cleared Dr. Cassidy.

It absolutely did not. It answered nothing. If anything, it suggested that he was valuable to LSU because, well, he’s Bill Cassidy. Which is precisely the problem with a university putting an elected official on its payroll.

As sloppy and problematic as the audit itself is, the mainstream media’s abject failure in reporting the story is even more offensive: LSU paid a Congressman that had never signed an agreement for work he rarely documented, and the Louisiana media heralded him as being vindicated.

And it infuriates me, to no end, that Jason Brad Berry and I are, so far, the only journalists in the entire state of Louisiana that have called this report out for what it is: A pathetic, thinly-sourced attempt at damage control.

Until we demand that our public institutions, our elected officials, and our media are held accountable, our politics will continue to be better known, deservedly, for corruption than for innovation. The mainstream coverage of LSU’s audit was just about the worst and sloppiest journalism I’ve ever read.

I was, literally, the first and only person to even bother to ask Sen. Landrieu about what she thought about the audit. (Remember, this was, after all, a big part of the waning weeks of her campaign). She hadn’t yet read it, so I had to send it to her. And this was hours after the AP, the Times-Picayune, and every other major news publication in the state had already filed their stories.

No one even considered the real possibility that there may be another and more compelling side to the story. That, I’m afraid, takes too much time, too much money, and a couple of ounces of integrity.

7 thoughts

  1. Amen. Is this not the final nail in the coffin of the fourth estate? If it has to bow to not only its advertisers, but powerful politicians, the mainstream media has become totally worthless as an independent voice and simply a propaganda machine reporting “news” based on its components’ individual ideologies – and even those are not so much real as purchased.

  2. LSU is participating in the cover up for the usual reasons, of course: $. That’s the same reason they cover up research fraud by other prominent profs. You can find that fraud reported in the national and international media but never by LSU or its newspaper, the Advocate, which relies on LSU for its sports coverage that brings in the readership and advert dollars.

    Besides Professor Cassidy, Inside Higher Ed and the Times Higher Ed reported recently that a prominent psych prof at LSU and his colleagues, who bring in lots of federal grant dollars, are operating a publication cabal. The details of how profs do that are interesting, esoteric reading on a blog by an Oxford Univ psych prof who caught them at it and broke the story. The simple result, though, is that the more publications they get, the more famous they get, the more grant dollars they get.

    Then there is the case, reported in the Chronicle of Higher Ed and other national and international outlets, of the famous english prof who was hired and promoted to full prof by LSU before leaving for UNLV for a highly paid endowed professorship. Too bad for him that UNLV discovered that his entire career was built on serial plagiarism. They did the right thing and canned him. Again, all I know about the details of any of these revelations is what I read in the papers and on the blogs, but it seems clear from them that any dean or committee member who was doing their job at LSU would have seen the warning signs and taken action while that prof was at LSU. Instead UNLV had to do it. From what’s reported, it should have been obvious when this fellow was at LSU. I suspect it was obvious but no one wanted to rock USS Corruption.

    I don’t know any more about those two cases than I read in the papers, but we need to ask why does LSU never catch and fire profs for research fraud? Why do people at Oxford Univ and UNLV have to do that for us? Does LSU management turn a blind eye to it even though its an open secret? Or are they incompetent? Or Is it because it’s in LSU’s best interests to allow profs to get away with research fraud so they can falsely elevate their reputations to get more and bigger federal research grants?

    And why is the Advocate so unwilling to investigate or criticise LSU for anything. Is it in return for access to sports coverage? Thank the stars for investigative bloggers like you, Aswell, and AZ.

  3. I made a big mistake, which no doubt you immediately realized. LSU did accuse one prof of fraudulent research and fire him. That was Ivor von Heerden, of course, whom LSU management wrongly accused of doing research on levee engineering when he was not an engineer. When it became obvious that Ivor was right about the levees and the Corps of Engineers they settled with him for $500,000. All in all, it cost LSU more than a million dollars to fight that fight in court before they were proven wrong. They never admitted it, of course, and the managers who tried to “get” Ivor for doing his job and doing it well are still at LSU. And the reason? Federal funding. They were afraid Ivor’s criticism of the Corp would result in a loss of federal research grants. And, in case people are unaware of this, not only do federal research grants to universities like LSU pay the direct costs of research (materials, supplies, labs, travel, salaries of lab workers), they also pay an extra 50% in “indirect costs” that LSU simply skims off the top to use for whatever it wants without any oversight or accountability. Guess where those six-figure salaries for LSU managers come from? Those are the same managers who fired Ivor and protected the psych and english profs reported for research fraud in Inside Higher Ed, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and the Times Higher Education. Those are the same managers who do whatever deals they do with the Advocate re access to LSU sports coverage.

  4. Mr. White,
    All I can offer is my sincere thanks to you for this sordid story about “our” newest US senator. Yes, I use a lower case “s” in the word senator on purpose. I also refuse to use a capital “c” when talking about congress, until we have more than a very small handful of honest members of both houses of that gang.
    That LSU has seen fit to allow this to go unpunished should be something that would shame that organization, butt that would require the senior administration of LSU to at least have a vague idea of what shame actually is. Yes, I know, this old man is asking far too much from what is supposed to be the top state university system.
    One could say that the “leadership” (is there any?) of LSU is just following what passes for “leadership” in the governors’ office and the state legislature in general. Oh dear, am I being too harsh on those poor folks?
    Time for the citizens of this state and country to wake up and remember, the elected representatives are supposed to represent “we the people”. Every election is basically a job interview, well at least that is how it was supposed to be/work.
    America, what a country. Louisiana, what a state.

  5. I’m proven wrong once again. LSU does investigate and fire profs, as per the story in today’s Times-Pic: “Complaints of sexual harassment, unequal pay and misused funds at LSU prompted instructor’s retaliatory firing, lawsuit alleges.” Oh, wait, on reading further it’s the same old same old. LSU fired another prof for trying to EXPOSE corruption, not for BEING corrupt. And who did the firing? The same old LSU stalwarts who “investigated” Cassidy’s work effort (or lack thereof), managers who got their jobs because they are someone’s spouse, don’t seem to know much about HRM, but chugalug the purple and gold koolaid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s