This is part 1 of a multipart series on the sad state of our media. In this posting, I focus on the disregard for facts by supposed journalists and the disdain for truth-based reporting.
The most irksome lie I have seen in the media over the past few weeks is the repeated assertion that Democrats are somehow guilty in the Abramoff scandal. This is an accusation with no basis whatsoever. When the scandal broke, the Republican National Committee issued talking points and a list of contributions from Indian tribes that Abramoff had represented to media outlets. It then was published in the Washington Times, a partisan GOP newspaper. This led to reporters all over the media claiming that Democrats would be implicated in the scandal. Courtesy of the RNC site, here are a few of the comments reporters made.
"Law-Enforcement Authorities And Others Said The Investigation's Opening Phase Is Scrutinizing ... Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; And Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat ..." (Jerry Seper and Audrey Hudson, "Abramoff-Linked Probe Focuses On 5 Lawmakers," The Washington Times, 1/11/06)"Democrats Have Taken A Special Interest In [Team Abramoff Lobbyist And Former Reid Staffer Eddie] Ayoob's Clients. Of The Eight Tribes Ayoob Represented When He Was With Greenberg Traurig, Reid Acted In Behalf Of Or Moved Legislation Benefiting Six." (Rebecca Adams, "The Game's The Thing: Reid Has Been A Ready Ally To Abramoff-Linked Interests," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 1/16/06)
Larry Noble, Executive Director And General Counsel For The Non-Partisan Center For Responsive Politics: "I Would Say, Broadly Defined As A Question Of The Tribes' Buying Influence In Washington, It Includes Democrats." (Donald Lambro, "Dean Denies Party Ties To Abramoff," The Washington Times, 1/11/06)
CNN's Ed Henry: "I Want To Underline Again, There Are Democrats Implicated In [The Abramoff Scandal] As Well. So [Democrats'] Argument About A Culture Of Corruption May Not Resonate With People Across The Country." (CNN's "CNN Live Today," 1/3/06)
Henry: "[D]emocrats Like Byron Dorgan Of North Dakota ... [Are] Returning The [Campaign] Money Because They've Been Implicated At Least Generally In This Investigation ..." (CNN's "CNN Live Today," 1/3/06)
Even the Washington Post, a paper that conservatives deride as far-left, took the bait. In an article by WaPo ombudsman Deborah Howell, she repeated the assertion that Abramoff had contributed to Democrats.
Schmidt quickly found that Abramoff was getting 10 to 20 times as much from Indian tribes as they had paid other lobbyists. And he had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties.
The problem with this: it's not true. A quick search at the Center for Responsive Politics shows that Abramoff was a partisan Republican. He never gave a single dime to a Democrat ever. Furthermore, Harry Reid and other Democrats have gone on record claiming that they have never met the person. To this date, no one has disputed that claim. So how do you get influenced by a lobbyist you've never met and have never taken money from?
We expect the Washington Times and conservative pundits on CNN to mouth off this crap. But the Washington Post claims to report facts, not heresy. Mediamatters.org and a group of WaPo readers took Howell to task for this incorrect statement. They posted comments on a feedback blog that the paper had created. Being the ombudsman, a position that exists to solicit reader feedback and correct mistakes, you might think she would simply issue a correction and move on.
Instead, Howell and others at the Post continued to defend their claim without any facts whatsoever. Four days after the initial article, she issued the following statement:
I've heard from lots of angry readers about the remark in my column Sunday that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties. A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties.Lobbyists, seeking influence in Congress, often advise clients on campaign contributions. While Abramoff, a Republican, gave personal contributions only to Republicans, he directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.
Her proof: Indian tribes contributed to both parties. Yet just because the tribes contributed to both parties does not mean that Abramoff asked them to do so. By looking at the past giving records of the tribes, Howell would have seen that the tribes gave money to both parties well before they hired Abramoff to represent them.
So again, readers take her to task. The response this time was even more incredible. The Washington Post shut down their blog, effectively telling readers to shut up. She then attacked her critics, issuing this non-apology:
I wrote that he gave campaign money to both parties and their members of Congress. He didn't. I should have said he directed his client Indian tribes to make campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.
In fact, Howell, it's exactly the opposite. According to a study by a non-partisan group Dwight L. Morris and Associates, Abramoff directed his clients to stop giving to the Democratic Party and increase their contributions to Republicans
The analysis shows:
- in total, the donations of Abramoff’s tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up;
- five out of seven of Abramoff’s tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones;
- four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on;
- Abramoff’s clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern.
“It’s very hard to see the donations of Abramoff’s clients as a bipartisan greasing of the wheels,” Morris, the firm’s founder and a former investigations editor at the Los Angeles Times, told The Prospect.
But the assault on people who want the Post to do its job continues. On Saturday, the WaPo ran an article attacking liberal bloggers. This is part of a systematic effort by major news organizations to attempt to discredit the blogs that criticize them. Although I can't find the link, a few months ago the Post ran an article about how blogs were threatening businesses and how businesses can protect themselves from the evil bloggers.
This whole saga eeriely parallels the "Rathergate" scandal of the 2004 election campaign. A reporter carelessly failed to check the accuracy of his/her reporting. Members of the audience call him/her on it. Then, rather than issuing a correction, the reporters stands by the erroneous story.
But instead of discrediting and deriding the media as ideologically hostile, what people like me want is for reporters to be journalists. Stop reporting talking points as facts and start researching your stories. Too often, an article will boil down to some kind of he said/she said nonsense like the following.
Republican Senator Blah claims that "blah blah blah". Democrats assert that "blah blah blah".
This is not journalism. It is stenography. Real journalists would take the claims and check their accuracy. They would then report the facts, not simply each side's talking points. But that would require hard work and a willingness to seek the truth, something many reporters seem to lack.