"Real reporter" torn a new one by bloggers over Abramoff bribery scandal

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Specifically, sort-of-journalist Deborah Howell, whose elementarily false claim about the Abramoff scandal sparked anger among Washington Post readers, resulting in a flood of comments to the WaPo blog.

On January 15, Howell wrote a column responding to reader complaints about the Post's reporting by Susan Schmidt about lobbyist Jack Abramoff... [stating] that Abramoff had contributed to politicians of both political parties (when, in fact, Federal Election Commission records show that he had given money only to Republicans). Specifically, she said that "[Abramoff] had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties."

Readers, encouraged by popular blogger Atrios, left comments in a new blog at the Post's site repeatedly pointing out to her [the factual inaccuracy of her claim] and demanded a retraction. She declined, but she did respond by saying that "A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties... 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. "

After further discussion, during which Howell basically told the readers to go stuff themselves, the Post decided to shut down the commenting ability on the blog.

The kicker? Howell is the Post's ombudsman. Where she was supposed to check up on reporting, the basic facts of the Abramoff case are apparently beyond her grasp. And where she is supposed to be the liasion between the Post and its readers, her refusal to retract an incorrect claim led to the Post refusing to take further comments from readers online.

As for the actual merit of Howell's second claim, that Abramoff directed donations to Democrats through Indian tribe clients, well.... anyone want to wager on the accuracy of that, in the context of Howell's other comments?

I thought not:

A real reporter would know how many of the Indian tribes' relationships with members of congress antedated the arrival on the scene of Jack Abramoff, and would not be talking about "195 Republicans and 88 Democrats" to whom Abramoff had "directed" Indian tribes' contributions but rather about those representatives with no history of concern for or involvement with Indian issues who suddenly began getting money after Abramoff appeared on the scene.

A real reporter would be talking about three different sets of money flows: Abramoff's $130,000 of direct campaign contributions to Republicans, the money given as campaign contributions by Abramoff's clients, and the $80 million or so that was paid to Abramoff and company for access to Republicans leaders--$25,000 for setting up a meeting with George W. Bush, et cetera.

With respect to the third money flow, a real reporter would write that some portion of it (the guesses I am hearing is about a quarter) flowed through to politicians (and overwhelmingly Republican politicians) as "lifestyle enhancements"--luxury vacation trips paid for by Abramoff's credit card, and so forth.

With respect to the second money flow--money donated by Indian tribes that had hired Abramoff--a real reporter would write that some of them were expenditures directed by Abramoff, and some of which were expenditures that the clients would have made in any case. For example, Bloomberg reports that the Saginaw Chippewa gave $279,000 to Democrats over 1997-2000, and $277,000 over 2001-2004, after they had gotten into bed with Abramoff. It is a safe bet that little of those contributions to Democrats were "directed" by Abramoff. The Saginaw Chippewa gave $158,000 to Republicans in 1997-2000, and $500,000 to Republicans in 2001-2004, after they had gotten into bed with Abramoff. It is a safe bet that much of this extra $340,000 of contributions to Republicans were "directed" by Abramoff.

With respect to the first money flow, a real reporter would write that Abramoff was a Republican giving campaign contributions to Republicans and only Republicans.

But these aren't stories you read in the Post every day, are they? To get these stories you have to read something like Bloomberg.

What is this all about? The WaPo doesn't have the cojones to report objectively.

...it's the compulsive equivocation that's drilled into these schmucks as religion.

It's the he-said-she-said atmosphere, the total irrelevance of objective fact, the weak-kneed obsession with watering down the most despicable of outrages by pointing out (or, in this case, blatantly fabricating) equal offenses by "the other guy."

And the result?

A Rasmussen Reports survey finds... just 15% of Americans believe Abramoff did anything different than what lobbyists typically do. Forty-seven percent (47%) say Abramoff's actions were the norm while 38% are not sure.

A slight majority of Americans (52%) believe the Abramoff scandal involves members of both parties in Congress. Seventeen percent (17%) say it involves Republicans while 5% say it involves Democrats.

As an election issue, people say that political corruption in important, but they don't see a clear solution. Just 31% believe there will be less corruption if Democrats win control of Congress. That figure is offset by 24% who say there will be more corruption with Democrats in power. A plurality (39%) say nothing much would change.

Asshats.

 

[Abaddon]

I think its Abramoff thats the Asshat (what a good word )

 

[El_Machinae]

The telling part of that, if true, was who was supposed to be involved in fact checking.

Was the intent to deceive? Why wouldn't other news services pounce on this?

 

[Irish Caesar]

Looks like no one at the Post really looked into the story first. Which lowers the Post on the respect-o-meter considerably, of course. Had it been on purpose, I think that would be better, because then the article could have easily been written off as right-wing propaganda garbage. From my perspective, this is just plain incompetence in reporting.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

It's not just the Post, though. It's the entire media which wants to create (=out of whole cloth) a story about "equal indiscriminate donator" Abramoff. One which is simply false. The question is why?

-Sheer incompetence?
-Fear that if they report the objective truth, they will be tarred as "Republican bashers"?
-Weakness of the Democrat Party?

Frankly, I think it's #3. The media reported the Swift Boat story for months without actually checking the facts. When the Abramoff story broke, the media went out of their way to tar Democrats as well as Republicans, though no Democrats have received contributions from Abramoff.

Why? Well, to put it bluntly, because the Democrats never complain when the media writes bad stories about them, whereas the Republicans always, always do (whether those stories are true or false, of course). That charge of "liberal bias" is always lurking in the background, ready to be pulled out of the hat at a moment's notice. In other words, the Republicans have the media's balls in a vise. Whereas Democrats? The media don't care what they have to say about the news. Republicans exert tons of pressure; Dems exert none.

Until we kick their ass into gear, they will ALWAYS fear reporting any story that hurts Republicans more than Democrats. And they will never report such a story without twisting it or watering it down. Liberals have to be as hardline on the mainstream media as the Republicans are.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Looks like Josh Marshall feels the same way:

So much of the imbalance and shallowness of press coverage today stems from a simple fact: reporters know they'll catch hell from the right if they say or write anything that can even remotely be construed as representing 'liberal bias'. (Often even that's not required.) Indeed, when you actually watch -- from the inside -- how mainstream newsrooms work, it is really not too much to say that they operate on two guiding principles: reporting the facts and avoiding impressions of 'liberal bias'.

On the left or center-left, until very recently, there's simply never been an organized chorus of people ready to take the Howells of the press biz to task and mau-mau them when they get a key fact wrong. Without that, the world of political news was like an NBA game where one side played the refs hard and had roaring seats of fans while the other never made a peep. With that sort of structural imbalance, shoddy scorekeeping and cowed, and eventually compliant, refs are inevitable.

 

[Stile]

Asshats.

I think you come to the wrong conclusion from the poll. I think most Americans think most members of the House and probably most politicians in general are corrupt, which is the correct assumption. I think it's the norm for lobbyists and both parties. That doesn't mean I think it's ethical or legal. Even though I consider myself conservative on many issues, I offer no defense for these slimeballs and I think they should be run out of town. I suspect most democrats in the House are hopelessly corrupt also. I'd like to see the partisanship removed from the investigation (painting all republicans as compromised), so the American people can forget their kneejerk impulse to defend and rid themselves of these leeches in mass.

 

[The Yankee]

It's been the spin coming from the blowhards in Congress (who are still on Christmas recess, if I recall correctly). Democrats have at worst gotten money from Abramoff-connected organizations, but those donations coming from Abramoff himself are on a strictly partisan nature.

 

[cgannon64]

As an election issue, people say that political corruption in important, but they don't see a clear solution. Just 31% believe there will be less corruption if Democrats win control of Congress. That figure is offset by 24% who say there will be more corruption with Democrats in power. A plurality (39%) say nothing much would change.

Er, what is surprisng or asshat-like about that?

31% beleive Republicans are more corrupt, 24% beleive Democrats are more corrupt, 39% beleive they're both corrupt.

Unless you're pissed at the 39% for being reasonable...

 

[Fifty]

Unless you're pissed at the 39% for being reasonable...

On both ends of the political spectrum, people become so nutbag insane that they forget the nature of politics and actually begin to HONESTLY BELIEVE that their party is somehow saintly, while the opposing party is the very definition of satanic evil.

However, that is part of what makes politics, and partisan schizos in particular, so humerous.

For every old nutjob redneck who believes the solution to the middle east problem is to "turn it all into glass!!!" there is a clueless bleeding heart young liberal who lives for protesting big business while listening to Greenday and typing on his bloggy woggy.

Meanwhile, the resonable middle can sit back and watch the show.

 

[The Yankee]

Meanwhile, the resonable middle can sit back and watch the show.

Sitting back helps get us in this mess. There should be a more radical middle that takes action and forces the extremes to put down their bullhorns.

 

[Drewcifer]

I have for many years thought that the greatest problem the media has isn't bias but rather incompetance.

I have from time to time been interviewed for articles in the local papers or have had inside information about something they have done stories on. I am no longer surprised by their ability to miss the point. Also, I have only once been quoted properly. Though the misquotes are are usually of an unimportant nature I have gotten in the habit of talking very slowly.

 

[The Yankee]

I have for many years thought that the greatest problem the media has isn't bias but rather incompetance.

I have from time to time been interviewed for articles in the local papers or have had inside information about something they have done a stories on. I am no longer surprised by their ability to miss the point. Also, I have only once been quoted properly. Though the misquotes are are usually of an unimportant nature I have gotten in the habit of talking very slowly.

I'll agree with that. It's just that incompetance often looks like bias. Or they'll be lazy enough to take one or two biased sources and write a whole article on it.

 

[eyrei]

On both ends of the political spectrum, people become so nutbag insane that they forget the nature of politics and actually begin to HONESTLY BELIEVE that their party is somehow saintly, while the opposing party is the very definition of satanic evil.

However, that is part of what makes politics, and partisan schizos in particular, so humerous.

For every old nutjob redneck who believes the solution to the middle east problem is to "turn it all into glass!!!" there is a clueless bleeding heart young liberal who lives for protesting big business while listening to Greenday and typing on his bloggy woggy.

Meanwhile, the resonable middle can sit back and watch the show.

Unfortunately, we are subject to the decisions of that 'show', and what we are getting out of the government right now is simply embarrassing.

Our elected leaders are so worried about getting reelected that they can't even balance the budget. The democrats spend way too much money on pointless programs that help unemployment only in the number of people they hire, and the republicans have to start a war in order to remain in power.

Since so many americans are so blindly loyal to their party real political dialogue is nearly impossible, and so our country goes down the wrong path.

 

[carlosMM]

Sitting back helps get us in this mess. There should be a more radical middle that takes action and forces the extremes to put down their bullhorns.

a rare(?) case: I wholeheartedly agree with you!

When radicaly pop up and spout their BS - let's challange them, argue them to death and give them hell instead of just going 'yeah, yeah, leave me alone!'

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

On both ends of the political spectrum, people become so nutbag insane that they forget the nature of politics and actually begin to HONESTLY BELIEVE that their party is somehow saintly, while the opposing party is the very definition of satanic evil.

However, that is part of what makes politics, and partisan schizos in particular, so humerous.

For every old nutjob redneck who believes the solution to the middle east problem is to "turn it all into glass!!!" there is a clueless bleeding heart young liberal who lives for protesting big business while listening to Greenday and typing on his bloggy woggy.

Meanwhile, the resonable middle can sit back and watch the show.

OK, let's work this out.

A massive bribery scandal erupts in Washington that (whether you realize it or not) goes far above and beyond the usual scumbaggery festering in Congress, and (whether you want to admit it or not) was run by Republicans for the benefit of Republicans.

In reaction to this:

I, being a crazy leftist moonbat, 1) will write my (Democratic) representative and inform her that unless she proposes a real reform bill, not just political grandstanding, she can forget my vote in 2006; 2) will work in all other ways possible for meaningful reform of dirty money in Washington; 3) will pledge to vote in the 08 primaries only for a candidate who is serious on the reform issue, or not at all.

Meanwhile:

You, being a "resonable middle" (sic) kind of guy, 1) will reassure yourself with the knowledge that if Democrats were in power it would be just as bad; 2) therefore, "sit back and enjoy the show," in other words do nothing at all; 3) well, unless you count posting smug diatribes against "tree-hugging liberals" who actually care about reform; 4) will continue voting for Republicans, thus teaching them that they can **** you up the bum and you will ask for more.

Looks like you are an asshat too!

 

[The Yankee]

a rare(?) case: I wholeheartedly agree with you!

When radicaly pop up and spout their BS - let's challange them, argue them to death and give them hell instead of just going 'yeah, yeah, leave me alone!'

Thank ye!

The problem is, there are a likely a lot of moderates, over here anyway, yet there is nothing that seems to unite them and have them take back the country from the rabid partisans. Not even this.

Until that happens, nothing will change.

 

[Fifty]

Unfortunately, we are subject to the decisions of that 'show', and what we are getting out of the government right now is simply embarrassing.

Our elected leaders are so worried about getting reelected that they can't even balance the budget. The democrats spend way too much money on pointless programs that help unemployment only in the number of people they hire, and the republicans have to start a war in order to remain in power.

Since so many americans are so blindly loyal to their party real political dialogue is nearly impossible, and so our country goes down the wrong path.

This sums up exactly how I feel, except in a far more intelligent manner than I attempted to put it.

Unfortunately, instead of responding in the way that Yankee and Carlos have proposed (as I know I probably should), I have just become rather apathetic about the whole process.

 

[Fifty]

OK, let's work this out...

First of all, let me congratulate you on your graduation from simply as a rebuttal to the far mroe creative ... I can't wait to see what's in store once you have another 5000 posts under your belt.

Secondly, you are welcome to read my earlier post as many times as is necessary for your understanding, or else just read what eyrei said for a convenient translation of what I mean.

Or, I could translate it into band lyrics for you. Would that help?

 

[HighlandWarrior]

so the republicans were getting more bribes than the democrats...

you're a fool to think the democrats are any cleaner than the republicans.

if the democrats are so clean why are they giving the money away to honorable(something very few politicans are) causes?