Comments on: Meltdown At The Mainstream Intersection

[memekiller]

Look, every reporter in Washington knows that the K Street Project's purpose was to make sure every perk and dollar went to Republicans. To try to spin the facts you have to insinuate that the Democrats were co-conspirators in a project designed to cut them out of the loop requires a deliberate intent to decieve. You're playing dumb so you can be "balanced". Rather than being balanced, why not try being truthful?

[mikezwolf]

Dear Mr. Ververs -- with your reply to lukasiak, and to borrow your words, "you are making my case for me". If, even with what is known about Abramoff's political career, associations, loyalties, and goals, and with what is known about what the K-Street Project was trying to accomplish -- if even with all that you cannot bring yourself to say that this is fundamentally a Republican scandal and that any honest reporting on it should say so, then I suggest you urgently examine your conscience or change to a different line of work. Even people like Rich Lowry at the National Review and the uber-slimy &&%& Morris have said that it's a wholly Republican scandal -- it's safe to come out from under the bed now! What are you afraid of? Between the current crop of amoral, criminal Republicans (I used to support the old-school ones...) and the power-worshipping, cowering media (the parts of it that have not simply been bought), what a putrid enviroment has Washington become -- anyone who sinks in it, even if otherwise decent, seems to soon lose all ability to think straight or speak honestly.

[lukasiak-2009]

Mr. Ververs wrote: "This entire argument over "gave" and "directed" seems like a fight over whether the flood is 19 feet high or 20 feet high. It's a flood. " I really must beg to differ. First off, Abramoff (and his wife) gave exclusively to the GOP. They "directed" their contributions to the GOP, and did so to advance their own (financial, and ideological) interests. The tribal clients that Abramoff landed had, prior to Abramoff's involvement, given money to politicians from both parties. Politicians from both parties continued to recieve contributions from these tribes, but while Abramoff was "directing" their contributions as their lobbyist, contributions to Democrats DECLINED while contributions to Republicans went through the roof. That is what "the facts" that "are known" tell us. There is literally NOTHING that suggests that Abramoff ever "directed" contributions to Democrats over and above what those Democrats would have received absent Abramoff's involvement. There is lots of evidence that GOP politicians got a whole lot MORE money than they would have otherwise. thanks to Abramoff. The EVIDENCE, the FACTS, WHAT IS KNOWN... it all points to an scandal that is exclusively Republican BECAUSE Abramoff, Delay, Rove, Santorum, Norquist, Reed, and the rest of the GOP establishment DID NOT WANT TO SHARE WITH THE DEMOCRATS. Its not that Dems are ethically superior---its just that the GOP got greedy and megalomaniacal.

[v_ververs]

mikezwolf: I think our catalog of work here at Public Eye tells a different tale and encourage you to peruse it.

[v_ververs]

lukasiak: I think this is where the argument really gets silly. When anyone says Abramoff gave money to someone, I think that means he steered money from his clients, not gave personally. I agree, it is technically incorrect and not what one should say. But it is a rather minor point because if you take the amount of money he personally gave it isn't even close to what some individuals give and not something really controversial (remember, personal donations are limited and the amounts he gave, as far as I know, were legal). This entire argument over "gave" and "directed" seems like a fight over whether the flood is 19 feet high or 20 feet high. It's a flood. Really, I'm not here to engage in a political debate but to help facilitate a real discussion between CBS News and its audience. PE dives into these issues because we believe what impacts one segment of what is called the MSM impacts all the media. On the substance, there are some great points raised as to what one can assume or extrapolate, but part of what can get anyone in trouble is a rush to judgment. As this story continues to unfold, the facts will become more clear and so will the coverage (we all hope). That is really the way it is supposed to work, report what you know when you know it. If, in the end, no Democrats are involved it this, that will become clear. That's really all we can ask. Thanks for the comments, keep 'em coming. We'll try to be here as often as possible.

[mikezwolf]

Mr. Ververs -- you are clearly part of the problem, in a big way. 1) You cannot understand the 'beating your wife' argument (at least not when Democrats are involved). 2) You cannot understand what context means, not even this brutally overwhelming context: former head of College Republicans, Bush Pioneer, 300K+ to Florida recount legal fund, K-Street Project jointly with Delay, Rove et al. with avowed goal of cutting off donations to Democrats, reduced donation to Democrats by innocent clients who were extorted into becoming clients, etc., etc. 3) You conveniently avoid the obvious point that even some 'profane' comments were deleted, and even if the Post disabled new comments, there was absolutely no excuse to delete the other existing comments -- which included extensive fact-checking and detailing of the Post's lies (including that little photoshop job on their 'evidence'). All your instincts -- instead of pulling you towards the public, the truth, and the well-being of the polity -- seem to pull you towards the corporatist defense of your fellow insider-group members, journalists and corrupt politicians in powers. I hope you don't consider that 'profane'. It certainly is a personal criticism.

[aramisdc]

Vaughn, First, I hope you are being a little diengenuous rather than that naive about the give backs. You knwo full well that as soon as any scandal breaks, everyone runs back through the donor lists and gets rid of any money even remotely possible to be part of it. I wouldn't be surprises that Joe Abrahamoff of Pokipsie just got a returned check. In some other universe your "report all possibilities" may be responsible (I don't think so...I'm a "just the facts" person myself), but in the real universe it isn't. Here's why. At present all we know is that Republicans are under investigation, and that the primary mover of the Kst Project is nailed). So in some weird sense of balance you folks mush up every Native American client's donations as being equally crooked (they aren't and you know it), and say that Dems might be swept into it. That's the lede and and the headline. Now it's 6 months later. For the sake of argument lets say no Dems are indicted/plea out/etc... Do you retract all the old stories? No, this isn't news, and that was speculation, not bad facts (because there were no facts). If you do publish a story, it ends up on page A-16, under the car ad because it's old news by then and you are bored with it. See what I mean? The damage was done, and there is no rehab.

[antonriviera]

"If you went by who Abramoff personally gave money to, there would be no scandal because the money he gave was legal." As it stands, that's simply not an accurate statement. Personal campaign donations based upon an identifiable, pre-existing quid pro quo can very well be illegal. Of course, nobody "knows" whether Abramoff's personal campaign donations were one half of a quid pro quo. But nobody "knows" that they weren't, either. So by your own standards, you're wrong.

[lukasiak-2009]

oh, and btw, Mr. Ververs originally wrote: "responsible news organizations have to report what they know, not what they think may be true. " and when confronted with what "news organizations" actually KNOW about the claim made by Howell, revised his opinion to.... "The most responsible approach, especially given all this fog, is to report what is known, not what is supposed. That's all I am saying" Mr. Ververs.... the reason that Howell was criticized was because she said something that was demonstrably UNTRUE, and tried to weasel out of it by citing as "known" that campaign contributions were directed to Democrats by Abramoff. I demonstrated that the evidence cited by Howell did not, in fact, back up her claim. Howell (and YOU) "suppose" that Abramoff directed campaign funds to both parties. There is a whole lot of evidence that he "directed" funds solely to the GOP, and there are even emails from Abramoff in which he complains that he can't direct all contributions from his Native American clients to the GOP. This isn't "supposed". These are the facts. And although I appreciate the FACT that you don't have time to read all the relevant documents and testimony about Abramoff, some of us have spend time on this.... and get really annoyed when people like you (and Howell) say one thing, are proven wrong, then say they meant something else.

[aramisdc]

Vaughn, I am a technical consultant, and ran an MT blog, so I know. Those filter nail anything you set them for, automatically. Sometimes annoyingly. But they work. But I sincerely believe that the Post brought most of that on itself. You actually are a good example of how to handle it. I still think you are pushing a group think false balance on this. But... Instead of hiding in a corner, you occasionally hop in and comment. You acknowlegde points, and engane the substance of them when you disagree. As a result, people engage back on a higher level. The Post left people to stew for days. Then everyone consistently either move the goal posts to the false balance argument (which wasn't the initial issue), and ignored the unsupported allegations and speculation. Then they trotted out Howell, who didn't apologize or address the full issues she was wrong about, moved the goal posts backed up by some graphics which as you noted had been substantively challenged already, and spoke from on high without addressing the challenges. That smacked of utter arrogance, and that no one at the Post was willing to acknowledge any valid points had been made. And they wonder why people posted off color? How many times have you been in rush hour traffic, got frustrated and lost it? The Post left people hanging or dismissed from an arrogant stance for 5 days. Of course there was anger and frustration. If they want interactivity, they have to be interactive.