|
News organizations devote little attention
to NSA spying story
Media Matters
January 20, 2006
On January 22, the day after The Washington Post first broke the Lewinsky
story, the paper ran the following stories:
- "FBI Taped Aide's Allegations; Seeking Cooperation, Bureau Confronted
Ex-White House Intern," a 2,663-word front-page article by Peter Baker and
Susan Schmidt
- "Clinton Scoop So Hot It Melted; Newsweek Editors Held Off On Scandal
Story," a 1,098-word Howard Kurtz article about reporting of the matter, on the
front page of the Style section
- "FBI Taped Aide's Allegations; Clinton Denies Affair, Says He 'Did Not Urge
Anyone' to Lie," a 1,474-word front-page article by John Harris, with
contributions by Terry Neal
- "Clinton Tie to Va. Woman Led to Probe's Latest Angle," a 605-word article
about Kathleen Willey by R.H. Melton
- "Kindred Spirits' Pentagon Bond; White House Exiles Shared Lively Chat,
Confidences," a 1,620-word front-page article by Dana Priest and Rene Sanchez
with contributions by Ceci Connolly, Judith Havemann, Susan Glasser and David
Segal
- "Jordan: Power Broker And 'FOB' Without Peer; Lawyer Is Now Key Figure in
Starr Probe," a 782-word article by Thomas Edsall, with contributions by staff
researcher Ben White
- "THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS; President Imperiled as Never Before," a
933-word article by Dan Balz, with contributions by Helen Dewar
- "Affairs of State," an 833-word column by Mary McGrory
- "THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS; Allegations Against Clinton Could Lead to
Impeachment, Prosecution," a 1,042-word article by Ruth Marcus
- "The Allegations," a 420-word editorial
- "The Reliable Source," a regular multipart feature of the Style section
that dedicated 374 words to the Clinton investigation by Ann Gerhart and Annie
Groer.
That's a total of 11 articles, written by or using contributions from at
least 20 reporters, and comprising 11,844 words dedicated to allegations that
the president lied about a consensual relationship.
The New York Times gave the story similar treatment:
- "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE; In Interviews,
President Denies Affair With Intern," a 1,067-word article by James Bennet
- "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE FRIENDS; Friendship of 2 Women Slowly Led to
the Crisis," a 1,881-word front-page article by Jill Abramson and Don Van
Natta
- "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE OVERVIEW; SUBPOENAS SENT AS CLINTON DENIES
REPORTS OF AN AFFAIR WITH AIDE AT WHITE HOUSE," a 2,202-word front-page article
by Francis X. Clines and Jeff Gerth
- "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Independent Counsel Cites Deceit Pattern," a
419-word article by Sephen Labaton
- "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE: THE CONFIDANT; In Fair Weather and Foul, a
Friend to Clinton," a 563-word article by Richard Berke
- "THE PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE; Excerpts From Statements by White House and
President on Accusations," a 1,465-word article
- "A Crisis From Petty Sources," a 755-word editorial
- "Essay; Presume Innocence," a 692-word column by William Safire
That's a total of eight articles, written by at least eight reporters,
comprising 9,044 words.
Now, here's what the Post did on December 17 -- the day after the initial
disclosure of the Bush administration's use of the National Security Agency
(NSA) to conduct domestic surveillance that has been widely described as an
illegal trampling of the Constitution:
- "On Hill, Anger and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside
Surveillance," a 1,372-word front-page article by Dan Eggen and Charles Lane,
with contributions from Carol D. Leonnig, Barton Gellman, and R. Jeffrey Smith,
and researcher Julie Tate
- "Renewal of Patriot Act Is Blocked in Senate," a 1,073-front-page article
dealing tangentially with the NSA matter, by Charles Babington
- "At the Times, a Scoop Deferred," a 782-word article by Paul Farhi
That's all. Three articles, eight reporters, 3,227 words -- and that's
generously including the USA Patriot Act article in the tally.
And from the Times, which had broken the NSA story the day before:
- "SENATORS THWART BUSH BID TO RENEW LAW ON TERRORISM," a 1,875-word
front-page article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Eric Lichtblau, with
contributions from James Risen
- "Behind Power, One Principle," a 1,201-word front-page article by Scott
Shane
That's it for the Times: two articles, four reporters, 3,076 words.
All told, on January 22, 1998, the Times and the Post ran 19 articles (five
on the front page) dealing with the Clinton investigation, totaling more than
20,000 words and reflecting the words of at least 28 reporters -- plus the
editorial boards of both newspapers.
In contrast, on December 17, the Times and the Post combined to run five
articles about the NSA spying operation, involving 12 reporters and consisting
of 6,303 words.
On February 25, 1998, 35 days after the story first broke, the Post ran four
articles and an editorial about the Clinton investigation, totaling 5,046
words, involving 11 reporters, and the paper's editorial board. The Times ran
four articles, two opinion columns, and an editorial -- seven pieces in all,
totaling 5,852 words and involving at least six reporters and columnists, in
addition to its editorial board. The papers combined for 12 articles, columns,
and editorials, involving 17 reporters and columnists, as well as both
editorial boards.
On January 20, 35 days after the NSA story first broke, the Times ran one
1,324-word article about the NSA operation written by two reporters. The Post
ran one 945-word article written by one reporter. Combined: two articles, three
reporters, 2,269 words.
We could go on and on with comparisons like these, and bring in other news
organizations, but it should be clear by now that the nation's leading news
organizations haven't given the NSA spying story anywhere near the coverage
they gave the Clinton-Lewinsky matter. And, based on available evidence, they
haven't dedicated nearly the resources to pursuing the NSA story that they
dedicated to the Lewinsky story.
So, some questions for the Times, and the Post, and ABC, and CBS, and NBC,
and CNN, and Time, and Newsweek, and other leading news organizations:
1) How many reporters, editors, and researchers did you assign to the
Lewinsky story when it broke? How many remained assigned to that story one
month later?
2) How many reporters, editors, and researchers did you assign to the NSA
story when it broke? How many remained assigned to that story one month
later?
3) How do you explain the disparity?
We assume many news organizations would respond by saying that they aren't
devoting as much attention to the NSA matter because it hasn't captured the
nation's attention the way the Lewinsky investigation did.
But that's a canard; as we demonstrated above, the Times and the Post ran a
combined 19 articles totaling more than 20,000 words just a day after the
Lewinsky story first broke -- long before they could have known whether the
public was interested. If the story captured the nation's attention, it's
because the media forced it down our throats. And if Americans aren't
captivated by the NSA matter, it may be because the media aren't hyping it
nearly as much as it has much lesser stories.
The Post's Howard Kurtz effectively -- if unintentionally -- illustrated
this bizarre tendency by news organizations to pretend that they merely reflect
what people are talking about rather than shaping the national conversation. In
his January 18 online column, Kurtz responded to criticism by Media Matters for
America and others that he gave unwarranted attention to ages-old, baseless
right-wing attacks on Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) by writing an article
recounting the attacks for the January 14 edition of the Post. Kurtz noted that
the attacks are, indeed, old, but added they are now "getting national
play."
But the attacks aren't "getting" national play -- Kurtz is giving them
national play. Prior to his article, the only "play" the allegations were
getting came in a hatchet job by the Brent Bozell-operated Cybercast News
Service upon which Kurtz based his article.
NSA spying stories we'd like to see
What kinds of stories could we see if news organizations were to devote as
much attention to the president's authorization of a domestic spying operation
that many think is illegal and unconstitutional as they did to a presidential
affair?
- Profiles of the people involved: Such pieces were standard during the
Lewinsky investigation, but are not nearly as common now. Who are the Justice
Department and NSA officials responsible for crafting the spy plan? What are
their backgrounds? Their expertise? What other controversial administration
actions have they been involved in?
- Serious and detailed examinations of the opinions of legal and
constitutional experts. Conservative constitutional scholar Bruce Fein and
American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Norman Ornstein have said that
the president's authorization of the wiretapping scheme may constitute an
impeachable offense -- but those comments haven't appeared in either the Times
or the Post, or most other media outlets. What other experts have criticized --
or defended -- the program? Rather than simply reporting that the Bush
administration says its actions are legal, and critics disagree, news
organizations could -- and should -- offer a comprehensive picture of the
opinions and analyses of relevant experts.
- Assessments of the effects of the NSA program. The Bush administration
claims the domestic spying operation has thwarted terrorist attacks. Is this
true? Some of the success stories the administration and the media have
recounted are dubious at best, such as the much-touted capture of Iyman Faris,
who pleaded guilty to a harebrained plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with a
blowtorch -- and whose capture reportedly had little to do with the NSA
program.
- An exploration of the possibility that the NSA program may not only have
been an illegal and unconstitutional trampling of the rights of countless
Americans, but may actually have harmed national security. For example,
evidence obtained through the program may turn out to have been illegally
obtained -- and thus inadmissible in court, which may result in actual
terrorists going free.
- Given that at least nine Republican senators have expressed concern over
the NSA program, an enterprising reporter might try to get comments from every
member of Congress. Given calls for congressional investigations, including
those made by at least six Republican senators, an examination of previous
congressional investigations and oversight of the Bush administration would
seem to be in order. Have previous comments by Republicans expressing concern
with administration policies resulted in meaningful investigations? Or have
they simply paid lip service to the idea of oversight without following
through?
- Polling. Given the media's obsession with horse-race commentary and public
opinion polling, it's long past time for detailed polling based on accurate
questions about the NSA domestic spying and other Bush administration scandals.
Zogby International polls have found that most Americans think Congress should
consider impeachment if Bush deliberately mislead the country into war or if he
"wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge" -- and those
polls have been ignored by the media. News organizations that in 1998 polled on
whether people thought Clinton should be impeached if he had an affair now
refuse to ask whether people think Bush should be impeached if he broke the
law.
- Aside from impeachment, and questions relating to NSA spying, we've long
argued that polls that ask if Bush mislead the country about Iraq should ask
some obvious follow-up questions. Like, "Do you think the president's
statements about the need to go to war in Iraq will make people more or less
likely to believe him if he again makes the case for war?" And "If you think
people will be less likely to believe him next time, does that make America
more or less safe"?
And that's just a starting point. This is a situation in which the president
of the United States admits ordering a secret domestic spying operation that
many in his own party find troubling and that even some of his fellow
conservatives have described as impeachable. Surely, if news organizations were
to devote half the attention to this matter that they devoted to the Lewinsky
matter, there would literally be dozens of worthwhile, interesting, and
important stories to tell.
Leading Republican strategist criticizes spying operation; media yawn
We've previously noted that news organizations tend to play up Democratic
criticism of fellow Democrats while downplaying Republican criticism of fellow
Republicans.
This week brings a stunning new example.
Grover Norquist is, by most accounts, one of the most prominent and
influential Republicans in the country. The Post has described him as a close
ally of President Bush; as "one of the intellectual architects of the [1994]
Republican Revolution." You'd be hard-pressed to find a knowledgeable political
or media observer who would disagree with the statement that Norquist is among
the dozen conservatives most directly responsible for the success of the
movement and of the Republican Party.
On Tuesday, January 17, a group called Patriots to Restore Checks and
Balances issues a press release titled, "Leading Conservatives Call for
Extensive Hearings on NSA Surveillance; Checks on Invasive Federal Powers
Essential."
Norquist was among those "leading conservatives," along with former Rep. Bob
Barr (R-GA); David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union; Paul
Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation; and Alan Gottlieb,
founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. Norquist said in the release:
"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns
raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping."
Almost without exception, the media have ignored Norquist's comments.
The following news organizations didn't even mention Norquist's call for an
investigation into "alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping":
* The New York Times
* The Washington Post
* USA Today
* Chicago Tribune
* Los Angeles Times
* CNN
* ABC
* NBC
* CBS
* Fox News Channel
* MSNBC
* Associated Press
* United Press International
And on, and on, and on.
In reporting bin Laden's latest threats, media forget CIA director's claim
that he knows where bin Laden is
Osama bin Laden -- the terrorist mastermind behind the 9-11 attacks on
America, and a man Bush vowed to capture "dead or alive" -- resurfaced this
week to issue more threats against the United States. Oddly absent from media
coverage of bin Laden's threats has been any mention of the fact that the Bush
administration has said it knows where bin Laden is hiding -- but won't go get
him out of respect for "fair play" and to avoid offending foreign
governments.
Instead, the media portray bin Laden's reemergence as a political boon for
Bush and the Republicans since it reminds people of terrorism -- rather than as
a boon for Democrats since it reminds people that it's been more than four
years since the attacks of September 11 and that the Bush administration still
hasn't captured the person responsible.
Wash. Post ombudsman: "From now on, I don't reply"
Post ombudsman Deborah Howell has gotten off to a rocky start at her new job
-- some of it due to her dealings with Media Matters. Some recent news reports
have mischaracterized the nature of our interaction with her. For example, on
his CBSNews.com blog Public Eye, Vaughn Ververs conflated controversy
surrounding Howell's January 15 column with an exchange Howell had with Media
Matters regarding a previous Post article. The following is an overview of the
Howell controversy to date, with particular emphasis on Media Matters'
involvement.
Howell first drew Media Matters' attention by casually dismissing reader
emails asking the Post to "do a poll on whether President Bush should be
impeached." As Media Matters noted, Howell's answer simply didn't make sense;
she claimed that Post polling director Richard Morin told her that such a
question would be "biased" -- but didn't explain how. Media Matters pointed out
that, in fact, the Post had asked the same question about Bill Clinton in 1998,
so the explanation that the Post considers such questions "biased" doesn't hold
water.
(The Post's polling director later changed his story, though his new answer
wasn't any better. The Post, meanwhile, continues to not only refuse to conduct
its own polling about impeachment, but also refuses to even mention polling
conducted by Zogby International that shows a majority of Americans think
Congress should consider impeachment proceedings "[i]f President Bush
wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge.")
A few weeks later, Media Matters urged Howell to abandon her tendency to
dismiss complaints about the Post's reporting by asserting that, since "both
sides" complain, the Post must be doing something right:
In what other profession would it be considered a badge of honor for
everyone to think your work is flawed? Shouldn't the goal be for nobody to
think your work is flawed?
If a newspaper article calls one candidate an alcoholic and her opponent a
compulsive gambler, and both complain, can the reader conclude that the
reporter must have done "something right"?
Substantive criticism of news reports should not be dismissed simply
because someone else has a different complaint. Howell's approach -- and that
of too many journalists -- assumes that both complaints have equal merit, which
is obviously not always true. And it assumes that if any article is unfair to
Party A in one way and Party B in another way, they cancel each other out -
essentially, that two wrongs make a right.
In her second column as the Post's ombudsman, Howell offered readers "a
couple of tips on how best to use your ombudsman." It's time to return the
favor with a tip for Howell, and for other journalists: Complaints about news
reports should be dealt with on their own merits, not by simply matching them
up against opposing complaints and discounting them all. Criticism from Media
Matters, for example, should not be ignored simply because the Media Research
Center also criticizes you -- and vice versa. On this, if little else, we
suspect Media Matters, FAIR, Media Research Center, Accuracy in Media, and
everyone else who regularly critiques the media can agree.
Then things accelerated considerably.
On January 4, the Post published an article by reporter Dafna Linzer that
included the following line:
The NSA program operated in secret until it was made public in news accounts
last month. Since then, President Bush and his advisers have defended it as
legal and necessary to protect the country against future attacks and have said
Congress was repeatedly consulted.
Media Matters noted in an item that same day that, while Linzer did include
an overview of criticism of the Bush program, she did not include any rebuttal
to the grossly misleading administration claim that "Congress was repeatedly
consulted."
Howell then mocked the Media Matters item in comments on her internal Post
weblog, dismissing it as "weak" and asserting, "It was clear if you read the
story that she was simply giving the administration's point of view as well as
others." Media Matters followed up by noting once again that Linzer had not, in
fact, given the point of view of others on the question of whether "Congress
was repeatedly consulted" -- and that Howell's defense of the omission
therefore constituted an endorsement of the practice of printing misleading
administration claims without rebuttal.
Howell didn't much care for that, and dashed off an email (an email that,
had Howell been the recipient rather than the target, she would no doubt
describe as "angry") stating, "I did not say that I endorsed printing
misleading or false statements. I would never do that. I said that she was
giving the administration's point of view. Either take that off your site or
print my side of this."
So we posted that email, acceding to Howell's request that we "print my side
of this." But her email contained a misleading statement -- in fact, Howell had
not merely said in her post on the internal weblog that Linzer "was giving the
administration's point of view." She had said that Linzer "was simply giving
the administration's point of view as well as others." In fact, Linzer had not
included the point of view of "others" -- and that is the entire basis for our
initial item about Linzer's article, and the ensuing controversy.
Because we disagree with Howell's apparent position that readers' interests
are served by publishing misleading information without rebuttal, we rebutted
her email. Politely, we thought.
Howell, however, characterized that rebuttal as an "attack" in comments she
made on the Post's internal message board -- and vowed to never again reply to
criticism from Media Matters:
Omb Learns Lesson
Posted By: Deborah Howell
Date: 1/13/06 5:45:52 PM EDT
* The omb lesson is that I replied to mediamatters.org last week that I
thought I had been misrepresented. That's just brought another attack. From now
on, I don't reply.
Meanwhile, Howell was coming under criticism for her January 15 column, in
which she wrote that lobbyist/felon Jack Abramoff "made substantial campaign
contributions to both major parties" and that "a number of Democrats, including
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have
gotten Abramoff campaign money."
In fact, there is no indication that Abramoff has ever made any campaign
contribution of any size to the Democratic Party, or to Reid, Dorgan, or any
other Democrat. Media Matters and others pointed this out, noting that
Abramoff's clients -- also known as his "victims" -- gave money to Democrats,
but Abramoff, a longtime Republican insider, did not.
That's where things get interesting. The Post's public blog got flooded with
comments pointing out Howell's error and asking for a correction. The Post then
deleted some of those reader comments that it considered "personal attacks on
Howell and others." Unfortunately, in the process, the Post also deleted
(apparently accidentally) hundreds of comments that should not have been
deleted. This, coupled with Howell's failure to address complaints about her
false claim, led to even more comments, and to questions asked of Post
reporters during online chats.
Post media reporter Howard Kurtz, for example, conceded that Howell's false
Abramoff claims had been "inartfully worded" and could "have been more
accurate." Howell herself finally commented in a January 19 post on the Post's
public weblog, using much the same language:
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.
Howell's response fell short in at least two regards. First, she failed to
acknowledge that claim that Abramoff "made substantial campaign contributions
to both major parties" was not merely poorly worded, it was in fact wrong.
Second, Howell went on to explain:
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.
Records from the Federal Elections Commission and the Center for Public
Integrity show that Abramoff's Indian clients contributed between 1999 and 2004
to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats. The Post has copies of lists sent to
tribes by Abramoff with specific directions on what members of Congress were to
receive specific amounts.
One of those lists can be viewed in this online graphic, while a graphical
summary of giving by Abramoff, his tribal clients and associated lobbyists can
be viewed here. The latest developments in the Abramoff investigation are
available in this Special Report.
Howell's overview of campaign contributions connected to Abramoff suffers
from the same flaws present in most media coverage of the topic. Among them is
the implication that "Abramoff's Indian clients" contributed to Democrats
because Abramoff told them to. In fact, Bloomberg has reported that Abramoff's
clients gave a higher percentage of their contributions to Democrats before
Abramoff began representing them:
Abramoff's tribal clients continued to give money to Democrats even after he
began representing them, although in smaller percentages than in the past.
The Saginaw Chippewas gave $500,500 to Republicans between 2001 and 2004 and
$277,210 to Democrats, according to a review of data compiled by Dwight L.
Morris & Associates, a Bristow, Virginia-based company that tracks
campaign-finance reports. Between 1997 and 2000, the tribe gave just $158,000
to Republicans and $279,000 to Democrats.
Further, tribes represented by Abramoff are unusual in steering the bulk of
their contributions to Republicans: Indian tribes not represented by Abramoff
tend to give more to Democrats, according to Bloomberg:
Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff joined with his former partner, Michael
Scanlon, and tribal clients to give money to a third of the members of
Congress, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay [R-TX], according to
records of the Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service. At
least 171 lawmakers got $1.4 million in campaign donations from the group.
Republicans took in most of the money, with 110 lawmakers getting $942,275, or
66 percent of the total.
Of the top 10 political donors among Indian tribes in that period, three are
former clients of Abramoff and Scanlon: the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan,
the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians of California. All three gave most of their donations to Republicans --
by margins of 30 percentage points or more -- while the rest favored
Democrats.
When Howell's post prompted another flood of comments, the Post responded by
turning off the comments feature of its blog, explaining:
What we're not willing to do is allow the comments area to turn into a place
where it's OK to unleash vicious, name-calling attacks on anyone, whether they
are Post reporters, public figures or other commenters. And that's exactly what
was happening. That leads into the second complaint. The reason that people
were not routinely seeing the problematic posts I mentioned were that we were
trying to remove them as fast as we could in order to preserve the reasoned
arguments many others were making. We removed hundreds of these posts over the
past few days, and it was becoming a significant burden on us to try and keep
the comments area free of profanity and name-calling. So we eventually chose to
turn off comments until we can come up with a better way to handle situations
like this, where we have a significant amount of people who refuse to abide by
the rules we set out.
Washingtonpost.com executive editor Jim Brady later said in an online chat
that the Post would "go back through them [the comments] and restore the ones
that did not violate our rules."
Now, for the media coverage of the Howell-readers spat.
The Times ran a January 20 article by Katharine Seelye that seems to
conflate the controversy over Howell's Abramoff column with the Media
Matters-Howell dispute over Linzer's NSA article. The Times reported:
She [Howell] wrote a column about Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who pleaded
guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion, and said that several Democrats
"have gotten Abramoff campaign money," apparently intending to say that they
received campaign money from Mr. Abramoff's clients.
Her column generated complaints, and after saying she thought her views were
being misrepresented, she was attacked again, prompting her to say she would
not post any more replies.
Seelye's reference to Howell "saying she thought her views were being
misrepresented" and saying "she would not post any more replies" seems to refer
to Howell's post on the Post's internal weblog in which she said she would not
reply to Media Matters. This incident had nothing to do with her Abramoff
column or with the Post's decision to turn off comments on its blog.
Seelye's article did not point out that Howell's Abramoff column was in
error, or that she waited four days to respond to complaints. Seelye's article
extensively quoted Post employees, but neither quoted nor paraphrased any
critic of either Howell's reporting or of the Post's handling of the
matter.
Likewise, the AP glossed over the Post's conduct, focusing instead on "nasty
reader postings." Like the Times, the AP did not point out that, in fact, the
readers were right and Howell was wrong. Also, like the Times, the AP failed to
explore the possibility that Howell's delay in responding to complaints about
her inaccurate reporting, the Post's wholesale deletion of comments, and other
issues may have contributed to the reader anger. (Though, of course, that does
not mean vulgar personal attacks were justified.)
Ververs joined Seelye in conflating the flap over Howell's Abramoff
reporting with the dispute over Linzer's NSA article.
Ververs, however, made a far more troubling statement. In his post, Ververs
seemed to endorse Howell's statement that Abramoff "directed his Indian tribal
clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of
Congress from both parties." And in another post in the comments section, he
seemed to stipulate that Abramoff "steered money" from his clients to
Democrats.
But in another comment in reply to a reader, Ververs responded by
saying:
You're right, nobody "knows" whether Abramoff "directed" any money towards
Democrats. Nobody "knows" that he didn't, either. When many Democrats are among
those rushing to return money they have gotten from these interests, it is at
least as compelling as all the circumstantial evidence offered up by those who
claim no Democrats are involved.
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. The chips will
fall and we'll all know more as this goes forward.
Whether or not Abramoff, in fact, "directed" contributions to Democrats, it
is troubling to see Ververs stipulate that he did, apparently because "nobody
'knows' that he didn't."
|
|