My email to the Today Show

[oldtime dfl_er]

Let me begin by quoting Matt Lauer this morning:

"LAUER: Katie pressed him on that, and then we -- we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and we found out that, technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here's what we found: that 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money -- not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients -- went to Democrats."

Very simply, this non-correction does not make clear that NONE of Abramoff's money went to Democrats. Lauer implies a connection - where none has been shown to exist - between the money from the Indians and the money from Abramoff. I ask that you have either Matt Lauer or Katie Couric issue an honest correction that states the facts and does not attempt to muddy the waters with irrelevant information.

Thank you.
*****************

http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/936290

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Good letter

and you made the point very clear in a polite way. I think I would be tempted to call them right wing shills or worse.

[AX10]

2. This is dishonest of them.

"technically speaking"? :wtf:? The Democrats recieved NO MONEY from Abramoff! :argh:

[Catrina]

8. And the 'clients' the tribes gave Dems and Repubs THEIR MONEY!

Not Abramoff's. What is going on here?? They've had four weeks to get it straight. He went only to one source?? And he concluded this:

But here's what we found: that 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money went to Democrats .....

He is a liar. He is implying that that money was Abramoff money!!! It was NOT. It was the clients' own money. Not ONE DIME of Abramoff money went to Democrats, yet they are squirming and wriggling and twisting and turning trying to make it so, even if it means smearing innocent 'clients' to do so. Despicable is too good a word for them.

[Debi]

3. You were much more polite than I was

I told them to do their own research rather than checking the RNSC's web site. I also asked them to identify any Democrat who received tribal money and then changed their vote or assisted that tribe in some way outside of what they had been doing for years. I also suggested that they go back five or ten years to see if those tribes had been contributing to that Democrat their entire elected career, rather than just between the years that Ambramoff 'bought' influence in D.C. No Tribe has bragged about purchasing votes or influence, only Abramoff.

No Democrat has taken dirty money in this republican scandal, until someone can show me different (not by insinuation or RNSC talking points, but by fact) I will continue to shout this information from the rooftops.

[PATRICK]

4. Never forget to add

that Abramoff's tribes were pressured to decrease their contributions to Dems, a net loss due to criminal influence and that things like the K Street Project intend that the vast amount of donations be forced away from Dems through rigging the lobbying system in the Abramoff spirit.

So unless you are some sort of crusade to tar Democrats you might choose journalism as a career. Few practice it in America or are allowed to publicly.

[Debi]

6. I don't understand the last line of your post...

So unless you are some sort of crusade to tar Democrats you might choose journalism as a career. Few practice it in America or are allowed to publicly.

Directed at NBC or me? :shrug:

[PATRICK]

7. Dear lord no

Forgive the ambiguity. I was writing as if at the Katie.

Mea maxima culpa.

[Debi]

12. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't said something wrong

I don't want an all-out investigation of all Democraticly received contributions (the GOP spin machine would make US look like the crimminals) but I do think that we should offer ourselves up to be scrutinized if the GOP is going to insinuate we have done something wrong. My Senator (Tom Harkin) has been a supporter of the Sac & Fox tribe in Iowa ever since he was elected to Congress (I think 1984) and they have supported him financially. Yet, only the 2000-2004 contibutions are being looked at. Bullshit!!!

[Catrina]

5. It's racism. They are smearing the Indian tribes, including them with a

broad stroke in the smear now known as 'Abramoff's clients'. The tribes gave THEIR money to politicians of both parties as they are legally permitted to do.

Here's an example that might get their attention. It came from another DUer (sorry I don't remember who now but I just remembered it). By Matt Lauer's logic:

George Bush's family did business with the Bin Laden family ~ so, 'technically George Bush profited, not from Bin Laden himself, but from his family and associates'. QED ~ you the viewer are now supposed to infer that George Bush is complicit in Osama Bin Laden's crimes.

This is INFURIATING:

Lauer says: But here's what we found: that 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money

WHOSE MONEY, MATT???? Katie???? Anyone??? Anyone out there in the long lost world of journalism???

That money was NOT Abramoff money!! It was the tribes' own money. What was left of it, after Abramoff and his Republican co-horts STOLE from them!!

Abramoff had other clients, btw who also gave, LEGALLY (do they really not get it, are they THAT stupid, or is this what they are being paid to do, to lie??) to both parties, yet they are never mentioned.

I have to conclude that this is racism ~ the attempt to cause the public to believe that the victims of Abramoff, the Indian tribes, were complicit in his crimes. Yet, there is not one iota of evidence that they have been viewed by law-enforcement as anyting other than victims.

Tell them to STOP smearing the Indian tribes. My girlfriend is an American Indian and she is livid about this. Why don't they invite the victims of Abramoff to defend themselves from these egregious smears? What IS Matt Lauer doing? I hope the tribes sue the media. They surely have had enough of this by now.

[janx]

10. That is EXACTLY what crossed my mind!

It's as if Indian money is somehow "tainted" or something.

Nay, it's the Abramoff money that's the problem--why must the media insist on conflating the two?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

9. Matt Lauer will do anything to keep from going back to painting houses.

[gratuitous]

11. They're kind of thick, aren't they?

Didn't they see what happened to Deborah Howell and the Washington Post last week when they made the exact, same mistake? This lie is so persistent, and the outlines of media outlet stubbornness are so similar between NBC and the Post, that some people of a less-charitable disposition than me might think that there's some kind of media collusion to broadcast this particular lie as some kind of fact.

Howard Dean is correct, not only technically speaking, but in every way, shape and form you can be correct. He's more correct than the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He's more correct than James Frey. He's more correct than Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Scott McClellan and even Mr. Big himself, George W. Bush. Yet, who does NBC spend more air time giving unfiltered unanalyzed time to bloviate, and who is subject to their scrutiny and research to determine that he's "technically" correct?

[Wisconsin Larry]

13. Email to NBC and Phone Numbers

Following is my mail to NBC News, CBS Evening News, and ABC News. But first the phone numbers,

NBC Universal Main Number 212-757-5294 (Isn't being answered today)
NBC National News 212-664-4444 (Answered by a person yesterday but now is voice mail)
NBC Comment Voice Mail 212-664-3333 (the News mailbox that includes the Today Show has been full since yesterday am so I leave my rants in the entertainment mailbox hoping others will do the same and fill that up as well.

My email was:
First the Today Show presents a lie as fact with Couric saying Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats.
Then Lauer and Russert continue by saying associates of Abramoff gave money to Democrats which is "technically correct" but has nothing to do with the Abramoff investigation. Only Republicans are under investigation by Abramoff prosecutors. Plus who would be dumb enough to pay off a Democratic congressman -- they haven't been able to do anything for almost a decade.

The real question is "Why does NBC news persist in presenting administration talking points, aka propaganda, as news?" Surely they are not that stupid so maybe it is something else?

Please investigate.