Solomon at AP Smears Sen Reid, Philly Inquirer, CNN Jump on Bandwagon

[McCamy Taylor]

Yesterday, if you opened your newspaper, you likely saw a story from the Associated Press by a guy named Solomon with a headline something like "Reid makes fortune from sale of land he did not own" If you read the story to its conclusion, you discovered that he made $700,000 from the sale of land that he d own and which he reported every year to Congress.

Here is just one link to one paper that carried this story.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/15739589.htm

Here is the email I sent to the Associated Press. Be sure to click on the link included in the email. It documents two other occassions when Solomon has twisted the facts to make it appear that Reid has committed fraud where none has occured.

"Dear Associated Press Ombudsman;

"All I can is “wow”. I am no lawyer. I don’t know much about limited liability company(LLC), so I can not say who owns the land that is included in one. If a guy has paid $400,000 for land and then gets nothing in return when he tucks his property into an LLC and keeps reporting to Congress year after year that he owns the land, I would be inclined to say that the land is HIS, and when the LLC sells it for $1.1 million, he has a right to the profit of $700,000 that he just made (I was able to do that math in my head, but if Mr. Solomon is too cash strapped to buy a calculator to figure out sums like this, I would be happy to send him one, I have a few spares lying around the house).

"OK, pleasantries aside, let’s dissect this piece of sensationalism masquerading as sloppy journalism. One million is more eye catching than 700,000, that is why Solomon fudged the math. And where does he come up with the notion that Reid does not own the land? Reid obviously never gave away his half a million dollars worth of land. Only a fool would do something like that. If he says he still owned it, there is no reason not to take him at his word. Maybe he got confused about what a LLC is.. Big deal. He reported the land. He reported the money he made from its sale. There is no indication that he ever intended to hide anything.

"Talk about disconnect. By the time I finished reading the piece, I had gone from a headline that proclaimed that Reid had made over a million from the sale of land that he did not own to the inescapable conclusion that he had made $700,000 from the sale of land that was his all along. That was because I read the whole thing. Someone skimming the headlines and first few (what, where, when paragraphs) would have been left with a very different (deliberate ?) impression.

"Now, let’s put this story in context. Journalism is not just an art. It is a product which fills a need. Why is there a need for a story about a prominent Democratic senator who “made a million off land he did not own” for people who read the newspaper quickly and do not bother to analyze each story carefully? It has a lot to do with the fact that a certain Republican Senator “forgot” to report stock options—and then tried to argue that companies should not have to report stock options that they give out on the grounds that it would help National Security (Sen. Allen R. Virginia). Then there is the Republican trailing Ford by 5 points in the race for Tennessee Senator who put his stuff in “blind trusts” while he was the mayor of a large city in Tennessee then got a big city road built through a nature preserve only to turn around and see his “blind trusts” sell his land(which happened to be on that big city road)to Wal-Mart for $4.6 million the next day.


"Solomon’s story was so poorly written, that when I read it in this morning’s Fort Worth Star Telegram I decided to go online and do a little research. That is something, when the news becomes the news. Here is what I found.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001782.php#more

“It’s not the first time that Solomon has published a misleading story about Reid. This is the third such story by Solomon over the past six months. Each time, Solomon has hit Reid for taking actions which might create the appearance of ethical impropriety. But because Solomon writes for the most powerful news organization in the land, these very gray-shaded stories pack a wallop. It doesn’t help that on numerous occasions, he has missed or distorted key details – missteps that help blow up his stories.”

"Please log on. There is a lot more in the article.

"This is not the first time I have read something written by AP that has set off bells and whistles, but I must say, this is worst. I will probably be skeptical of most things that have Associated Press attached to them for a while."



I has hoped that AP would print a retraction. Ha! Instead, today the Philadelphia Inquirer, owned by Brian P. Tierney, a former Republican activist is saying "Off with his head!" based upon Solomon's at best shoddy/at worst biased journalism.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/15745416.htm

CNN, in turn, is using the Philly Inquirer Editorial to proclaim that Reid is involved in an ethic scandal involving a land deal. Cafferty, instead of explaining what the fuss was about, asked viewers whether they thought Reid should resign based on the Pilly Inquirer Editorial. Results were predictably partisan. The woman substituting for Lou Dobbs had the same vague characterization of the matter as an ethics scandal involving a land deal.

I havent bothered to check FOX News. I know that they had the AP story on their site yesterday.

At worse, this is a case in which he described land that he had put in a limited liability corporation which he was one of two owners as being his sole property. And when the land was sold, he reported the profit. I fail to see where the intent to defraud the taxpayer is. The AP article makes a big deal about how his partner was latter mentioned in conjunction with a case, but this was after the land deal and the partner was not convicted of a crime so there is no proof that Reid was trying to hide his involvement with his partner.

The AP story is nothing but a bunch of innuendo and misrepresentation, which the Philly Inquirer has spun into an editorial and CNN is now spinning into a scandal, so that the RNC can help deflect attention from Ney's guilty plea, Norquist and Co.'s problem's with Abramoff, the two Senatorial candidates whom I mention above, Duke Cunnigham.

This is called They All Do It. It is a favorite ploy of the RNC, right there alongside Divide&Conquer. They already had the FBI do its one and only serious investigation, sting and high profile Congressional raid on a House Democrat (Jefferson , La.). Now they have the AP, Philly Inquirer, CNN and the usual Right Wing Media Whores telling us that Reid reporting land ownership and a sale one way rather than another is worse than Allen not disclosing stock options or Frist having a not blind trust.

These are the guys who give the press a bad name.

:puke:

[blm]

1. Remember - I warned last summer Inquirer was purchased by GOP Activists

For real. They also bought a bunch of other Pennsylvania papers.

I predicted that GOP plans to use control of the Pennsylvania press to steal Penn's electoral votes in 2008.

[GoneOffShore]

6. I think this is just journalistic laziness

Take the AP story, and recycle.

Brian Tierney just hasn't had the time to influence the newsroom that much yet. IMHO

[Quakerfriend]

12. Thx for mentioning this blm. I've noticed the change most

definitely.

What a shame for those of us in Philly.:(

[Ian David]

2. I heard it was because Harry Reid's daughter refused to date Solomon...

She said he was creepy and smelled like old cheese.

[McCamy Taylor]

3. For real?

[Ian David]

4. Some people say. n/t

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

5. The Problem? Most Journalists Are Morons...

I say this as somebody who was two courses shy of a journalism degree before switching majors. Most journalists don't know jack shit about anything. It's part and parcel of obtaining a journalism degree.

The Dow Jones reached an all-time high this week? No. Because it doesn't take inflation into account (the Dow is actually about 10% lower that it was before the crash). But gullible journalists -- most of whom can't balance their checkbook -- repeat the misinformation.

The same goes for science issues. The reason that conservatives have been able to circulate their "Global Warming Is A Myth" propaganda for the past several years is because most reporters are too ignorant about science to know the truth from fiction.

At the risk of offending any reporters on this board -- most reporters are morons.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. This is a smear disguised as sloppy journalism.Now WaPo accepts AP "Dogma"

Here are some more links in the media war it has sparked.

Pro Reid: Chicago Tribune (has bothered to read Reid's explanation and Senate ethics rules)

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/10/sen_harry_reid_.html#more

"For those who haven’t been following this tale, it all stems from a recent Associated Press story. The article reported that Reid, the Senate’s top Democrat as minority leader, may have run afoul of Senate ethics rules by failing to disclose on his ethics forms the 2001 “sale” of Las Vegas real estate he owned with a friend.

"For those who haven’t been following this tale, it all stems from a recent Associated Press story. The article reported that Reid, the Senate’s top Democrat as minority leader, may have run afoul of Senate ethics rules by failing to disclose on his ethics forms the 2001 “sale” of Las Vegas real estate he owned with a friend.

"There’s only one problem. Reid of Nevada didn’t actually sell the real estate in 2001. What he did was transfer it to—get this—himself and the same friend he bought it with in 1998, a former casino lawyer named Jay Brown. (Read the point-by-point description provided by Reid's office. Download the point_by_point.doc))

"The men transferred the real estate to a limited liability company, or LLC, they controlled called Patrick Lane LLC.

"Such tranfers are very common and exceedingly legal. Indeed, many lawyers recommend the step to investors and small business people as a way to shield their personal wealth from liability, as in the event someone is injured or killed on the real estate.

"So it’s credible when Reid says that he didn’t disclose a “sale” on his 2001 disclosure form because there was no sale.There’s only one problem. Reid of Nevada didn’t actually sell the real estate in 2001. What he did was transfer it to—get this—himself and the same friend he bought it with in 1998, a former casino lawyer named Jay Brown. (Read the point-by-point description provided by Reid's office. Download the point_by_point.doc))"

Anti Reid: The Washinton Post (has relied entirely on Solomon's piss poor AP article, says Senate ethics rules are not the standard that apply here???!!!!)

"Mr. Reid bought undeveloped property on the outskirts of fast-growing Las Vegas for about $400,000 in 1998 -- one parcel outright and a second jointly with Mr. Brown. In 2001, Mr. Reid sold the land for the same price to a corporation he co-owned with Mr. Brown, who in the meantime was getting the land rezoned from residential to commercial use. But the senator didn't report the sale on his annual financial disclosure form. When the new company sold the land to developers in 2004, yielding $1.1 million for Mr. Reid, the senator did not accurately list the transaction or go back and fix the previous forms to reflect the new arrangement."

<snip>


"Mr. Reid's professions of transparency and full disclosure are transparently wrong. His investment was not reported in a manner that made clear his partnership with Mr. Brown. It's true -- under the inadequate financial disclosure rules -- that even if Mr. Reid had listed the newly formed corporation, Patrick Lane LLC, that wouldn't have by itself demonstrated Mr. Brown's involvement. Nonetheless, that Mr. Reid no longer owned the land, but instead had sold it for an interest in the Patrick Lane corporation, was not some mere "technical change," as the senator would like to brush it off. It's an essential element of financial disclosure rules, the purpose of which is to know how and with whom public officials are financially entwined."



My response to WaPo:

"My, I was surprised to see your editorial about Sen Reid. When the Philly Inquirer swallowed Solomon’s atrociously written AP story about Reid’s land deal, I assumed I was witnessing their new, former GOP activist owner’s influence. However, when the Washington Post lets AP do the leg work for them, it indicates severe laziness----or, a severe desire not to have the facts of a case disprove the beliefs of a case. Truthiness triumphs over truth.

"If a layman like me can see the flaws in Solomon’s story during my first read through, it seems to me that the professional staff at the Washington Post can do the same. I am not the only person who feels this way. Please check out the excellent editorial at the Chicago Tribune. It is about your editorial.

"As most English lit professors would say, next time, do your own work. When CNN announces the story as “Sen Reid involved in ethics scandal over land deal” it sounds like the typical reporting you expect from 24 hour TV news, but newspaper readers expect better. Or maybe they don’t. Maybe your readers don’t. The Washington Post has had more than its share of partisan ethics scandals in the last few years, especially involving its unsigned editorials."

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

8. Mostly it's just sloppy journalism...

My professors ground the "two independent sources" rule into my brain as an undergraduate. Any fact must be corroborated by two independent sources. Simply passing along the reporting done by others can go by one of two names: plagiarism or gossip.

[McCamy Taylor]

9. What do you call it when you refuse to look for a second source

because you like the "truthiness" of the first source so much that you are afraid that other sources might suggest that the truth is something altogether different?

I call it "bias".

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

10. You might well be right...

But across what I'll laughingly call the "profession" of journalism, this practice is widespread. The local newspaper does a story, which is picked up by the local television station in the next news cycle. The same facts are repeated, with nobody adding anything to the story. Sometimes vice versa, of course.

Example: There was a fire here in the Milwaukee area where a woman and her daughter died. The television news crews were there, of course, sticking their camera into the face of the woman's adult son. He's learned only minutes before that his mother and sister have died and that fireman had to abandon the building (for safety reasons) before they could get to her.

Remember that the guy is obviously distraught -- and he's just as obviously black. The guy says some very unfortunate things about racism and the fact that the firemen are all white and now his family is dead. While I'm sure he regretted the statement just as soon as he calmed down, the local news station blasted it for an entire news cycle, and the local paper picked up the story the next day.

So in a town already on edge because of racial tension (Google: "Frank Jude" to get part of the story) we've now got this non-issue stoked by a lot of irresponsible journalists -- including those who didn't feel it necessary to talk to the Fire Chief, so that they might understand that fireman can't just charge into any and every burning building.

Journalists are held in about the same esteem as used car salesmen these days -- and I think used car salesmen should be outraged.

[McCamy Taylor]

11. Solomon defends himself:

Here is Solomon's attempt to defend himself (it is supposed to be an AP story about Reid)

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/15778794.htm

The info comes from this news release from Reid, though Solomon lets the reader assume that it is his investigative reporting that uncovered the awful deed:

http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=264714&

Note that in today's misrepresentation, Solomon cites the source of the original story as an associate of Reid's Therefore, we are left to assume that there was not a partisan news intermediary, though he does not specifically say so. Apparently, he does not like the idea that people suspect him of being used by the RNC, either voluntarily or as their dupe. Or maybe, he knows how ridiculous a claim of naivitee would sound coming from a seasoned reporter ( "Lordy, Miss Scarlet, I dun know nuthin' 'bout tellin' if no sources is BIASED!")

I advise everyone to read the piece from today. It is so laughably devoid of significant news that it reads more like a personal manefesto. "Why I Am Not A Hatchet Man for the RNC, By John Solomon, Associated Press."

I can imagine Solomon thinking "Not fair! Everyone else gets to write sloppy, critical stories about Democrats! What about Gore lies! What about Swift Boat Vets! Why am I the only one getting singled out?"

You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere.

Go back two years to Dan Rather. Bill Burkett, a source who had been reporting for months that he had overheard military officials conspire in the late 1990's to scrub W.'s AWOL records and that he had rescued those records from the trash handed over AWOL documents to CBS news. Bill Burkett's reliability had been vetted by numerous people between Feb and Sept. Everyone assumed that he had the goods on W. and it was just a matter of time before he spilled them. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes did a very thorough job on the AWOL story, using the documents as just one piece of evidence. The truth was quite clear. However, because Burkett lied about the way he obtained the documents, supporters of W. including Fox News

(http://www.newshounds.us/2004/09/20/real_issues_awol.php)

and the rest of the MSM (they all wanted their big media mergers that Kerry was going to take away) nit picked that single flaw in the story literally to the death of Rather and Mapes career at the hands of their own parent company, Viacom, which had been in continuous violation of FCC media ownership rules ever since W. took office---and therefore, subject to every whim and decree that came from Karl Rove's lips. The moral was clear. Report on the GOP only if you scrupulously dot ever I and cross every T. OK, I like quality work.

Unfortunately, the same Fox News that was reporting on four CBS AWOL stories at once rather than Iraq has gone to court to protect its first amendment right to MAKE UP THE NEWS. A Who's Who list of celebrity journalists participated in the lie that Gore is a Liar. The people who were pointing fingers at Rather were interviewing the Swift Boat Vets as if they had a real story to tell. And no one complained. The message was clear. You can be as sloppy as you want as long as the subject is a Democrat and the story is politically helpful for Republicans.

There is no media accountability. There is only the unofficial White House Office of Propaganda. If the story will raise the ire of Fox News, James Dobson, the Freepers, Karl Rove then you better not publish it, no matter how full of truth it is. However, if the story meets the approval of the folks listed above, then lie, distort, color, embellish. At worst, you will be chided for being sloppy. At best you will be praised for exercising your free speech and furthering the cause of truthiness.

What Solomon wrote last week is proof of the terrible decline of journalism in the US. When he wrote that story, he made a decision not to check the facts too deeply. He figured "Why bother? I am only writing about a Democrat. Who is going to complain?"

Question: how long was the Foley story out there waiting to be confirmed?