Kurtz: "I don't believe media are saying this is an equal opp. scandal."

[BurtWorm]

Meaning the Abramoff scandal. Is he right?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/05/DI2006010501114.html

New York, N.Y.: "There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true."

This is what Howard Dean told your CNN colleague Wolf Blitzer this weekend (according to the CNN transcript). If what Dean says is true, why are the media insisting, along with the RNC, that this is an equal opportunity scandal?

Howard Kurtz: I don't believe the media are saying this is an equal opportunity scandal. It is a scandal about a Republican lobbyist and fundraiser and friend of Tom DeLay, that has already implicated another GOP congressman (Bob Ney), and most of those who are nervous are Republicans. The coverage, in my view, has fairly reflected that. However, it's also true that Abramoff, in the process of ripping off his clients, steered contributions to some Democrats as well as Republicans, and some of these Dems have since returned the money or donated it to charity.

[Captain Hilts]

1. They're prominently quoting Prez Bush as saying so. But articles...

are more fair, and accurate, than headlines quoting Bush.

Yet Another Bush Lie.

[Burried News]

2. Waterboy defending the CONfusion. nt

[PA Democrat]

3. That's laughable. I guess Howie never watches FOX News.

Hannity is STILL saying the Dems are just as involved as the Repubs. And good old Tweety has stated that the scandal involves both parties. Jeez, I've seen it at least a dozen times, and I watch very little of the MSM coverage.

[librechik]

4. Kurtz lies--there is (in particular) no evidence Jack "steered"

contributions either. He is a calculating fop.

[librechik]

5. I repeat--no Dems could do any "favors" for contributions--

they are not in the majority, and can barely stop an atrocity if they must.

Get it straight, Howie. YOu want to know what media outlet is saying it's an "equal opportunity scandal?" It's you, you moron.

[hughee99]

7. Don't get me wrong...

I agree with you that the Democrats didn't do anything wrong here. But to say that those in the minority can't do "favors" for contributions isn't accurate. The repukes were in the minority for many years and proved that it can be done.

[Little Star]

6. helloooooooooooooo Howard Kurtz

How about if you and your reporter pals describe the difference between legal and illegal? Then there would be no wiggle room for the right wing spin. Oh Yeah, I forgot, most of you are just the propaganda machine.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Straight out of the Corporate Media playbook:

If you get caught lying, deny that you lied. Count on the 9-second attention span of the average viewer to leave them with the impressions a) that both sides are dirty and b) you don't lie.

[BurtWorm]

9. A later question and Kurtz's answer demonstrates big media's MO

Emmitsburg, Md.: Not to take away from the Republican failings in the Abramoff scandal, but this would seem to be the perfect opportunity for a multipart series of articles on how the lobbying, donation, influence peddling thing really works on the Hill. Instead we just have gotcha journalism and partisina snipping. It reminds me when we had lots of articles on Cheney's energy task force and how industry was writting legislation, but based on my experience over half of all non appropriation bills introduced by members of Congress are written by industry or special interests. Exposing the standard process would do more to clean up the system then pointing out the extremes.

Howard Kurtz: An excellent idea. The Post, I should note, has led the pack in reporting on Abramoff's illegal conduct. But a much broader piece (or pieces) is needed. I sometimes wonder whether Washington reporters get too inured to a system in which lobbyists can send lawmakers on golfing trips to Scotland or arrange basketball skyboxes for their fundraisers -- often winning legislative favors for clients in the process -- and it's all perfectly legal.


Note how the subject is changed away from the specifics to the general. Kurtz even changes the focus to "perfectly legal" practices, and does it in such a way as to make Abramoff look like standard operating procedure. But isn't the story here how the Republicans turned their minority party status into a majority, not through persuasion of voters but through gaming the system with loads of cash from unwitting donors? Why does the media insist on diffusing the story this way? (Rhetorical question.)