Media Matters: Washington Post, please define "unsubstantiated"

[ProSense]

Washington Post, please define "unsubstantiated"

by Eric Boehlert

The Beltway press coverage of the still-unfolding U.S. Chamber of Commerce story continues to be quite timid and overly deferential toward the powerful, pro-business lobbying group. Legitimate questions have been raised about some of the money the Chamber has raised and whether it's being used as part of a massive $75 million attack campaign targeting Democrats this year. The question is, does some of the Chamber money come from overseas, and if so why is the Chamber using foreign dollars to influence U.S. campaigns?

As noted yesterday, today's timidity stands in stark contrast to the Clinton `90's, when the press corps ran itself ragging, eagerly chasing similar allegations about overseas dollars being spent to influence stateside elections. Back then when the charges were lodged against Democrats, they were taken extremely seriously. So, if that was the standard then, why are so many in the press basically playing the role of stenographers today and simply dictating the Chamber denials, and why aren't reporters doing original work to advance the Chamber story? (For now, that task has been left solely to ThinkProgress.)

The nothing-to-see-here-folks message is impossible to miss in recent coverage.

From the WashPost (emphasis added):

The GOP expenditures have come under increasing criticism from Obama and other Democrats, who have focused on the big-spending Chamber of Commerce and the two Crossroads affiliates, which were formed with the encouragement of Republican political guru Karl Rove. The attacks have included unsubstantiated allegations by the Democratic National Committee and others that the chamber might be spending foreign donations on U.S. elections, an accusation the business lobby denies.

This is just weird. How can there be "unsubstantiated allegations" about something that might happen? ThinkProgress has clearly suggested, based on its investigative work, that the Chamber might be using some foreign money to bankroll its massive anti-Democratic ad campaign this year. ThinkProgress has substantiated exactly how that could be happening.

I understand why the Chamber would claim ThinkProgress' allegations were "unsubstantiated." (And no, that doesn't explain why the Post would rush in and preemptively dismiss the pending allegations.) And I understand if ThinkProgress had made flat-out claims about the Chamber, but didn't have the evidence to support it, that the Post would go ahead and described them as "unsubstantiated." But Think Progress has made well-supported, logical claims about what might be happening, so how is the Post in any position to categorically claim the allegations are unsubstantiated?

more

[hobbit709]

1. It means not being caught with a smoking gun standing over a dead body.

[ProSense]

5. Frankly,

except for the NYT editorial, the media shills have been derelict.

In fact, The Atlantic declared Karl Rove's op-ed one of the 5 Best Thursday Columns.

Smoking gun, guns.

[DCKit]

2. The Enquirer has more credibility than the WaPo. n/t

[Kdillard]

3. The MSM has no interest in doing anything other than carry water

for Republicans. If the Republicans were asking the same questions of Dems it would be brutal.

[FBaggins]

4. Sorry... it's a reasonable campaign theme, but they ARE unsubstantiated.

A republican could allege (and I'm sure already has) that Planned Parenthood spends tax dollars on abortions. They don't (as far as I know), but they do get federal dollars and they do perform abortions. They just keep the funds separate.

The chamber has a legal obligation to keep overseas funds separate from US political operations. I don't know if they do or don't, but commenting that they could or might just means that it's possible. An allegation that they have is not substantiated by a claim that they could.

This, of course, is why disclosure requirements are so important... but that's another discussion.

The difference with the Clinton years does not appear to be the "stark contrast" that the author implies. Johnny Chung donated hundreds of thousands of dollars. When the allegations were made, there may not have been "proof", but there was plenty to substantiate them.


This may actually turn into a big deal. But as things currently stand there's a big difference between the two events.

[ProSense]

6. So

"The chamber has a legal obligation to keep overseas funds separate from US political operations. I don't know if they do or don't"

... you don't know, but you have concluded that the charges are unsubstantiated?

Think Progress' reports: here and here.

[FBaggins]

7. You've obviously confused "unsubstantiated" with "proven wrong"

The charges haven't been proven wrong, but they have also not been substantiated.

If I claim that you shot your sister yesterday, I can point out that you COULD have (claiming that you own a gun and see her once a week), but the charges are unsubstantiated. We don't even know if she's dead.

I could then claim that you haven't proven your innocence and that (given the seriousness of the charge) you should provide an alibi... but that still isn't the same thing as substantiating the charge.

[ProSense]

8. "The charges haven't been proven wrong, but they have also not been substantiated." Wait

when was it ever necessary to provide conclusive proof before making an allegation? That is the reason they are called allegations. Ever heard of circumstantial evidence? Well the evidence is here, here and here.

Where is WaPo evidence that the charges are unsubstantiated? Can they provide something other than the Chamber's denial?

Are these allegations unsubstantiated?

Why isn't the $1 million each to the GOP and U.S. Chamber by Fox getting as much scrutiny?

Why aren't the media shills focused on these calls for investigation?

Claiming the allegations are unsubstantiated is simply an easy way for the GOP media shills to dismiss them without scrutiny.

[FBaggins]

9. I never said it was necessary to provide "conclusive proof"

But you do have to substantiate the charge in order to debunk a claim that the charges are unsubstantiated. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it.

Well the evidence is here, here and here.

None of that it "evidence" that anything was done. It's only evidence that they are capable of doing it if they wanted to. They're also capable of raising more than that amount of money without taping foreign sources.

Where is WaPo evidence that the charges are unsubstantiated?

You're kidding, right? You don't need "evidence" for a charge being unsubstantiated... you just need a lack of substantiation in the charge. You're committing a classic logical fallacy ("burden of proof")

Claiming the allegations are unsubstantiated is simply an easy way for the GOP media shills to dismiss them without scrutiny

Lol! I love how some people think it's believable that the Post and NYTimes are really GOP shills.

[ProSense]

10. Hmmm?

"But you do have to substantiate the charge in order to debunk a claim that the charges are unsubstantiated. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it."

And then you dismiss the evidence

"None of that it "evidence" that anything was done. It's only evidence that they are capable of doing it if they wanted to. They're also capable of raising more than that amount of money without taping foreign sources."

Where is your evidence that they're not doing it? You seem to want to take the Chamber's word that they have a system?

One of the systems would be to establish a 527, and they have one, but are not using for their electioneering. Why? Could it be because full disclosure is required? What is their system?

"Lol! I love how some people think it's believable that the Post and NYTimes are really GOP shills."

Who said that? A lot of people work for the NYT, including David Brooks and Paul Krugam.

The NYT editorial did not shill for the Chamber.

[FBaggins]

11. "And then you dismiss the evidence"

What evidence?

It isn't evidence (it isn't even news) that the chamber gets some funds from international companies... we already knew that (they also get 50-100 times as much from companies in the US).

It isn't news that they're largely (though not exclusively) supporting republicans.

A claim that they're spending foreign money on republican candidates is not backed up by pointing out that they HAVE foreign money. That isn't evidence.

Where is your evidence that they're not doing it?

Once again with the burden of proof fallacy? You can't claim that someone has done something illegal and then "substantiate" it by saying they're guilty until they prove themselves innocent. There has to be some reason to believe that they DID spend foreign money. The chamber raises hundreds of millions of dollars a year from US sources. Why would they spend illegal dollars when they have legal ones aplenty?

You seem to want to take the Chamber's word that they have a system?

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that the Pose and NYTimes are correct when they say that the charges are unsubstantiated. I don't have to take their word for anything... just recognize that nothing has been provided that indicates they did anything wrong (other than support the wrong candidates).

Why? Could it be because full disclosure is required?

That's almost certainly why. But that's most likely because the US donors don't want to be associated with partisan political donations - particularly in an environment where the opposition controls the executive branch (and IRS).

I don't think that the president has any reason to believe that this happened... but he thinks the charge works in our favor. Either they refuse to answer the charges (leaving open the possibility that they did break the law), OR they prove that they're innocent by releasing their list of contributors... which we then use in advertising over the final week of the campaign. Win-win.

[ProSense]

12. Really?

Where is your evidence that they're not doing it?

Once again with the burden of proof fallacy? You can't claim that someone has done something illegal and then "substantiate" it by saying they're guilty until they prove themselves innocent. There has to be some reason to believe that they DID spend foreign money. The chamber raises hundreds of millions of dollars a year from US sources. Why would they spend illegal dollars when they have legal ones aplenty?

Why? Could it be because full disclosure is required?

That's almost certainly why. But that's most likely because the US donors don't want to be associated with partisan political donations - particularly in an environment where the opposition controls the executive branch (and IRS).

You are offering a defense by claiming they're not doing something, refuting the fact that Think Progress links foreign money to their 501c(6), but you have no evidence of the system they claim to have in place.

What is their system? You admit that they're hiding the money by not using their 527, and that is supposed to be proof that the allegations are unsubstantiated?

Nonprofits like the Chamber can only engage in limited political activities, primarily issues advocacy, not political campaigning for or against specific candidates. Citizens did not change that.

They are still required to disclose if they engage in electioneering. What is their system? You might want to take their word for it, but that does not make the allegations unsubstatiated. They have not demonstrated that the funds are being separated as required by law.

[FBaggins]

13. I'm not offering a defense at all.

No defense is necessary because no allegation has been made that would require a defense. If you ask if I'm beating my wife you can't say "he's a man... and he has a wife... he could be beating her... and he refuses to prove that he isn't" and then express surprise when someone else points out that your allegations are unsupported by any facts. That isn't a defense... it's a simple statement of fact.

refuting the fact that Think Progress links foreign money

Once again... it's neither illegal nor a surprise to hear that they have foreign donors. They haven't "linked" ANY foreign money to political advocacy. They've merely said that it could happen. That's an indictment of a system that allows for politics-related spending without accountability. They could also claim that Microsoft is funding the ads. It's possible... but the claim alone doesn't substantiate a charge.

They are still required to disclose if they engage in electioneering.

And that would be a simple enough charge to make if it were true. The ads are in the public domain and election lawyers know what can and can't be done. If their ad says "vote for republican 'x' this November" then they're burned. But you can't claim that it's "electioneering" just because you don't like the results.

What is their system?

I don't know... but they aren't required to prove it to our satisfaction in order to stay within the law. Change the law if you've unsatisfied. But you can't pretend that they are obligated to follow a standard that you insist on... but haven't passed.

You might want to take their word for it, but that does not make the allegations unsubstantiated.

Yes, actually it does. You claiming that I've broken a law and my refusing to prove myself innocent to your satisfaction is not substantiation of your claim.

Once again... we do not live in a "guilty until proven innocent" country. We don't have to "take their word for it" (I don't), we just have to have evidence of a crime before they have to provide evidence of innocence.

They have not demonstrated that the funds are being separated as required by law.

The law does not require them to so demonstrate.

Now... you could find a Chamber member company who isn't happy with the issue ads that they've been running who could start a civil suit to disclose the donor list... but you wouldn't get anywhere before the election.

[ProSense]

14. "No defense is necessary because no allegation has been made that would require a defense."

Them why is the Chamber on the defensive?

refuting the fact that Think Progress links foreign money

Once again... it's neither illegal nor a surprise to hear that they have foreign donors. They haven't "linked" ANY foreign money to political advocacy. They've merely said that it could happen. That's an indictment of a system that allows for politics-related spending without accountability. They could also claim that Microsoft is funding the ads. It's possible... but the claim alone doesn't substantiate a charge.

You're going to ignore that Think Progress' report shows that the money is going to the Chamber's 501c(6) and there is no evidence that there is another organization or fund established to show that the funds are being separated?

Can you show that the Chamber has a system for separating these funds?