Patterico's Pontifications

11/16/2006

L.A. Times the Only Major National Newspaper to Fail to Explain Why Murtha’s Abscam Activities Were Suspicious (UPDATED: Now They Have!)

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 12:03 am



Citizens wondering “what is this Murtha/Abscam ethics issue?” have four national papers to which they can turn for an explanation.

Of the four major national newspapers, three made it clear that Murtha did something shady — specifically, that he suggested that he was open to bribes in the future. By contrast, one national newspaper suggested that Murtha was investigated and cleared, but is still hounded by watchdog groups for some mysterious and undisclosed reason.

I’ll give you one guess as to which paper that is.

The New York Times? No . . . that paper has a pithy explanation of what Murtha did:

He was never charged in that case, but a widely circulated film showed him being offered a bribe and responding that he was not interested in the money “at this time.”

The Washington Post? Well, it’s a little less clear, but still explains it so a reader can understand it:

As for the Abscam case, Murtha was not indicted and his conduct was cleared by the House ethics committee, but he did meet with FBI agents posing as Arab sheiks and, after refusing bribes on several occasions, appeared to leave open the possibility of doing business later.

The Wall Street Journal? You’re joking, of course. John Fund makes a clear case, as you might expect:

The 54-minute Abscam tape shows Mr. Murtha functioning as a cynical backroom operator, telling the FBI undercover agents: “You know, you made an offer. It might be that I might change my mind someday.” Later, he explained how that might happen: “I want to deal with you guys awhile before I make any transactions at all, period,” he told the fake sheiks. . . . [T]he full tape makes clear that Mr. Murtha was primarily interested in talking about such investments as a possible cover should he later decide to have the money transferred . . . It appears that what Mr. Murtha was referring to was a form of investment not for the sake of investment, but because “that’s the secret” to how you can take a bribe and get away with it..

I think you knew the answer all along. (Did it help that I put the answer in the post title?)

Yes; only the L.A. Times leaves the reader scratching his head as to why ethics watchdog organizations might be displeased with the choice of Murtha for majority leader:

[C]ritics point to Murtha’s brush with the law in the 1980s, when he was investigated in connection with the Abscam bribery scandal on Capitol Hill. He was cleared in that probe, but some watchdog groups have continued to question his ethics.

He was investigated and cleared. Full stop — according to the editors of the Los Angeles Times.

How could they leave their readers so deeply in the dark?

UPDATE: Matt Welch comments to note that an editorial and story published today (after I published the above post) both note that a bribe was offered to Murtha, who responded: “I am not interested, at this point.”

Very good. Credit where credit is due.

However, the editorial falsely implies that the paper fully reported all this earlier in the week:

Also, as Times reporters Janet Hook and Richard Simon noted this week, in the 1980s, Murtha was investigated in connection with the Abscam bribery scandal, in which FBI agents posing as wealthy Arab sheiks tested the rectitude of members of Congress. He was cleared of wrongdoing, but his videotaped behavior — “I am not interested, at this point,” he said when offered a bribe — proved highly embarrassing.

There is a false implication in that passage: that earlier this week, the paper fully reported all the facts discussed in the above quote. Not so. The story referred to is the same one linked in my post above, before the update. Yes, the paper reported earlier this week that Murtha had been investigated in connection with Abscam. But no, the paper didn’t make it clear that Murtha’s behavior in Abscam was embarrassing. Nor, critically, did the earlier story inform readers that Murtha had apparently entertained the idea of accepting a bribe at some future date. Instead, as I document above, the story simply claimed Murtha had been “cleared” without explaining his behavior.

The Times is clearly embarrassed that it didn’t bother to explain Murtha’s shady Abscam behavior to readers before today. And all national newspapers should be embarrassed for not reporting before the election that this ethically challenged individual might well be up for a major position in any Democratic leadership. But The Times tried to make amends today. I don’t like the fact that the editors imply that they had fully reported this in the earlier story. But I do salute them for publishing this in advance of today’s vote. Thanks to Matt for bringing this to my attention.

30 Responses to “L.A. Times the Only Major National Newspaper to Fail to Explain Why Murtha’s Abscam Activities Were Suspicious (UPDATED: Now They Have!)”

  1. I’ll give you one guess as to which paper that is.

    The one that’s losing the most subscribers.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  2. Maybe no one told them that the election is already over, and they don’t have to cover up for Democrats any more.

    Dana (3e4784)

  3. We have been told, ad infinitum, that the Fourth Estate perform a vital function in a free society, that of keeping the citizenry informed. Why, I would ask, would your newspaper of record not wish to perform the function they arrogate to themselves?

    Perhaps your newspaper of record’s editors might ask if the reason they are losing readers to the internet is because they don’t provide their readers with what the readership wants.

    Dana (3e4784)

  4. Why, I would ask, would your newspaper of record not wish to perform the function they arrogate to themselves?

    Are you sure thats the word you want to use?

    actus (10527e)

  5. Yes, it is. Arrogate means to take or claim for oneself without right; appropriate. The media are self-creating, and like any private entity, establish their functions for themselves.

    Dana (3e4784)

  6. *sigh* If Murtha were really smart he’d stick to secret meetings with big oil and other potential bribe-payers whose integrity as legitimate corruptors is guaranteed. Stay away from unknown Arabs; don’t take bribes from anyone who isn’t a registered corporation in the U.S. That way, like Cheney, he could claim executive privilige for meetings like the one the FBI videotaped, and never even tell us who he met with.

    Phil (88ab5b)

  7. Gimme a fucking break. How can you accuse the LA Times of being partisan and then quote the *Wall Street Journal* with a straight face? Hmm, nothing hypocritical there.

    Look, everyone knows that there are certain papers in this country with a partisan lean. The LA Times is one of them, and so is the Wall Street Journal. So we’ll make you a deal: we won’t bitch about the Wall Street Journal if you’ll GIVE IT A REST about the LA Times.

    NEWSPAPERS ARE BUSINESSES. Why is this so hard to understand?

    Also, Phil is absolutely right. Why are we talking about Murtha’s situation as though it is an isolated incident?

    [Liberal (NYT, WaPo) or conservative (WSJ’s Fund), every one of the four managed to explain what the fuss was about, save the L.A. Times, a paper that I am likely to continue to criticize, your entreaties notwithstanding. — P]

    Leviticus (43095b)

  8. The point isn’t whether a newspaper is biased toward one side or the other. The point is that the LA Times — in its news section — consistently excludes or misrepresents relevent information that would be vital for its readers to understand the story … and the distortion invariably benefits the liberal side or harms the conservative side.

    aunursa (ecbc6f)

  9. aunursa,

    Yeah, I do recognize the significance of bias on the news page vs. on the editorial page. That’s true, although I would argue that the Wall Street Journal does the same thing.

    I can’t link to any examples because, unlike the other papers, its site is password protected (which makes it even more obvious that they have a target audience).

    Leviticus (43095b)

  10. Patterico, I’m confused. You say that the LA Times gives no reason why watchdog groups might question Murtha’s ethics. But right after you end your quote, the article states

    “Murtha has been an unapologetic master of “earmarking” money for local projects a practice the critics say invites corruption.”

    That’s not a legitimate reason? How is the LA Times leaving readers in the dark, again?

    I mean, I’m not scratching MY head.

    [Read more carefully. The issue is whether the papers explained what Murtha did wrong in Abscam. Get it yet? Leaving that out minimizes the watchdogs’ concerns. — P]

    Leviticus (43095b)

  11. From “A Measure of Media Bias,” a December 2004 study conducted by Tim Groseclose of the University of California, Los Angeles and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri:

    One surprise is the Wall Street Journal, which we find as the most liberal of all 20 news outlets [studied]. We should first remind readers that this estimate (as well as all other newspaper estimates) refers only to the news of the Wall Street Journal; we omitted all data that came from its editorial page. If we included data from the editorial page, surely it would appear more conservative. Second, some anecdotal evidence agrees with our result. For instance, Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid (2001) note that “The Journal has had a long-standing separation between its conservative editorial pages and its liberal news pages.” Paul Sperry, in an article titled the “Myth of the Conservative Wall Street Journal,” notes that the news division of the Journal sometimes calls the editorial division “Nazis.” “Fact is,” Sperry writes, “the Journal’s news and editorial departments are as politically polarized as North and South Korea.

    Jack Dunphy (00cb8c)

  12. I can’t link to any examples because, unlike the other papers, its site is password protected (which makes it even more obvious that they have a target audience).

    a target audience of…people who pay for their paper?

    Some Guy in Chicago (6a8e1d)

  13. “a target audience of…people who pay for their paper?”

    -Some Guy in Chicago

    A target audience who are willing to pay to get their news from the Wall Street Journal when much of papers like the NY Times/Washington Post is available online for free.

    Jack Dunphy,

    Like I said I realize the difference between bias in the news and bias in the editorial section. I would argue that news bias is often very slight (one way or another) because of the accountability provided by other media outlets. Stories can deviate only slightly from one another before heads start to roll.

    Editorials are very different. A newspaper’s leaning can easily be seen in who it allows to grace its editorial pages, regardless of how insane their take on a given situation may be.

    Thus, I would argue that, through its editorial page, the Wall Street Journal projects itself as an undeniably conservative publication.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  14. Leviticus,

    On Patterico’s first post on Murtha, I responded to you in the comments as follows (#23):

    … [Patterico’s] reviewing what Murtha did during Abscam. Yeah, it’s pretty obvious why the Feds declined to prosecute. Murtha (unlike Rep. Cunningham) didn’t let his greed run ahead of his caution. He used hypotheticals and threw in lots of good-guy filler. “If this deal goes queer for whatever reason, I want to have a strong defense.” But the import as to what a reasonable person would make of Murtha’s deeds and character is pretty clear, too. The guy was dirty.

    Your wrote (#25):

    I understand what you’re saying, AMac. I recognize that this looks like a shady deal, and have said so…

    It seems that in this thread, you’ve gone back to contesting that Murtha’s rotten Abscam conduct is relevant to his elevation in the House.

    After all, everyone else probably takes bribes too (#7), by omitting the information, the LAT isn’t leaving readers in the dark (#10), and the WSJ, who did highlight Murtha’s unsavory past, is an undeniably conservative publication (#13).

    I’m sure you think your postition is clear and consistent, but perhaps you haven’t explained it so terribly well. The LAT’s displaying journalistic integrety by burying Murtha’s past exactly why, again?

    AMac (b6037f)

  15. I find it amusing that you don’t consider USA Today to be a major national newspaper.

    [Obviously it is, but I don’t really consider it to be in the same league as the others. — P]

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  16. From the New York Times this morning, how’s this for a white wash:

    Murtha said that at the time of Abscam he was interested in attracting foreign investment to relieve high unemployment in his Pennsylvania district and, though suspicious of the offer, wanted to keep open the possibility of legitimate investment. As for the ethics package promoted by Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Murtha said he was complaining that Congressional wrongdoing was superceding other matters “when we’ve got a war going on and we got all these other issues — $8 billion a month we’re spending.”

    Christoph (5ab65d)

  17. The amazing thing to me is that, even though Diana Irey included that Abscam footage in a campaign commercial that ran in PA, the people in Murtha’s district decided to return him to office.

    See Dubya (1d6059)

  18. OART –

    – Heh – apparently the moonus battus over at Kos and LiarDog are “confused” over the Hoyer result. But at least a few are already throwing Mad Jack under the bus. Sample:

    What’s our message if we had him (Murtha): “Tired of watching your congressmen go to jail. Vote Dem. We do corruption right, we don’t get caught.”

    – Could it be the cult of conspiracy is fianlly getting the message that charity begins at home? Probably not, but it’s a good way to cover for the fact that they just lost the first round in “Kos vs. Carville”.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  19. Patterico – I saw that same article in the LAT and was struck by the same lines. In fact, I had been meaning to call one part of it to your attention. Is it accurate to say that a man named as an unindicted co-conspirator has been “cleared”?

    As I understand it, sometimes prosecutors say that a man has been cleared, that is, that they believe he is innocent. And sometimes they deliberately leave the matter open, saying that they do not plan to bring charges at this time, or something similar. In the latter cases, it would be inaccurate to say that the man was “cleared”.

    In other words, this is another factual error that the LAT should correct.

    Jim Miller (823043)

  20. “a target audience of…people who pay for their paper?”

    -Some Guy in Chicago

    A target audience who are willing to pay to get their news from the Wall Street Journal when much of papers like the NY Times/Washington Post is available online for free.

    So, what I said.

    Some Guy in Chicago (6a8e1d)

  21. . The media are self-creating, and like any private entity, establish their functions for themselves.

    Thats true. But arrogate means to appropriate for themselves. They, like many others, are self-made.

    But to arrogate means to take to the exclusion of others. You don’t really believe that do you? You don’t really believe that they are the only ones?

    actus (10527e)

  22. From a story in today’s paper:

    Murtha first gained national attention decades ago as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam investigation into congressional corruption. In a videotaped interview with the FBI agent posing as a sheik, Murtha was offered $50,000 to help the sheik.

    “I’m not interested. I’m sorry,” Murtha told the FBI agent, but added: “At this point. You know, we do business for a while, maybe I’ll be interested, maybe I won’t.”

    From an editorial in today’s paper:

    In a videotaped interview with the FBI agent posing as a sheik, Murtha was offered $50,000 to help the sheik.

    “I’m not interested. I’m sorry,” Murtha told the FBI agent, but added: “At this point. You know, we do business for a while, maybe I’ll be interested, maybe I won’t.”

    Matt Welch (fbf439)

  23. Thanks for passing that along, Matt. I wrote this post last night; I will update the post to reflect this.

    Patterico (de0616)

  24. Actus writes:

    But to arrogate means to take to the exclusion of others. You don’t really believe that do you? You don’t really believe that they are the only ones?

    First, while the definition does not specify that it must be to the exclusion of all others, the mainstream news media have long attempted to portray those who would intrude on their domain as unprofessional interlopers who ought not to be either trusted or taken seriously.

    Dana (3e4784)

  25. Look, everyone knows that there are certain papers in this country with a partisan lean.

    Really? They do? Try asking most journalists in the last 10 years about this. They would have told you that no, no, no they weren’t biased. They were professionals who kept their opinions out of their stories. Isn’t this the argument Linda Greenhouse used for giving a speech wherein she said her opinions were “statements of fact”? Then people said she was such a great reporter, it never colorred her work, but we found stories where it, in fact, did?

    BTW, why isn’t Actus making the great argument about WSJ reporters not being influenced by the editorial board? Hmm?

    sharon (dfeb10)

  26. BTW, why isn’t Actus making the great argument about WSJ reporters not being influenced by the editorial board?

    I’ve been assuming that people were talking about the loons at the WSJ op-ed board, not the reporteres. But people are talking about a pay wall. So they were thinking reporters. Thats wrong. The Op-eds are free (interesting right? opposite model of hte NYT) but not the news.

    actus (10527e)

  27. “Im sure you think your postition is clear and consistent, but perhaps you havent explained it so terribly well. The LATs displaying journalistic integrety by burying Murthas past exactly why, again?”

    -AMac

    The LA Times doesn’t “bury” Murtha’s past. It tells it’s readers exactly what happened (that he was investigated in Abscam and cleared), and elaborates on the ethical concerns of watchdog groups by discussing his irresponsible earmarking tendencies.

    Any speculation that Murtha “left the door open to bribes” is editorialization (regardless of how accurate it may be) and has no place on the news page. That said, I think we can be fairly sure that we won’t be seeing an editorial decrying Murtha in the LA Times any time soon, nor one singing his praises in the Wall Street Journal (which was my second point).

    Finally, to answer your challenge to my consistency, my position has been (and remains) that, while Murtha is in all likelihood a weasel, it is not the responsibility of the LA Times to say so explicitly in the *news* section, and what they put in the editorials is entirely up to them.

    [You must have missed the update. — P]

    Leviticus (35fbde)

  28. “Look, everyone knows that there are certain papers in this country with a partisan lean.

    Really? They do? Try asking most journalists in the last 10 years about this”

    -sharon

    Well, sharon, from one level-headed individual to another, let us agree that any journalist who denies at least some level of partisanship is full of shit. The problem is that if they admit their partisanship (which we can all agree is a fairly universal trait), people like Patterico will try to crucify them. So of course they’ll tell everyone they’re unbiased. It’s what everyone wants to hear.

    Leviticus (35fbde)

  29. The major news 1% truth 99% sensaionalism i mean like the horns of a steer a point here a point there and a lot of bull in between

    krazy kagu (fb44c4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0928 secs.