News outlets uncritically echoed White House line that Miers "cleaned up" Texas Lottery Commission
As media outlets began delving into the professional background of Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, several reported that as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, she "cleaned up" an ethically troubled regulatory agency -- a characterization echoing that made by White House press secretary Scott McClellan during an October 3 press briefing. But as some media outlets have reported, her record on the commission is the subject of considerable debate. Dallas Morning News political writer Wayne Slater, for one, described her tenure as "troubled ... a real, real problem."
Bush appointed Miers to the voluntary public service position at the Texas Lottery Commission in 1995, while he was Texas governor. As the Austin American-Statesman and other Texas newspapers reported, during Miers's tenure, the commission terminated two of its executive directors, leading to lawsuits by both of them against Gtech, the company running the Texas lottery.
First to go was executive director Nora Linares, who previously had worked to elect Ann Richards, the incumbent whom Bush defeated in the 1994 governor's race [San Antonio Express-News, January 6, 1997]. In a profile titled "Bush's Gatekeeper" in the March 24, 2003, edition of Texas Lawyer, Charles Soechting, who was the attorney representing Linares and who subsequently became head of the Texas Democratic Party, complained of Miers's role in Linares's termination:
[Charles] Soechting, a partner in O'Quinn Laminack & Pirtle in Houston, contends that Miers ignored his and his co-counsel's efforts to help Linares exit the Lottery post gracefully when questions arose in 1996 about her possible conflicts of interest related to her then-boyfriend's contract with the Lottery operator. Linares contended she did not know about her boyfriend's contract. "Resignation wasn't an option. The manner in which it was handled made no sense at all," Soechting says.
As commissioner, Miers oversaw a public hearing at which Linares was allowed to respond to questions by the agency's overseers. "It was the most piss-poor example of a fair hearing run by Harriet that I've ever seen," Soechting says. "Nora wanted to get out of there with some degree of dignity. And Miers didn't let her."
Asked about it, Miers has no comment, but in a Nov. 26, 1996, article, Miers was quoted in the San Antonio Express-News, saying, "Ms. Linares has been consistently an advocate of Gtech [the Lottery operator] and its performance. I would hope it has been based on objective criteria and performance, but that obviously is an issue the commission has to look at."
Initially, Linares sought re-instatement in a lawsuit against the commission, but she eventually reached a settlement wherein she was awarded no money but the commission cleared her of any wrongdoing. At that point, the commission voiced concern over Gtech's business practices [Associated Press, February 15, 1997]. Linares's attorneys then focused their attention on Gtech, claiming that they knew hiring her boyfriend would threaten her employment at the Lottery Commission. Gtech eventually settled with Linares for $435,000.
Linares's replacement, Lawrence Littwin, claimed that Gtech's "undue influence" with members of the commission led to his termination after five months on the job [Austin American-Statesman, October 30, 1999], and he sued the company. The lawsuit marked an early public airing of allegations made by Ben Barnes, a former Gtech lobbyist, regarding the circumstances under which Bush was accepted into the Texas National Guard as a young man [Houston Chronicle, January 6, 2001].
Littwin's lawsuit claimed that Gtech pressured the commission to fire him after he began investigating campaign contributions between the company and Texas lawmakers, and that Miers had agreed to his firing after the company threatened to disclose that it had paid Barnes a $23 million settlement in exchange for his silence on the National Guard matter. The Chronicle reported that Gtech wanted Miers to provide her explanation for why Littwin was fired in order to refute his allegations. When a federal judge in Texas ruled that Miers did not have to testify, the company settled Littwin's lawsuit for $300,000.
Prior to the settlement, Miers had raised ethical concerns about Gtech, and she directed the lottery commission to re-open the company's contract to run the game to other bidders. After Littwin's lawsuit was settled, however, the re-bidding was closed and Gtech retained the contract, according to the Chronicle.
It was during this same period that then-Gov. Bush was running for a second term -- and planning for his 2000 presidential campaign began. Miers was retained by Bush's gubernatorial campaign and paid $19,000 to look into potentially problematic areas of his past, including Barnes's allegations about political favors that landed Bush in the Guard [Newsweek, July 17, 2000].
On the October 4 broadcast of National Public Radio's (NPR) Morning Edition, anchor Renee Montagne interviewed Slater about Miers's years at the Texas Lottery Commission:
MONTAGNE: What was her tenure like?
SLATER: It was troubled. It was a real, real problem. It was a troubled agency, but not when she arrived. She was there about a year, year and a half, and then questions of influence-peddling arrived, and during her tenure, it was a stormy time where two directors were fired, another lobbyist -- questions were raised about a lobbyist for the lottery contractor. Republican supporters say she was a person who sort of rode herd over an agency that was having problems, and she directed it in ethical ways. Democrats say that she was really a political lawyer who was hired or at least administered a Republican-minded discipline of Democrats. One of the directors who was fired had been an Ann Richards Democrat and was replaced, ultimately, by a Republican.
MONTAGNE: Is that still the view between the two sides -- nothing was resolved?
SLATER: Oh, you betcha. There's a conflict of interest about which side prevailed. I think there's a lot of feeling among people who know Harriet that she is a strong ethical person who was guided by the idea of protecting the integrity of the game. But still, Democrats say that this was an effort to purge Democrats along the way. And at some point later along the way, the second lottery director to lose his job raised questions of politics, and during the legal battle, the lottery's lobbyist at the time, former Lt. Governor Ben Barnes, testified in kind of a related case that he was involved in getting Bush out of [sic: into] the National Guard. So it became a deep, deep political fight.
But several major newspapers on October 4 touched only briefly on Miers's leadership role at the Texas Lottery Commission, repeating the October 3 claim by White House press secretary Scott McClellan that Miers "helped clean it up when it needed cleaning up."
USA Today reported that Miers "fired two executive directors in an effort to clean up a series of scandals."
While The New York Times devoted an entire article to the subject of Miers's tenure on the commission, a separate profile of Miers in the same edition of the paper glossed over it, describing her as "a go-to person for Mr. Bush ever since [he met her], first as his appointee to the Texas State Lottery Commission, which she helped clean up; then as White House staff secretary, directing the flow of presidential papers; then as a deputy White House chief of staff; and since the beginning of this year, White House counsel, the president's in-house lawyer."
The Los Angeles Times reported: "In 1994, Miers served as Bush's general counsel when he ran for Texas governor. Once in office, he turned to her to help clean up a scandal involving the Texas Lottery Commission, which she chaired from 1995 to 2000, while continuing her law practice."
And The Boston Globe reported that Bush "tapped [Miers] to clean up the state's lottery commission."
Hi, my name's Harriet Miers, Esquire. I'm here to scrub... er, ah... clean... umm, make that survey (wink, wink) your records.
Without a subscription, I could only find the beginning sentences of an article in Newsweek's archives (from July 17, 1999):
"As investigative reporters and opposition researchers sharpen their knives for campaign 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush's team is well prepared. The GOP front runner has already done a thorough job of oppo research on himself. According to campaign spokesman David Beckwith, during his '98 re-election drive, Bush asked his personal lawyer, Dallas attorney Harriet Miers, to do a "survey of public records" so his campaign would be ready to answer..."
So, she's a pit bull and a janitor.
If news outlets had been critical, rather than uncritical, that would be biased. I thought the goal was a fair media. Apparently not.
If news outlets had been critical, rather than uncritical, that would be biased. I thought the goal was a fair media. Apparently not. by kenkong77
***
I think the object is to have news that is “marked by careful evaluation” (critical). That is not bias that is responsible journalism. You do the research, you find out the whole story, and then you present all the facts to your reader.
So what you want the media to do is just repeat the lies and let YOU decide whether they are lies or not?
That's effectively what you're saying. If Bush goes on TV and says "Ladies and gentlemen, the moon is in fact made of green cheese and Karl Rove is made of sunshine, rainbows, and puppy dogs," you would rather the media simply report what he said without pointing out that the moon is NOT in fact made of green cheese, and that Karl Rove is made of a viscous black goo of unknown origin that fell to Earth in 1949?
(Okay that last bit is a joke, but you get what I'm saying.) A wise man (Bill Moyers) once said: "A free press is one where it’s okay to state the conclusion you’re led to by the evidence."
For the media to speak of Miers tenure with the Texas Lottery without mentioning these simple, unpleasant facts about her time there is irresponsible and dishonest. It basically echoes the White House spin on the matter. It's uncritical and reckless, and therefore harmful and insulting to the intelligence of the American people.
It's uncritical and reckless, and therefore harmful and insulting to the intelligence of the American people.
by deeznuts - Thursday October 6, 2005 09:34:59 AM EST
Actually, I believe that the media does report what someone says, and then over the course of days or hours these days, additional sometimes contradictory evidence comes forward and yes, the public decides. A good for instance is when John Kerry said that he voted both for and against that appropriations bill. There were reports intitially that merely repeated his quote. Over the course of a few days, additional reporting/opinion came out expanding on the substance of his remark as well as the veracity, some supportive, some critical and mocking. In the end, the public decided in the form of a vote. Same situtation with the Swift Vets and the Rather report. There were intitial reports and subsequent elaboration. In the end, we decide. I personally think its a great system. Not perfect, but the best in the solar system.
Helloagain, why do you feel that it's acceptable for the media to hold back information that's readily available? It seems like rather low standards to me.
by carramba - Thursday October 6, 2005 09:41:39 AM EST
carramba,
I think it is important to note the distinction between various opinions and established facts. Note that deez's example referred to facts, while your example denotes various opinions.
With that context in mind, both deez and yourself have valid points. But we must always be careful to be distinctive in the context.
When we have discussions of intentions (your example about Kerry's vote is a good one), then there really isn't any analysis that can be made (we can't read Kerry's mind to see his true intentions)...perhaps the reporter should provide some additional information to help readers understand (past voting records, etc), but the reporter shouldn't interject opinions into that piece unless that piece is explicitly labelled as an op-ed.
If someone says something that does not adhere to facts (e.g. the United States was created in 1218), a reporter does have an obligation to both report what was said as well as noting that it was an incorrect statement. I certainly don't want fellow citizens to think that that US was created at time when it was not. This is an important task that many in the mainstream media no longer accomplish. They have become simple recorders of he said/she said without doing the additional homework of finding out if what was stated is accurate. This becomes a serious problem as many in the general population appear to be accepting false statements as fact when they are actually wrong.
So in your example carramba, it would be wrong and biased for a reporter to interject opinion. But this article posted by MMFA seems to qualify as an example where the reporters have an obligation to report that the statement made by the white house was at least controversial, if not wrong.
by unbound - Thursday October 6, 2005 12:41:49 PM EST
Thanks for your thoughtful post, I agree for the most part. My main point was that the entirety of the media reporting serves to give us all the complete picture if we read and listen attentively enough. So many things these days are not facts, to the extent that there is no other perception. For instance, many around here like to say as a matter of fact that "Bush Lied" or that Clinton committed perjury. While many might consider these things to be facts, many have differing views. It is those differing views that add the complete texture to the story and I think that the way the media works in this country, each and every one of us has the opportunity to get complete information to form an informed opinion. While I rarely agree with MMFA in terms of their political inclination, I celebrate their right to voice their opinions and I celebrate what they do. It is GOOD for all Americans, right or left.
This is nothing new. The mainstream media reported in the 2000 campaign that shrub was a "moderate" governor in Texas that worked in a bipartisan way. The media still believes the white house spin is the way it is... The truth is, shrub campaigns as a moderate, he talks (mostly) like a moderate, and governs hard right. True in Texas, true in Washington. Exported all his bad ideas to the national stage, as Molly Ivins predicted. All his cronies went along for the ride too.
Mary --
Truer words probably never have been spoken.
"Cleaned up" = got rid of Democrats + paid off the guy who help Bush get an ANG slot.
Gotcha.
I don't know why anyone bothers. We KNOW she is a bad candidate and we know that spineless democrats will vote her in.
She is perhaps the single most unqualified person to be nominated for SCOTUS and even though everyone knows this, she will still get in.
WHY?
Because democrats are total cowards and spineless.
Not a ball between them.
The MSM is owned almost excslusively now by corporations who get large government contracts. In order to keep these contracts they make sure their news outlets do nothing but stories about kidnapped white girls, Lindsy getting into car accidents, a boat oveturns in a lake(for three furking days) and yet the people who run this country get absolutely NO serious coverage in terms of finding out the truth.
Dumbya says he is waging war because God told him to. Not a peep from anyone.
DeLay makes noise about being the victim of a vast left wing conspiracy(what a joke, the dems can't get 9 people together to stand for anything) and not a peep.
Bills are written by the companies that are going to benefit from it's passage and not a peep. The guy who with the pharma companies, wrote the drug bill, quit the congress and went to work for the pharma company he wrote the bills with.
NOT A WORD from anyone and the dems should be all over this.
But, as usual, they aren't.