Today issued non-correction to Couric falsehood
SUMMARY: One day after NBC's Katie Couric chided Howard Dean for saying that Democratic lawmakers received no campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff, Matt Lauer said that "technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct." In fact, Dean was correct and Couric was wrong.
One day after NBC's Today co-host Katie Couric chided Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean for saying that Democratic lawmakers received no campaign contributions from former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, her co-host Matt Lauer issued a non-correction, saying that "technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct." In fact, Dean was correct and Couric was wrong. There is no evidence to suggest Democrats received campaign contributions from Abramoff directly.
On the January 26 edition of Today, Couric challenged Dean's assertion that only Republicans received money from Abramoff directly by falsely claiming that "Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff, too, Mr. Dean." She cited data from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) to support her claim. As Media Matters for America has noted, the CRP database of campaign contributions offers no evidence to suggest Democrats received money from Abramoff directly. When Dean corrected Couric, she replied: "Well, we will obviously have to look into that and clarify that for our viewers at a ... later date."
On the January 27 edition of Today, instead of noting Couric's false statement and acknowledging her error, Lauer said that "Katie pressed" Dean on his comments and added "technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct." Lauer cited the same CRP data that, presumably, Couric had pointed to the previous day.
From the January 27 edition of NBC's Today:
LAUER: Howard Dean was on this program yesterday and asserted, basically, that it is a Republican scandal. Let me play you a clip.
DEAN [video clip]: It is a Republican-financed scandal. Not one dime of money from Jack Abramoff ever went to any Democrat. Not one dime.
LAUER: Katie pressed him on that, and then we -- we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and we found out that, technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here's what we found: that 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money -- not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients -- went to Democrats.
When Dean talks about this, he should make the distinction himself. He comes across as deceptive when he only claims Democrats didn't take any money from Abramoff.
Lauer's correction was what journalists are supposed to do. He said Dean was "technically right". Dean WAS being technical. Couric and Dean were both talking about two different things. Couric was not being very precise. Dean was. Lauer helped to explain the difference here.
This is actually pretty good journalism. Journalists are not just supposed to do a he said/ she said. They should explain why there was a difference and put some perspective on it. Lauer did that. I have no problem here.
Dean needs to learn to mention why he thought Couric was wrong and what figures he thought she was quoting. This isn't that hard to figure out.
The threads regarding the very same issues involving the Washington Post ombudsperson provide the most evidence. The evidence supports the MMFA assertions.
Where was I factually wrong here? Be specific. I am not being snarky. I just cannot respond intelligently to such broad accusations.
Thanks.
I think he was directing that at Couric and not you, Open_Mind.
You're right that journalists shouldn't do he said/she said. TODAY was best back when Jane Pauley and Bryant Gumble hosted; both asked tough questions and were not likely to allow the he said/she said.
Did Jack Abramoff direct his Indian Clients to give money to Democrats?
There are two places to get an answer to this question.
1) Abramoff
2) His tribal clients.
I don't see anyone rushing off to ask either of them. One would think that the press would want to know the answer, but apparently they don't. I believe that they like the answer they have already, which is as follows:
"We don't know, so we'll just assume that he did."
Did Jack Abramoff direct his Indian Clients to give money to Democrats? --Sagra
---------------------------------------------
Re-read what Lauer said in the correction:
"But here's what we found: that 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money -- not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients -- went to Democrats." --Matt Lauer
Lauer was entirely factual and not at all misleading. He never said or even implied those contributions were directed by Abramoff.
It was a good correction. We should applaud good journalism for a change.
With respect to the Indian Tribes, that they donated to Democratic congresspeople BEFORE any association with Abramoff.
I think someone mentioned this before in the topic discussions. Also, that after their associations with Abramoff, their contributions to Democratic congresspersons decreased..
It's my understanding that:
1 - Any kind of questions with regards to contributions are those directly from Abramoff.
2 - With regards to direct contributions, Abramoff only gave money to Republicans.
3 - So, since sagra posted that clip about not being sure about whether or not the Indian Tribes were "directed" to give contributions to congresspeople, do we automatically "assume" that Abramoff told them to do it? If that's the case, I think that is bogus especially in light of the fact that the Indian Tribes were donating BEFORE any involvment with Abramoff.
You may be willing to give the RNC talking points the benefit of the doubt with regards to "tainting" Democrats with respect to Abramoff, but I am not. They have shown a continual pattern of distortion and misrepresentation of facts through out all of the issues that Media Matters has made mention of. What makes you think they're doing anything different now?
First off, let's move beyond the "talking points" diatribe always thrown out here - does anyone actually believe that the RNC talking points book is any less thick than the DNC's?........anyway, open_mind's points are very valid. Lauer did apologize, he just didn't grovel and slap Couric across the face as many of you had hoped.
Regardless, this is really splitting hairs - Couric made a technical mistake, or a mistake, or whatever.........they apologized, they didn't have to but they did. I also agree that Dean should be more specific when making his arguments as well, he wanted to leave the impression that the Democrats are squeaky clean on this issue, thereby making it much harder for him to back pedal later, if they are not. It's more prudent for any party chair to hold their fire until the investigation is finished.
You said it better than I did. Thanks.
The difference in this matter is between...
BREAKING THE LAW AND ACCEPTING A BRIBE
...and taking legal contributions.
So far, every single Legislator that Jack Abramoff is either known or suspected of having BRIBED, is a REPUBLICAN.
Every single one.
And furthermore, every single Legislator that Jack Abramoff contributed money to is a REPUBLICAN.
Every single one.
And anyone who can't see that this is the entire focus of the scandal, is either too dumb to enter into discourse with on the matter, or is just trying to con you.
I am aware of this. My remarks were more closely tied to the topic than what you are talking about in general.
I agree with your general overview of the scandal. Whoever did or didn't get contributions means very little. Whoever took donations with the expectation of returning favors should be the focus of this.
Maybe I'm a little too easily distracted these days.
My post wasn't actually directed at yours, but at the thread.
But, just for the fun of it I guess, I'll hammer away at the hammerheads who are too dumb to get it...
If someone said that Jack Abramoff gave money to Democrats, of course they would be lieing, but still I would ask...
Did Democrats take a BRIBE?
And if someone said some nonsense about 'directed contributions', again I'd ask...
Did Democrats take a BRIBE?
And if someone wants to say that Jack Abramoff is in fact a Democrat, that he has voted Democrat his whole life, that his wife and whole family and all his friends and even his dog, they're all Democrats, I'd have to ask...
Did Democrats take a BRIBE?
And of course, no matter how many times the question's asked, it still has the same answer...
No. Only Republicans broke the Law; Republicans took Bribes.
That's what the danged scandal is all about, Republicans breaking the Law and taking Bribes.
Its not splitting hairs when the RNC is making a concerted effort to paint Democrats in an equally corrupt light with regards to Abramoff.
You can't tell me they're not - If you do you're lying.
I personally don't like being lied to, Your president and his party seem to make a habit of lying to us.
Why doesn't Couric and co. press Republicans about this, instead of trying to weasel out and make Howard Dean look bad. Dean is one of the few Dems that isn't afraid of the media, and I'm personally glad for it.
Whatever you want to claim about technicallity Dean WAS correct. Couric was WRONG period. What they issued was a non appology, appology. So far Dems ARE squeeky clean on THIS issue. It is just ludicrous to look at money coming FROM Abramoff, and money coming from VICTIMS of Abramoff as if they were the same. Are ANY Dems accused of bribery, which is what Abramoff did with HIS money? Abramoff took money from tribes and at least once used that money to torpedo THEIR interest in expanding their gambling business. Are the Tribes accused of BRIBING anyone? Until they are the fact they gave money to ANYONE is not in the same universe as the money Abramoff gave. This is really very simple. WHEN a dem is accused of bribery, when a Tribe is accused of bribing someone. When EITHER are shown to have been guilty or even a prima facie case is made that they are connected to ILLEGAL acts with their campaign money get back to me. Until THEN trying to paint money that came from Abramoff with the same money that came from some of Abramoffs VICTIMS is ludicrous. It is a desperate attempt to take the heat off specific corrupt republicans by PRETENDING that a legal and aboveboard action is the same as an illegal action. Its bunk
I don't disagree with much you have said here. I think we are reading in many things into what Lauer is saying though.
I think this scandal is 100% Republican. That said. I don't see where anything Lauer said indicates otherwise. Mentioning that Abramoff's associates and clients gave money to Democratic candidates is not at all damning IMO. I think many here want Lauer or Couric to tell people what to think about that information.
Many other "news" producers are out there quoting the same non-partisan CRP report. Lauer described where Couric made her mistake. Hopefully, some viewers will be able to now distinguish why some people (mostly Republicans) are lumping ALL donations together and why Democrats are distinguishing Abramoff and his wife's donations from ones from his associates and his clients.
If Lauer had gone much further by telling people what he thinks about this information, he could have been rightly charged with either liberal or conservative bias. Is that what you want from him? I think he did just fine.
You make some great points about how it is unlikely that the money from the clients were directed by Abramoff. It was Dean's job to make that important point, but he just sat there and said the Republicans were making the scandal bipartisan.
He should have taken the opportunity to explain the situation as you have done. It was his missed opportunity. The Democrats need to do a much better job of explaining WHY Couric has her facts wrong as you have.
The proof will be in the pudding. I don't believe a single Democrat will be caught up in this, but what Lauer said was completely justified here.
"Hopefully, some viewers will be able to now distinguish why some people (mostly Republicans) are lumping ALL donations together and why Democrats are distinguishing Abramoff and his wife's donations from ones from his associates and his clients. "
That's all well and good that they made that distinction, but the problem is that the contributions from the Indians is a non-story. The Indians have always given money to those Democrats in those states, and it's the right-wing spin that those contributions are somehow relevant to anything. Without explaining fully, they make it appear that Couric was sort of right, that while Dean was technically correct that Couric's overall point was fair. It wasn't. What they're doing is replacing one debunked talking point with another, leaving the impression that the Dems are still involved with Abramoff, so even if it's not quite as serious they are still corrupt. I simply don't see how it enlightens many viewers, sadly.
That's all well and good that they made that distinction, but the problem is that the contributions from the Indians is a non-story. --brabantio
--------------------------------------
You are absolutely right. That is a non-story, but that is not for a journalist to say. It was Dean's missed opportunity to make that exact point. He bungled it.
Although we can completely agree on our assessment, we cannot expect journalists to push conclusions on viewers through omission or comment.
Other "news" outlets are making the same mistake as Couric did. People need to know about the difference between Dean's view and Couric's view in order to understand what the dialogue is about. That was all Lauer was responsible for. He cannot tell viewers what to think about that difference. That is not journalism.
I just think that they should know by now that the Indian contributions are a non-story, and therefore they should not bring it up as a substitute. I don't see that as omission as such, because it's an irrelevant story. That seems to be the difference, I think that if they know it's a non-story (and they should), that they shouldn't say it just because other people are doing it, or because it makes one of their own mistakes seem less severe. If it's a questionable story, a real journalist should ignore it or explain the problem with it, not run with it. That's either ignorance or irresponsibility in my view, neither of which is a sign of very good journalism.
I agree with you almost completely. If we are talking about Couric, she was underprepared and brought up an irrelevant part of the story. I can agree to that.
What most of my comments were about Lauer's behavior. Once Katie made her mistake, it was Lauer's job to set the record straight. I am just saying in order to do that, he had to mention where Katie came up with her point of view. It was never his job to decide whether it was relevant. Katie should have known that before the interview even started.
Dean had a great opportunity to set the record straight, but by ignoring the Indian tribe angle, he seemed overly lawyerish in his comments. He missed his own opportunity to set the record straight, which IMO he should have pounced on.
That is the common implication. When Howard Dean bitch slapped Wolf Blitzer, Blitzer even said the indian donation sto Democrats "presumably" originated with Abramoff. This has been the implication by many right winger, and wrongly so.
Re-read what Lauer said in the correction:
"But here's what we found: that 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money -- not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients -- went to Democrats." --Matt Lauer
Lauer was entirely factual and not at all misleading. He never said or even implied those contributions were directed by Abramoff.
It was a good correction. We should applaud good journalism for a change.
- open_mind / Friday January 27, 2006 01:30:27 PM EST ----------------------------------------------
Wake up. This was hardly good journalism. It was right wing damage control. Lauer's reference to the "money-- not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients" is a thinly veiled attempt to smear Democrats in order to downplay a a scandal purely involving a criminal cabal of crooked Republicans. Lauer uses an obvious red herring tactic which apparently is hard even for some intellectuals here who profess to be liberals to recognize. Money in the form of legal contributions cannot be lumped together with money/perks in the form of illegal bribes. Abramoff's bribes cannot be connected with the legal transactions of others he may have done business with in the past without a scintilla of evidence of a criminal conspiracy. I'm sure that Democrats from time to time have sat on the same committees and worked with some of these crooked Republican congressmen. Does that make them criminals too? Of course not. Lauer combines these funds for one reason and one reason alone: to create a red herring upon which he could generate false statistics so that Democrats' hands would seem too dirty to complain about Republican crooks. Lauer uses the term "technically correct" the same way "politically correct" has come to be used, as a connotation that the information presented is actually less than truth.
...rather than ignoring it. And I agree we should applaud good journalism, though I think use of the "associates" implies the money came from people working for Abramoff rather than the other way around.
And Couric should have ASKED Dean about donations from CLIENTS rather than challenging him with a poorly worded indictment. That way, Dean could have said:
Katie, no Democrat took a dime from the Jack Abramoff. And two-thirds of donations from Jack Abramoff's VICTIMS went to Republicans. This is all a part of the ongoing Republican "K Street Project," the whole purpose of which is to solidify improperly the power base of Republicans in Washington. They know that, and that's why they're trying to paint this as a bipartisan thing. It's not. Abramoff gave ONLY to Republicans.
And, AGAIN, Couric chose to challenge Dean, but didn't challenge the chronically fact-challenged O'Reilly, who, unlike Dean, isn't expected to take a partisan position. Simply having O'Reilly on the program serves to promote viewership for O'Reilly.
I'm glad they addressed it at least partially. That's more than we can expect from FOX.
Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., who received $42,500 in tribal money - more than any other Democratic lawmaker - also is not returning the money.
"These contributions were a direct result of relationships he has had with the tribes. He has never met Jack Abramoff and Jack Abramoff had nothing to do with these contributions," chief of staff Sean Richardson said.
Here's the link to the Houston Chronicle:
[link to www.chron.com]
I do agree with your basic assertion, OPEN_MIND.
The problem I have, though, is that in this particular situation it's Couric who is spouting the inaccuracy. He's correcting her.
Now, had he brought up a completely new issue, then it would fall on him to lay out the issue completely*. But the fact is, Abramoff didn't give Democrats money. Period. This isn't debateable, and isn't hard to discover. If I can figure it out with a few mouse clicks, then Couric, whose job it is to actually know and inform the public on this stuff, should have been able to.
* Sadly, sound-bite spouting news organizations wouldn't have time to lay out the entire explanation from Gov. Dean, as we saw when the careful speaking Kerry ran for President.
I really could care less if you sir have a problem or not with the facts of this matter. The facts were as Mr. Dean stated, pure and simple, Dems received no cash from Abramoff, get over it! As hecstated, "this is a Republican scandel!" Stop trying to deny this fact!!! It doesn't change the more you post meaningless arguments!
I don't see how Dean can possibly come off as deceptive. He has been completly clear and upfront in his interview with Couric. Lauer only showed a small clip where Dean says that Dems didn't take money from Jack Abramoff. The subject of Abramoff only came up at the end of the interview and they didn't really get a chance to get into the subject of Abramoff clients. Couric grilled Dean and Dean answered her perfectly. See the full video on [link to www.crooksandliars.com] The part about Abramoff is at the end.
There was another interview though with CNN's Wolf Blitzer where Dean answered your very question about Abramoff clients and he said specifically this,
DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
I don' t know if Lauer has not seen the interview between Blitzer and Dean but apparently Lauer believes that indian tribes are agents of Jack Abramoff. The fact that they are not agent totally debunks the idea that Dems are in any way involved in this scandal.
You see, the Aspens are connected at the root. When one begins to turn, they all turn. When the White House corruption is exposed, the media contacts and payola pundits will be exposed. That's why the teeth and nails, they see their livelihood in jeapoardy.
In using the phrases "technically speaking" and "in this situation", the Today Show tries to cloud the issue-which in reality is very simple: No Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff-period. Couric was wrong.
And the "Katie pressed" lingo attempts to instill the idea that Couric was correct. Clever tactic, but what baloney, and what an insult to the viewers' intelligence.
The intellectually dishonest trolls are back defending the MSM.
1. Dean wasn't technically correct, he was absolutely correct.
2. Tim Russert didn't have the balls to point this out.
3. The phrase "his associates and clients" is totally misleading. What determines who an "associate" is? A "client"? The issue is not WHO gave the money, but rather whether it was part of Abramoff's schemes, or independent of them. If independent of Abramoff's schemes, the money is not an issue.
4. Sorry, trolls, you've lost on this one.
Plenty of contributions were given, but that isn't the point. The point is the Bribes. Plenty of people gave money to "Duke" Cunningham, but none of them are going to jail for bribery - like Abramoff.
This is entirely like the Lincoln Bedroom brougha - it's smoke and mirrors. Pay attention to the bribery, pay attention to the quid pro quo that Abramoff received from Republicans.
No one, not even Couric, has suggested that Democrats received bribes. And that's the kicker of the story.
Vyan
The media that keeps making reference to 'directed contributions' are either too dumb to understand the issue, or they're trying to con the People by intentionally stating it incorrectly: there is no third option; and in either case they're not doing their job, and desreve to be cited for it.
But if it's simply a matter of dumbness, then consider this illustration:
A guy runs across a city street, against the light; a cop see's it, and beckons to the guy; "Hey, you know that's against the law? It's called 'Jaywalking', and I could cite you for it"; and the guy turns around, and looks at the intersection, and points at the people who are crossing the street, with the light, and says to the cop "But look at them, they're doing it too"; to which the cop says to the guy...
"But they're not BREAKING THE LAW, they're obeying it; you BROKE THE LAW, that's the whole point to our discussion pal!"
...upon which the cop thinks to himself, "this Jaywalking idiot is either too dumb to figure out what breaking the law is, or he's just trying to con me into not seeing the difference between breaking the law and obeying it"...
...and so the cops decides to cite the guy, regardless of what the dope's reasons might be for what he's doing.
"Here you go pal, a present for you; you pay it in Traffic Court, $25; and if I see you do it again, I'll cite you again, for either being stupid or a conman, makes no difference to me...
Have a nice day pal."
Wow, what a statement. Technically speaking the state of California is on the west coast,you know, technically speaking. Technically speaking the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Technically speaking Jack Abramoff is a Republican....technically speaking.
How absurd.
It seems like both side of this issue are playing word games.
Democrats received money from Abramoff "clients and associates". Fine, as long as it was legal. So far, no evidence suggests that it wasn't.
Couric said that Dems took money from Abramoff but didn't say indirectly. Dean said that they didn't receive "a dime", but didn't include saying money was received indirectly.
An indirect contribution from Abramoff to Democrats=Democrats received money from Abramoff
Is that valid? Honestly, I don't know. But again, if it was legal it doesn't matter.
"An indirect contribution from Abramoff to Democrats=Democrats received money from Abramoff" --someguy
---------------------------------------
You just made the same mistake that I believe Couric made. Just because money came from Abramoff clients and associates, it does not necessarily mean the money came from Abramoff himself or even at his direction. That is the techinical distinction being mad here. You should be a little more carefull with your wording as Couric should have been.
For the most part I agree with the rest of what you said.
The only thing that will matter in the end is that this is mostly a Republican problem because Abramoff was a died-in-the-wool Republican and that is the party he worked with almost exclusively. This will be big.
Technically speaking, no Democrats received $$ directly from Abramoff, only Republicans. Technically speaking, not all the $$ to Republicans were bribes, but rather legal campaign contributions, just as the contributions for Abramoff's associates and clients were apparently legal contributions and not bribes. Let's see how it plays out.
If Abramoff wanted to give Democrats money, why would he do it through his "associates and clients" and not directly? He had no problem giving Republicans money directly. Republicans try to paint this as a bipartisan scandal, but it doesn't wash.
"Katie pressed him on that, and then we -- we did some research."
Yep. That's the problem in a nut shell.
....are absolutely correct. That really is the problem.
A client or associate of Jack Abramoff, IS NOT ABRAMOFF.
There is nothing in writing anywhere that indicates Abramoff told others to specifically donate to Dem's.
The fact that Dems got money from people who inhabit the same planet as Abramoff does not mean that he directed them.
It is conclusively been shown that these clients actually gave less to Dems THAN THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY GIVEN PRIOR TO THEIR ASSOCIATION WITH ABRAMOFF.
How on earth is this a bipartisan scandal.
The only thing that is bipartisan is the overall culture of lobbying.
This specific issue regarding Abramoff is entirely Repbulican.
No hairs need be split saying that
"I have a friend who is a long time subscriber to the daily washington post at $270 a year. I convince him to also subscribe to the washington times, which he does, but he only has so much money, so I tell him to cut his Post subscription to only Sundays, at $80 a year.
So, did I direct my friend to subscribe, or "contribute" to the Post?" - sorry I can't attribute the analogy to its author.
Let's break this down to the bare bones here:
Abramoff's clients are not run by Abramoff himself therefore equating his clients money (and who it was given to, Dems or Repubs) with him (and thus this current scandal) in anyway without first establishing the intent of the donations etc is nothing but pure speculation at this point. Thus we can only look at his personal donations to establish, currenlty, who is tainted by his subseqent indictment. So by mentioning his clients moneys here Lauer and Couric are dabbling in pure speculation and presenting it as some sort of smoking gun and some how relevant in some way to the scandal when really at this point it is not. But I am sure this will all come out in the wash. P.S. I agree Dean did the old Democratic two step here... not explaining his comment fully and thus leaving himself open to criticism even though he was correct (when will they learn).
An indirect contribution from Abramoff to Democrats=Democrats received money from Abramoff -------
I was trying to simplfy the issue because honestly, it is starting make my head hurt. But your right, it should be
An indirect contribution from Abramoff to Democrats = (with a diagonal line through it because I can't find the symbol:) Democrats received money from Abramoff
There is sure a lot of energy being used by the Republican media surrogates in trying to erase the distinction between money given by Abramoff and campaign donations made by his client/victims while he was representing/stealing from them. The client hires the lobbyist, not the other way around. The lobbyist is bound to do what the client asks them to, not the other way around. The lobbyist can recommend that the client donate money to a certain congressman, but there is no legal or practical way the lobbyist can "direct" them to do so. Therefore, if the money came from a client of Abramoff's not only is there no conclusive evidence of a quid pro quo, but wihout considerable more evidence there is not even a quid.
This was not an honest mistake by Couric but conscious misinformation. We can look forward to the same "mistake" being made repeatedly by others in the MSM until they are satisfied that the false idea that this is a bi-partisan scandal has been sufficiently internalized by voters in time for the mid term elections.
The press gives McCain a pass on this scandal. He received money from tribes linked to Abramoff, as did Reid. but the difference being is that McCain and Reid had both received donations from tribes and the donations had nothing to do with Abramoff. They keep on mentioning Harry Reid as having rceived money but giving a pass to McCain. In fact, Meet the Republicans host who-his-name stated in several times on his show. That McCain is clean on this scandal, but then brings up Reid. By the way Reid has tribes in the district he represents, while Tom DeLay has indian tribes in his district but received over $100,000 in contributions from them.
Nice observation JLEGATO. That IS the problem. Our "liberal" media has done its share of misinforming or underinforming the public ever since this administration came into power and Lauer's half-hearted correction stunk of hubris. He couldn't even admit that Howard Dean WAS RIGHT! To admit it smacks right in the face of the media's perception of Dean. Katie made a statement that was "technically "wrong. Technically speaking Gore won the election.
Rove, Abramoff, Reed, et al long ago conceived what is going on now. Looking into the snowballing that is going on becomes clear to the informed. Going back to the district attorney that was removed in 2002, looking into the corruption in Guam, Marianas Islands and know that Rove had something to do with removing him, knowing that Abramoff was involved. These guys and the institution they formed are all joined at the hip. This will eventually become clear. This is scary. No one can justify what is slowly being exposed to us daily. Senator Dewine is probably wondering why the administration turned down his bill S2659 back in 2002 . Ideology trumped the "Law" about the same time Bush came into office. It started as soon as Newt invited Lobbyist into the halls of congress to Write laws. Wake up! This is a wave of corruption that is unknown to America!
Even the assertion that "associates and tribes" connected to Abramoff gave money to Democrats is suspect:
[link to delong.typepad.com]
For example, the Saginaw Chippewa gave $279,000 to Democrats over 1997-2000, and $277,000 over 2001-2004, after they had gotten into bed with Abramoff. It is a safe bet that *none* of those contributions to Democrats were "directed" by Abramoff. The Saginaw Chippewa gave $158,000 to Republicans in 1997-2000, and $500,000 to Republicans in 2001-2004, after they had gotten into bed with Abramoff. It is a safe bet that $340,000 of those contributions to Republicans were "directed" by Abramoff.
Couric had no business lumping in the Democrats regardless of whether they were discussing money "directly" or money from "associates."
While Lauer's half-assed apology is appreciated, it doesn't help that he then continues by basically saying, "Yes, Republicans are the primary beneficiaries of Abramoff's contributions, but Democrats are also corrupt."
End Italic.
I found the "correction" itself misleading and vague, like nearly everything the MSM says.
One thing however, which is not mentioned here, is that there are claims from the MSM (washington post I think) pointing to some paper trail with Abramoff actually telling tribal leaders to give to Dems. Probably an emial considering his propensity for them. Of Course they refuse to provide us with a copy of said document, leading one to wonder what it actually says...
(here's my guess) Dear N. A. Gambling operators,
Dont forget to send something to the democrats in your state who (almost) always vote for your issues. Its just the samrt thing to do.
Of course its probably longer, and maybe more specific, such as...
If you send 50 grand to rep 1, 2, 3 and 8, we can get this legislation passed and you get your card tables, oh and dont forget to send at least 2 grand to the dems you've already been donating to, otherwise the fact that repubs are always the ones voting against you suddenly switching sides after recieving huge donations might look like a bribe...
There doesnt seem to be any doubt that Catie was just following up on what she's learned from the reporting on that issue (rather than actually doing some investigative journalism herself, (too busy making sure she looks good in that light) she obviously didnt do any sort of investigation into the matter, and just like most lazy reporters, just picked up the talking points, whether from her offical TP communique, or from watching other talking heads spew this nonesense. Why do people watch theses shows? It is, or should be, obvious that reporters, and those who do these "news" shows, do only the barest minimum of research on any given topic. These shows are all the same, none of them do any fact checking, all of them focus on sound bites, entertainment: its their job, not informing the public, that kind of thing went the way of independant newspapers, and TV personalities rarely do any of their own fact checking. There are a few who stand out, but very few and miles between.
Here's my question to Couric: why didnt you issue your own correction? even if the correction was to be non specific, why couldnt YOU correct YOUR mistake? I'll bet Lauer feels like a whipping boy, having to go out and softpedal your statements for you, and ending up on the wrong end of the blogosphere as a result. Were I him I'd issue a correction to his correction, and just say hey this was the Today Show! Its aimed at stay at home domestic types who dont have the time or inclination to research the facts. Really, you should see the demographics they use.
Seen the truthout anti-smoking commercials lately? the one with the protesters following people with objectionalble labels? Main-stream media uses the same types of demographics, and more than half are either unflattering or downright insulting. It's why they get away with asking the guy on the street how he feels while he's watching his life destroyed by a fire that just claimed his wife and two children. They think you (we) are idiots, and more often than not, they are right, they know the majority of their audience, and they're smarter than they seem. Too bad they seem as corrupt as the people they do report on.
The Abramoff plea agreement alleges Abramoff bribed public officials. His clients didn't plead guilty to bribing public officials. The issue here is not whom Abramoff's clients gave money to but who Abramoff PERSONALLY gave money to.
Lobbying isn't against the law. Democrats who received money from interest groups whom also happen to have hired Abramoff does not mean Abramoff donated the money to Democrats.
Not only was Dean "technically" correct. He was absolutely and unequivally correct. And he has yet to be proven incorrect. There is no "BUT" here, Matt.
Lauer's response is a cop-out and this is the lamest "correction" I have ever witnessed.
regarding this A-bribe'em-off scandal:
If , as has oft been mentioned, Abramoff contirbuted and/or bribed soley to Republicans to increase their power base in Washington, wouldn't bribes and/or contributions to Democrats UNDERMINE THE PURPOSE of giving money to Republicans?
There is no evidence that Abramoff instructed any of his clients to donate to Democrats. He actually targeted tribes who had previously made contributions to Democratic members, telling them they had better start donating to Repubicans only.
In fact, Abramoff's modus operandi was described by Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post (she who broke the Monica Lewinsky story) in an interview on C-SPAN's Q&A: Transcript.
"...Abramoff would go to a tribe, he‘d say, hey, you know, Republicans have taken over Congress, you need me – traditionally given to Democrats, you know, campaign contributions – but look, you need me... And they‘d hire him and he touted his connections to powerful Republicans. And the first thing he‘d so is say OK, now you need to hire Mike Scanlon"
Why did Lauer feel it necessary to insert the weasel word "MAY"? Dean said NO Democrats received A DIME FROM ABRAMOFF. This is either CORRECT ... as far as all current knowledge and research shows ... or it is NOT correct.
Couric shoots off her mouth with FED-TO-HER rightwing talking points, DEAN TELLS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and she challenges him from a position of KNOWING NOTHING rather than what she was told to say.
THEN THEN THEN these "so-called" journalists ACTUALLY DO SOME RESEARCH, and find out Dean was RIGHT, CORRECT, ON THE MARK.
So, Lauer, it's not that Dean MAY be right ... or may NOT be right (the correlary to the weasel word). He WAS right, and Couric was both WRONG, and arrogant about her own ignorance.
I went to the CRP site and came up with different results than NBC Today. I believe NBC Today is misleading its viewers.
NBC Today: "But here's what we found: that 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money -- not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients -- went to Democrats" The two slides that simultaneously were shown are described below:
Slide 1 - The 66% refers to the
direct money
from Abramoff, given to Republicans. The total direct money Abramoff gave was $206,253.Slide 2 - The 34% to Democrats refers to money not from Abrahoff, but his associates and clients. The total money the Democrats received from the associates and clients was $1,123,333 and is 34% of the $3,328,068 that the total that the associates and clients gave.
Problem 1 - Isn't it quite a coincidence that the 34% and the 66% add up to 100% when they both are percentages of different numbers? The fact is, NBC Today misreported the 66%. It should be 68%.
By reporting 66% and reporting quickly, NBC Today blurs the story to make it appear like the 34% and 66% are part of the same 100% (they are not), thus confusing the viewer. Reference slide 1, Abramoff actually gave 68% of his direct donations to Republicans ($140,503 of $206,253). The remainder went to Republican PACs but NBC Today doesn't mention that. Running slide 1 and slide two quickly and tossing in 66% and 34% makes it sound like they are talking about the same 100% and muddles the message. Saying 68% and 34% wouldn't provide the same effect.
Problem 2 - Reference slide 2. Although Lauer states that the 34% for Democrats came not from Abramoff, but from Associates and Clients, slide 2 shows the money coming from Abramoff "plus" his tribal client. This sends a mixed message to the viewer by making it look like part of the 34% is coming directly from Abramoff.
Problem 3 Lauer: "and we found out that, technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct." Even conceding the term "technically speaking", Dean is 100% correct, not "may be" correct.
NBC Today is going through a lot of effort to keep the Abramoff story muddled when any reputable news organization would just admit its mistake, correct it, and go on."
Right on the mark. ABSOLUTELY that "slide show" was mixing apples and oranges, but was intended to decieve people into thinking it was parts of the SAME THING.
Subtle? Absolutely. (note they left the picture of Abramoff IN THE SCENE, just moved a little aside. In truth, there is NO proof that Abramoff "directed" his clients to GIVE to Democrats. His picture had no business being on that slide: It was a variation of "guilt by association" carefully calculated by NBC.)
I wonder sometimes if the RNC has on retainer a staff of magicians, to breif them on "sleight of hand", "distraction", and "smoke and mirrors".
It is no coincidence that in EVERY case of these misleading reports, they are made entirely to be in the advantage of the NeoCons, and to make Democrats look bad. They HIDE the truth, in the service of their corporate masters.
This is a continuation of my post above
When Lauer cites that 66% (should be 68%) of the direct money from Abramoff went to Republicans, the NBC Today excluded mentioning the 32% of the direct money that went Republican PACs. Thus, in this case, NBC Today defined Republicans as individual candidates. The percentage would be 100% if NBC Today included individual Republican candidates and Republican PACs. [In CPR link above, in view contributions by donor, select Abramoff to verify].
Problem 4: However when Lauer cites that 34% of the indirect money went to Democrats, NBC Today defines Democrats as individual candidates AND PACs AND campaign committees. [In CPR link above, in view contributions by donor, select Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe as one donor sample to verify.] The Democratic percentage would be much lower than 34% if NBC Today defined Democrats as individuals in the same way as they defined Republicans as individuals. In my opinion, both parties should be defined to include their own PACs and campaign committees but NBC Today did not do that either.
Thus NBC is using the statistics in a misleading manner (effectively comparing apples and oranges) to minimize the Republican involvement in the scandal.
Regarding some of the comments earlier in the thread chastising Dean for not explaining the distinction between Abramoff's contributions to only Republicans and those made by his "associates" and/or clients to Democrats, I can only say Democrats are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
How many times have we seen pundits criticize Democrats for always trying to explain nuanced positions, while praising Republicans for always limiting their rhetoric to simple, easily understood slogans? I saw some GOP strategist with a wicked smirk on his face on Hardball the other night doing just that.
What makes it especially hard to bear is that I fear they're right--about Americans. I look at the last thirty years in our country's politics, and it's hard to argue against their point.
But even when a democrat tries to frame an issue in such a way (with complete validity), he is confronted and criticized. Who is making the rules here?
Besides your comments here, I think it is helpful to direct numerous comments to NBC news sites. Numbers have an impact.
Tommy: "First off, let's move beyond the "talking points" diatribe always thrown out here - does anyone actually believe that the RNC talking points book is any less thick than the DNC's?"
Yes, obviously. All you need to do is listen to the radio or watch any of the 24 hour news networks to see that.
Tommy: "they apologized, they didn't have to but they did."
Only after Media Matters ran an item. I doubt they would have said anything if they weren't pushed. And besides, it wasn't an apology.
Lauer: "technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct."
Not 'technically', and certainly not 'may', Howard Dean is right and Couric was wrong.
See my above 2 posts referring to Problems. Not only did they not apologize, they made mistatements with the percentages. I think the first 40 or so commentors on this article took for granted that NBC Today compiled its percentages correctly.
In most cases, the details are boring. In most cases, the FACTS can be glossed over. Comparisons do not have to be fair or apt. There is ONE SINGLE goal to the constant spreading of these stories: The RNC wants MOST PEOPLE, who aren't paying much attention, to be left with an IMPRESSION.
Thus, with the unflagging help of the media, the American People have the IMPRESSION of many FALSE things:
That Saddam Hussein was in some way responsible for 9/11.
That Iraq is going well.
That the Abramoff scandal involves Democrats.
That Alito's wife cried BECAUSE of Democrats.
That the economy is doing well.
That Bush had legal basis for warrantless spying.
That a filibuster cannot possibly be successful.
All of these FALSE impressions are the totality of what the propaganda is about. FACTS need not apply, REALITY need not intervene. There is a "storyline" the White House wishes MOST PEOPLE who aren't paying attention to be able to repeat at the water cooler, and so the propaganda keeps up the drumbeat of repeated falsehoods.
It USED to work. Now, not so much. With Bush NO LONGER TRUSTED, the propaganda is not producing "approval ratings" like they did for the first couple of years. America is hearing the SPIN, and rejecting it.
There is indeed HOPE for America.