MSNBC corrected Abramoff falsehood documented by Media Matters
SUMMARY: On February 13, MSNBC issued a correction of a falsehood previously documented by Media Matters for America, that former lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave $68,000 in campaign contributions to Sen. Harry Reid.
On February 13, MSNBC issued a correction of a falsehood previously documented by Media Matters for America. As Media Matters noted, on the February 10 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Alex Witt falsely claimed that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "collected nearly $68,000 in campaign contributions" from former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In fact, a Center for Responsive Politics breakdown of Abramoff's donations (here and here) shows that the lobbyist made contributions only to Republicans, not Democrats.
During the 3:00 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's February 13 Post-Olympics Show, anchor Amy Robach stated:
ROBACH: We want to correct some information we broadcast in a story on Friday concerning Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. We stated that Senator Reid has collected nearly $68,000 in campaign contributions from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff over a period of nearly three years. Now, we should have said that, according to The Washington Post, the money in question came from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners, and clients -- not from Abramoff directly. MSNBC regrets that error.
Taking Action by writing a polite letter to the media outlets can make a difference. Maybe not with Rush or O'Reilly, but they have an impact. Several times I have even received a response that was not a form letter, addressing my concern. My best success has been with issues I care strongly about. Keep it short too, just a paragraph.
Criticize when they get it wrong. Praise when they get it right.
Bravo MMFA.
That's how it's done.
MSNBC deserves some measure of respect for correcting its error. True, it would have been better if they had gotten the story right in the first place, but at least MSNBC has demonstrated a measure of committment to journalistic integrity by publicly correcting the record.
I was one of those that emailed MSNBC asking them to correct the mistake after I read about it here; I'm going to email them now congratulating and thanking them for doing so.
And much thanks to MMFA for all of your great work; as we can see here, sometimes it even pays off.
Rick
Their apology still doesn’t make any sense!
They said, “The money in question came from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners, and clients -- not from Abramoff directly”
However, what they are still not saying is that the lobbyist made contributions only to Republicans, not to Democrats.
What kind of apology is that?
I don’t think the MSM knows what the Abramoff scandal is about. They keep on conflating campaign contributions with bribing. The only legislators who are in trouble are the ones that changed their tune on certain legislation shortly before or after receiving money from Abramoff. The scandal only involves Republicans at this moment.
I don’t think the MSM knows what the Abramoff scandal is about. They keep on conflating campaign contributions with bribing.
Campaign contributions are bribery. Narrow interests provide billions to the political process, every penny of it self-interested, and you'd better believe they get what they pay for. The line between illegality and legality is essentially arbitrary--the difference between honestly and frankly taking bribes and doing so while sufficiently pretending one isn't. Abramoff's activities were criminal, but only because he was a more honest thief than others
Under the current system, campaign contributions are not bribes. If you disagree with the way the system works, start a campaign to change the law. By the way, I happen to agree with you.
Under the current system, campaign contributions are not bribes. If you disagree with the way the system works, start a campaign to change the law.
They are bribes, in both intent and effect, regardless of how "bribery" is defined for narrow legalistic purposes. This is, unfortunately, an inherent flaw in the U.S. political process, too fundamental to be legislated away.
By the way, I happen to agree with you.
Good; I'm right.
MSNBC: "Now, we should have said that, according to The Washington Post, the money in question came from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners, and clients -- not from Abramoff directly. MSNBC regrets that error."
Why should have MSNBC have said that? Is there anything wrong with Reid taking money from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners, and clients? If not, why should have MSNBC made this report? Yes MSNBC corrected the falsehood, yet still didn't give up trying to taint Reid by tying him indirectly to Abramoff.
Their apology still doesn’t make any sense!
Yeah, it does, since the statement in question was about Harry Reid.
True, it would have been better if they'd appended "In fact, no Democrat has received donations directly from Jack Abramoff," but you know, when donkeys fly and all that.
When the MSM reports that “the money in question came from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners, and clients -- not from Abramoff directly”, they’re trying to paint this as a bi-partisan scandal. The fact that Reid or any other Democrat or for that matter any Republican got money from his clients is irrelevant. The one and only case where this is information can be relevant is if money was funneled through his clients to congressmen in order to change legislation. The only reason Republicans and the MSM bring up Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners, and clients is to taint Democrats.
The "direct" Abramoff money pales in comparison to the "indirect" money. There will be very little milage in harping on this distinction. Better to ignore the money itself in favor of what's actually the problem--doing Abramoff's bidding in legislation.
At this point, any sort of half-apology by the current news media is a victory. Got to keep at it.
I also e-mailed MSNBC told them that the retraction would only be complete when they added the fact that it was only the Republican Party that received any benefit from Mr Abramoff.
Keep it up, MM. We have them by the balls.
Any "apology" which does not specify WHY there is a distinction between Abramoff and "Abramoff-RELATED" entities, is STILL an attempt to mislead the public.
Any "apology" which does not EXPRESSLY SAY that the donations DIRECTLY FROM ABRAMOFF are likely ILLEGAL, while "Abramoff RELATED" donations are likely LEGAL ... STILL intends to smear with "guilt by association".
It is the express duty of the Media to INFORM. An "apology" which does not seek to emphasize WHY there is a difference ... is only MORE misinformation.
Sorry, MSNBC. Your apology does not pass the test.
It is in the nature of the old dodge here:
"You're ugly."
"Please apologize!"
"OK. I'm SORRY you're ugly."
... no apology AT ALL.
Any "apology" which does not EXPRESSLY SAY that the donations DIRECTLY FROM ABRAMOFF are likely ILLEGAL, while "Abramoff RELATED" donations are likely LEGAL ... STILL intends to smear with "guilt by association".
Dragging Harry Reid into the Abramoff thing in the first place was the point of the story--the whole reason it was created was to bolster Republican spin that this is a "bipartisan scandal." The very act of writing it made a prima facie case for bad faith.
Of course, you are correct.
Telling the contextual TRUTH after the fact is merely damage control. The BEST policy would be to not broach the subject in public, until determined to have MERIT (like McClelland's denials of Rove's involvement in the Plame affair, WMDS, ad infinitum).
The mere fact that it is the predictable Rightwing Spin does NOT make it "NEWS".
In a very real way, the damage has been done, and the rightwing water carried, with the initial INCORRECTLY REPORTED story. Once in the public consciousness, a "correction" that may not even be seen does not undo the damage. At the very LEAST, corrected reporting should match the VOLUME at which the original untruth was reported, INCLUDING ALL THE TALKING HEAD "OPINIONS" WHICH WERE BASED ON THAT FALSE INFORMATION.
But, as I said, this non-apology apology of MSNBC did not even meet the bare minimum requirement of explaining WHY the difference was important.
Just as with Whitewater, a million pages for baseless speculations, very little (if any) interest in apology. It's just a silent "ooops" and move on, with these scandalmongering rightwing shills.
Reminds me of the story about the small-town newspaper that ran the headline "Half Of City's Politicians Are Crooks." The city's politicians were outraged and demanded a retraction. The next day, the paper ran the headline "Half of City's Politicians Are Not Crooks."
The apology makes it sound worse than the original statement. Making a long list of contributors makes it sound more sleazy than a single contributor.
There's NOTHING to celebrate here.
In this case, a dull correction was given with little fanfare. I call this kind of laying "the Swift Boat lie" because the record was corrected after the damage has been done. When I think of all the news agencies that covered the Swift Boat campaign to belittle John Kerry, I feel there can be a solid point made as to what part the major news agency played in this planned professional lie, especially CNN and Fox. The media is in need of reform just as much as our two Party political system.