In its cropping of AP's misleading Reid follow-up, NY Times compounded distortions
SUMMARY: On June 2, The New York Times compounded the distortions found in Associated Press reporter John Solomon's highly misleading May 31 follow-up article (updated June 1) to his flawed May 29 report, publishing an edited version of Solomon's June 1 article that omitted key portions near the end. In his May 31/June 1 report, Solomon falsely suggested Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid had retracted his claim that he did nothing improper in accepting "credentials" from the Nevada Athletic Commission to attend Las Vegas boxing matches.
On June 2, The New York Times published an edited version of Associated Press reporter John Solomon's highly misleading May 31 follow-up article (updated June 1) to his flawed (as documented here and here) May 29 report. In the May 31/June 1 article, Solomon falsely suggested that Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (NV) had retracted his claim that he did nothing improper in accepting "credentials" from the Nevada Athletic Commission (NAC) to attend Las Vegas boxing matches. The New York Times compounded the distortions found in that follow-up article by publishing a cropped version, omitting key portions.
The essential falsehood in Solomon's May 31/June 1 article in its entirety and the version the Times published is the suggestion that Reid had originally misinterpreted the ethics rules to his benefit, later correcting himself. He had not. His original misinterpretation resulted in an overly restrictive -- not overly lax -- reading of the rules, and, more to the point, that misinterpretation and his revised statement on what the rules require have no bearing on his position that he did nothing wrong in accepting the credentials to attend the boxing matches. Through a careful reading of Solomon's May 31/June 1 article, a reader might identify Solomon's deception in claiming that Reid "[r]evers[ed] course" in his interpretation of the ethics rules, but the Times' cropping of Solomon's article masked this deception completely.
In justifying his acceptance of the credentials, Reid had drawn a distinction between taking gifts from agencies in his home state, such as the NAC, and agencies from other states. This is, in fact, an overly stringent interpretation of the Senate gift ban, which actually allows lawmakers to accept from the agency of any state the sort of credentials Reid reportedly received from the NAC to attend the matches. Moreover, whether the rules limit the provision of such credentials to agencies from a senator's own state has no bearing on Reid's situation, since the credentials for the boxing matches were provided by his home state agency. Still, Reid spokesman Jim Manley acknowledged that Reid "misspoke when he said the rule applies only to senators who represent the state agency," but maintained that accepting the credentials was permissible under the ethics rules. As Media Matters for America noted, Solomon, in the lead paragraph of his June 1 article, falsely suggested that Reid had altogether abandoned his defense of accepting credentials from the NAC by claiming that Reid had "[r]evers[ed] course" and "acknowledged" that "he misstated ethics rules." Reid, however, had not "[r]evers[ed] course," and only much later in the article did Solomon inform readers how exactly Reid had misinterpreted the Senate rules, writing:
Reid told Las Vegas reporters on Tuesday he would continue to accept such tickets and did not believe he did anything wrong even though fellow Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who joined him for one of the fights, decided to reimburse $1,400 for his seat.
Reid said he believed it was appropriate to accept the free tickets because the gifts were from his home state and that McCain had to reimburse because he was from out of state.
Senate ethics rules generally allow senators to take gifts from any state, not just their home state. But they specifically warn against taking normally permissible gifts if the giver may be trying to influence official action.
Manley said Wednesday night that Reid "misspoke when he said the rule applies only to senators who represent the state agency." But he added he believes Reid still could ethically accept the tickets.
"It was therefore entirely permissible for Senator Reid -- a senator from Nevada -- to have attended a major Nevada sporting event as a guest of Nevada officials," Manley said.
The Times' version, however, omitted the portions of Solomon's article highlighted above:
The Associated Press reported Monday that Mr. Reid had accepted the free seats from the Nevada commission as it was trying to convince him that there was no need for a federal boxing commission. Mr. Reid voted to set up a federal commission, but the measure was never enacted.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, joined Mr. Reid for one of the fights and decided to reimburse $1,400 for his seat.
Senate ethics rules warn against taking gifts if the giver may be trying to influence official action.
Mr. Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, said Wednesday night that Mr. Reid "misspoke when he said the rule applies only to senators who represent the state agency."
Manley's quote, as the Times' version of the article presented it, has no bearing on the rest of the article, and leaves the impression that Reid had previously articulated a less stringent view of the gift ban and now his spokesman was admitting that the rule was stricter, just the opposite of what Reid had done.















. . by most, is that the NAC had every legitimate reason to provide credentials to Harry Reed. Credentials are not tickets. Credentials are provided to persons at public events when the holder has some professional interest in the event. For example, I am often offered credentials to see events where my company's products are in use - because if I have the best possible understanding of how our customers use our products, that would help my company design better products for our customers in the future.
It was important to the NAC to demonstrate the professionalism with which they produced the event. What better way to show Reid that further federal regulation would not be necessary?
Reid, as a boxer himself in his youth, had a personal interest in attending in any case. But, that's incidental. If he had no personal interest, would anyone expect the NAC to tell him to come and see what a good job they did - and BTW, the tickets are only $1400. Hope you get a good seat?
Only if Reid had no professional reason to know how the NAC managed the event would free tickets be suspect, IMO.
Your point is well taken...and thanks for the info regarding 'credentials' (I did not about it). This is a fiasco, whipped up into a frenzy by neocon media. They're happy to have something to call the Dems (a Dem) on. The issue is moot.
John Solomon's reporting is well known within the AIDS activist community.
Solomon reported on a "scandal" within the NIH pertaining to a clinical trial in Uganda that tested a method to stop children from getting HIV from their mothers during birth. The scandal turned out to be little more than an employee trying to get whistleblower status and a lot of previously released information, all strung together to create a false crisis.
Solomon also reported on the alleged use of foster children as guinea pigs in AIDS clinical trials. The article relied on questionable sources that view pediatric clinical trials as being akin to Mengeles work and deny that HIV causes AIDS. These articles were also cited in a March 2006 Harper's article attacking the premise that HIV causes AIDS.
I have some background on Solomon's articles on my blog -- [link to jerseyeric.blogspot.com]
When is President Bush going to pay for the tickets to all the sports events he attends? After all, he's in a position to directly influence professional sports associations.
Does he pay for every ticket? Does he pay for all of his guests and security at he event?
When I see Jeb Bush sitting in the owner's box seats at a Devil Rays baseball game, isn't he in a position to directly influence funding for a new stadium for example? When John McCain is attending Arizona Diamondbacks games, isn't he in a position to directly influence the sport, with steroid legislation and hearings for example, or when pressuring the player's union to ammend their collectively bargained labor agreement?
Do Republicans really want to go down this road of politicians attending sporting events as guests?
..pay for all those tickets to see Yankees games?
no politicians get free tickets for anything and if they go they have to pay for them and sit in the end zone or the upper deck.