Once again, Wash. Post showed no attempt to contact SF officials about Pelosi funding request
In a June 15 article headlined "Lawmakers Cashing In on Real Estate, Financial Reports Reveal," The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "requested $25 million in earmarked funds" for a San Francisco waterfront redevelopment project "near" property owned by Pelosi and her husband. The Post added that "Pelosi's office has denied any conflict in the earmark request, saying it was submitted to her by the Port of San Francisco" and quoted a Pelosi spokesman as saying that the "Pelosis' property is 'a mile away' from the pier" and that "[t]here's tons of other buildings in between." But the article, written by Washington Post campaign finance reporter Matthew Mosk, suggested that it is only Pelosi's office claiming that the Port of San Francisco submitted the request when, in fact, port officials have reportedly confirmed that they made the request of Pelosi. The article gave no indication that the Post attempted to contact officials from the Port of San Francisco. As Media Matters for America has noted, blogger and media critic Greg Sargent reported on May 8 that Port of San Francisco officials confirmed during a phone interview that they requested the waterfront improvement spending.
In his article, Mosk quoted Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly as saying that the "Pelosis' property is 'a mile away' from the pier"; but it is not just Pelosi's office that has pointed this out -- Daly's description of the property's location matches that of the Republican Study Committee, which, in a May 7 post on its weblog, first highlighted the Pelosi earmark. That post noted that four properties owned by Pelosi "and/or her husband" are "all located within 5,400 feet and 9,000 feet" of the waterfront improvement project.
Further, Sargent's post on the San Francisco waterfront project was highlighted on the Post's own website. In a May 10 washingtonpost.com column, Post media critic Howard Kurtz linked to Sargent's weblog and noted that Sargent found the allegations against Pelosi to be "hogwash."
From Sargent's May 8 post on The Horse's Mouth:
But I've just gotten off the phone with the Port of San Francisco. Guess what? Its representatives told me in no uncertain terms that it requested the improvements, and that Pelosi only included the improvements at their request. Here's what Brad Benson, the special project manager of the Port of San Francisco, said to me:
"The port initiated these requests. They came entirely from the city and county of San Francisco. [The requests] were generated at the staff level. The port initiated our request through the city and county of San Francisco. Our requests were funneled through the mayor's office on up to Speaker Pelosi's office...If anyone is claiming that Pelosi initiated these requests in some way, that's completely false."
As Media Matters also documented, Washington Post staff writers John Solomon and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum similarly characterized the earmark as a he said-she said matter in a May 24 article, without giving any indication that they had contacted San Francisco officials.
From the June 15 Washington Post article:
[Former House Speaker J. Dennis] Hastert [R-IL] and [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid [D-NV] are not the only congressional leaders to face such scrutiny. The disclosure filing for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) showed that she and her husband increased their stake in a property near a San Francisco waterfront redevelopment project for which Pelosi requested $25 million in earmarked funds. In July, the Pelosis spent up to $1 million to buy out partners in 945 Battery, a building worth up to $5 million that generates as much as $1 million a year in rental income, the forms show.
Pelosi's office has denied any conflict in the earmark request, saying it was submitted to her by the Port of San Francisco. The Pelosis' property is "a mile away" from the pier, spokesman Brendan Daly said yesterday. "There's tons of other buildings in between."
Isn't Pelosi's spokesman's explanation enough for the reader of this article, or is this website inferring that the reader may also want corroborative evidence from the Port? Are they inferring that the reader may not trust a political spokesman for accuracy?
Seems like the problem isn't with this article at all, but rather the perceived credibility of Pelosi's spokesman.
Wouldn't you say that a political spokesman is essentially a lawyer for a politician's reputation? By that I mean, if you see someone's lawyer say "my client filed all the necessary paperwork with the IRS...", your reaction is probably going to be "well, what else is he going to say?". It's the same for a political spokesperson. It's not an objective source.
It really doesn't have to do with the specifics of trusting Pelosi's spokespeople in particular, it has to do with recognizing the nature of the job in general. I find it difficult to believe that if someone cited the explanation of Pelosi's office as a valid defense of her that you would accept it.
It has nothing to do with what I accept as fact or not, apparently MMFA felt it important the WaPo corroborate Pelosi's spokesman. They did not and therein lies the reason for this thread.
You would have to ask them why they feel that way.
The reason they feel that way is obvious. Brab is right anyone with an ounce of skepticism wouldnt take a spokespersons word for whether there was a conflict or not by not following up and verifying that the request did in fact come from the Port Authority we are left with the impression that we have ONLY her spokespersons word for it. Sloppy at best. Verifying something like this is basic jounalism 101. I learned that in High School
Then the only conclusion that can be taken from this is that the Washington Post trusts Nancy Pelosi's spokesman more than you and the others, including myself, do.
As I said, I don't trust politician's "spokesholes", but I didn't realize how low on the food chain they are for the rest of you.
Tommy, it has nothing to do with whether any of us, or MMfA, or the WaPo trust Pelosi's spokesperson. If someone told you what Pelosi's spokesperson said, your reaction would be "well of course they're going to say that", by your own statements. That's exactly what many readers will think as well, and that's the whole problem.
Is this really unclear?
So, is this an example of conservative misinformation or a politicians spokesperson's credibility problem?
It's the nature of the job, Tommy. What spokesperson on earth is taken as a legitimate source? You keep trying to make this specific to Pelosi, for some reason.
You take that with a grain of salt. Most people do. There's objective evidence that the WaPo is leaving out which supports the subjective source provided. Omission is misinformation, as you surely know.
Is this really a point you think you can pursue?
Bra,
This article is specifically about Pelosi and her spokesman. To make this about spokepeople's lack of credibility in general is off topic. But if that's where you're going, I would agree - it's a systemic problem.
Off-topic? Are you serious?
You're the one who is pretending as if this is all about one specific person, and that all this is about is MMfA not trusting them. All I'm doing is pointing out that it's the same for any spokesperson, they are not objective sources. In other words, your comment was absurd, and a simple rebuttal is "off-topic"?
Give me a damn break. Could you please learn to just drop your argument when its weakness is exposed? We would all appreciate it greatly.
All I am getting from you is how untrustworthy spokespeople are, specifically Pelosi's - as evidenced by this website's call for WaPo to investigate further into his claims.
You call my argument weak, yet you agree with that........this is not one of your better days, is it?
Your argument isnt weak its NON-EXISTANT. Journalistic standards are simply that no biased source is taken at their word EVER. I dont care if its the POPE if he is saying something self serving it is CHECKED.
It's not about that, it's about what you are drawing from it. You are using that to say that the only thing we can draw from the item is that MMfA doesn't believe Pelosi's spokesperson, that it proves the WaPo "trusts" them, and that it somehow disqualifies it as being misinformation. All of those assertions are ridiculous.
To answer your original question, MMfA is clearly saying that people in general aren't going to take the word of a political spokesman as very credible. It's basic journalism to follow up on any such comments for that reason, and the WaPo didn't do that.
You have no argument, so you're reduced to pathetic cop-outs ("off-topic"!) and phony bravado. Sadly typical.
And at the very least, it's shoddy journalism which happens to favor the conservative side. Isn't that noteworthy?
“If someone told you what Pelosi's spokesperson said, your reaction would be "well of course they're going to say that", by your own statements.”
Not only that, the talking heads on the right can also dismiss what Pelosi’s spokesperson said as “well of course they're going to say that”. If you include a comment by Port of San Francisco officials, the statement made by the Spokesperson cannot be so easily dismissed.
Do you want proof that that's what conservatives would say? Just surf on over to [link to mediamatters.org] yesterday's article about the Obama/Revko "scandal." In it, an Obama spokesman was quoted as saying that Obama's letter was not prompted by Revko...and Roger7 and some dude named EdRossAndABunch-o-RandomNumbers posted variants on "his spokesman was just a spin doctor, so it doesn't matter what he said." Jeter2 chimed in.
Tommy, I'm surprised and disappointed that you don't recognize the value of the credibility fo an objective source who doesn't have a vested interest.
(Broken link, due to a glitch with the interface; apologies. The link is [link to mediamatters.org] .
NONSENSE. You are being purposefully obtuse. It has nothing to do with TRUST. Journalism 101 you verify EVERYTHING from a source that has any reason to be biased. I learned this in High School, it really isnt that complicated.
Wow, I'm shocked.
Here I was expecting another yammering spiel about the use of tax dollars and the run-down public outhouse near your home.
But then again, I haven't seen the whole thread yet...
It would have very easy to make one call to SF authorities to confirm the statement and add that confirmation to the news article. Without it MMFA is correct to point out that the tone of the article seems to want to leave it as only Pelosi's office making that claim.
Tommy gets it, he's just being wacky.
Just wacky me. And normally I am one with an inate distrust of politicians. I am glad this website and the liberal loyalists jumped on that bandwagon.
If you feel that Pelosi's office is not trustworthy on it's own and needs confirmation from another source, then who am I to question that.
Her office doesnt deserve more or less credibility than other politicians it is their JOB to put her in the best light we all know that. You are being purposefully obtuse here.
That is not the point and I suspect you know this. Confirmation of a statement is basic jounalism.
Then let's write the WaPo and tell them the next time they get any information from a Pelosi spokesperson, that we would like to see a little more backup please. If you demand it, I agree.
Good points all.
poor little troll tommy, spinning away trying to stop crying about one of his favorite lies being debunked. watch him kick and scream and hold his breath till he turns blue.
LOL
That should be that anything from ANYONES spokesperson should be checked, but they know that and so do you. Your repetitive stubborness to aknowlege the point notwithstanding.
What? No mention by MMFA that Pelosi has illegally voted on matters that she and her husband have financial interests?
It seems her hubby upped his stake in their property when it was reasonably certain Nancy would become Speaker. Since Speakers generally have their earmarks approved, (e.g. Hastert,) are the Pelosi's profiting from this earmark?
Oh.. there are 800 other earmarks in the bill. One is for money to put sand on a California Beach famous for sandcastles.
What about using non-union workers in her husbands vineyards? Seems to run counter to her advocacy of the working class doesn't it? Not to mention that she has an obvious conflict of interest every time she vote on an immigration security bill.
MMFA also forgot to mention Pelosi received a 2006 rating of A+ (with additional extra credit, no less) from the Citizens for Global Solutions, an ultra-left organization which advocates one-world government.
With rock-solid links and evidence like that, Deputy Fife, I think you've won this one! Blast you!
Gomer,
I culled that post from a number of sources. Sorry It didn't meet you exceptional high standards but I invite you to go look them up and see if you can find my errors. :-)
Until then, I'll be over at Thelma Lou's.
I love it.
When a conservative offers up statements they are bombarded with requests for links or rock solid evidence. Yet when a fellow liberal makes claims with no backup, like the corporate media is all pro Bush, then the typical retort back from them when asked for proof is "Well, you certainly must know that".
Too funny.
and you have still not shown where anyone has made the claim you cite. which makes you a liar, again.
LOL
funny!
"Yet when a fellow liberal makes claims with no backup, like the corporate media is all pro Bush, then the typical retort back from them when asked for proof is 'Well, you certainly must know that.'"
You're a liar. The argument that you're refering to wasn't that the corporate media is "all pro Bush" and you know that because it was pointed out to you repeatedly. And when you asked for proof of corporate media conglomerates spinning for Bush, the answer wasn't, "Well, you certainly must know that." (A quote that seem to have simply made up, by the way). The replies you received to that challenge were multiple, thoroughly linked examples that you were entirely incapable of refuting. Instead you set up another straw man argument and demanded that someone prove that 100% of the media was in league with the White House. And then when people pointed out your straw man, you came up with the most idiotic defense I've ever seen you give: You said that accusations of your straw men and other logical fallacies were "liberal rhetoric doublespeak."
cite just one or two? you know so we know where you are pulling the stinky stuff from...
I have debunked your original post with you know, facts. The information you culled together was essentially true, but alas, you left out some of the other important facts that make the attacks you made, untrue.
Wow. These posters and this thread hit the nail on the head. No more taking anything Pelosi or her spokespeople say at face value anymore.....unless it's corroborated by an independent source.
Wouldn't have just been a good idea for WaPo to just confirm the info. No politian is taken for their word these days. If they just confirmed the info to begin with the whole issue would be squashed for the most part.
"Isn't Pelosi's spokesman's explanation enough for the reader of this article, or is this website inferring that the reader may also want corroborative evidence from the Port? Are they inferring that the reader may not trust a political spokesman for accuracy? "
Yes x2
That is so disengenuous. The plain fact is that everyones credibility is judged by whether or not they have a dog in the fight its always been just that simple. Again journalism 101. It has nothing to do with Pelosi specifically of course you KNOW that or you should.
"What? No mention by MMFA that Pelosi has illegally voted on matters that she and her husband have financial interests?
It seems her hubby upped his stake in their property when it was reasonably certain Nancy would become Speaker. Since Speakers generally have their earmarks approved, (e.g. Hastert,) are the Pelosi's profiting from this earmark?
Oh.. there are 800 other earmarks in the bill. One is for money to put sand on a California Beach famous for sandcastles.
What about using non-union workers in her husbands vineyards? Seems to run counter to her advocacy of the working class doesn't it? Not to mention that she has an obvious conflict of interest every time she vote on an immigration security bill.
MMFA also forgot to mention Pelosi received a 2006 rating of A+ (with additional extra credit, no less) from the Citizens for Global Solutions, an ultra-left organization which advocates one-world government."
The above from AA of course.
First, there has been no claim anywhere that any of her votes have been "illegal" as you call them. That's just pure conjecture on your own behalf right there. That's just what you "assume" and opine about, which is fine, it's just that you're incorrect in your assumptions. As shown by evidence produced by Pelosi, and others, she didn't vote on something she had financial stake in, the article posted actually proves that. The Pelosi's are not benefitting from this earmark, because their property was not affected by it, but don't let facts get in the way of a good strawman.
There may be 800 other earmarks in that particular bill (but I doubt it), and how many did Pelosi put in herself? What is the bill number? Who wrote it? Who ammended it? Who co-sponsored it? Your grasp of the details is certainly lacking.
Let's see your Citizens for Global Solutions does not actually advocate for a one world government, although I'm sure that's what someone told you. From their mission statement:
http://www.globalsolutions.org/about/vision_and_mission
Yeah, sure sounds to me like some nefarious one world government conspiracy for sure. She did indeed receive an A+ from them, but what does that matter? They're not supporting her, they're ranking her. And it sounds as if this group, you know, wanting world peace and all, is so "crazy"...
And Pelosi's husband owns a vineyard, not the Speaker herself. And aside from that, in an article about this little "non-union" thing (the vineyard):
"Nancy Pelosi "has really gotten a bad rap," said Marc Grossman, spokesman for the farmworkers union. "Under California labor law, it would be illegal for her or her family to talk with the union about a contract until the workers had voted to organize.""
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/01/MNG83NB37E1.DTL
"The UFW has only a handful of contracts in the Napa Valley, and the crews that harvest the Pelosis' 7-acre vineyard haven't made any move to seek union representation, Grossman said."
So once again, don't let the facts of the story trip up good rhetoric.
but, but, but they want to destroy our bodily fluids and make us ride in the bus behind 'lower classes'! They are pure EEEEEEEEVVVVVVIIIIILLLLL
LOL
Investing in San Fransisco property makes sense no matter WHO is the speaker. That is nothing.
I hope this is the last word on this: As you know there are right wing pundits using this to attack Pelosi. Her office saying there is no conflict did not satisfy their desire to attack her. I know even havng SF authorities confirm the statement probably won't either but leaving it out only revs them up.
But I am agreeing with you. The only thing I would have added to the end of this topic headline is "Once again, Wash. Post showed no attempt to contact SF officials about funding request - and we think they should have"
"And we think they should have" is inherently implied, though. The fact that the item is here means they think there's a problem with the incident.
One of the major lessons I remember from my English classes is to avoid using "I think" when making an argument (I know I still do sometimes here). The reason for this is that it weakens the tone of the piece, and people understand that it's still an opinion if you state it directly. I can say "This is despicable behavior on Bush's part..." instead of "I think this is despicable...", because the subjective nature of the comment is inherent. And that's what MMfA is doing here, keeping the title succinct and strong, while the inherent suggestion of error on the part of the WaPo remains intact.
Even more importantly, if this is a question of journalistic standards, then there's even less reason to hedge on the title. The proper behavior is then a matter of professional guidelines, beyond the mere opinion of MMfA.
Personally, I think the bigger scandal is the use of these earmarks.
Sad to see the Democrats are no better than Republicans in banning their use.
AA,
I agree with you absolutely. But this earmarked SF project has been debated on several threads here before......and Pelosi remains above reapproach on this issue, according to many. As most likely Republicans would be for a similar porked-up pet spending projects.
Today would be no different.
Overall I agree, I would love to see less of them in bills. Having said that, this is for a PORT, which itself is a regional if not National resource. Investing in out National infrastructure is something I support
To bad Roger isn't arround, I think there's a potential "Date From Hell!" here.
Vewy well.
To pwove our fwiendship with wighties and to pwomote womance...
Welease Woger!
Oh my goodness a Life of Brian reference, one of my all time favorite movies.
All the Python movies are good. My fav has the line, Prawn of my loins! Hah!