Time's Halperin didn't check with Sun-Times columnist before falsely claiming that column was product of Clinton campaign opposition research
In a November 5 post on his campaign news website The Page, Time magazine editor-at-large and senior political analyst Mark Halperin claimed that a Chicago Sun-Times column raising questions about the transparency of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) presidential bid was the product of opposition research provided by the campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY).
But the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet, who wrote the column, denies the allegation. "I didn't use anything in that column that came from the Clinton campaign," Sweet confirmed in an email to Media Matters for America. According to Sweet, Halperin never contacted her before he posted his claim that her column was based on Clinton campaign opposition research coming in over the "transom."
Under the headline "Speculation About Clinton Fallout from Debate Continues," Halperin wrote, "Clinton campaign throws opposition research on Obama's 'secrecy' over Chicago Sun Times transom," and linked to Sweet's November 5 column, headlined "Living in a glass house: Obama's push for Clinton to disclose her first lady papers raises questions about his own transparency."
The clear implication from Halperin's headline and link was that the Clinton campaign provided Sweet with research material and she simply typed it up as a column. Not true, says Sweet: "The column was the result of string I had been gathering for a long time." She noted, "The trigger for the column was Obama's stepped-up talk of transparency" on the campaign trail. Sweet has been covering the Obama campaign since its inception last winter and has previously written about the issue of campaign transparency.
Also, despite the fact that The Page's headline placed the word "secrecy" in quotation marks, suggesting that the Sun-Times column was an attack on Obama's "secrecy," Sweet never accused Obama of "secrecy"; rather, while crediting Obama's efforts to increase the transparency of governmental affairs and campaigns, Sweet wrote that "[o]n other fronts, the Obama transparency record is lacking."
I didn't know Halperin was at Time. Last I heard he was at ABC trying to win over conservatives there. I guess he is out to ruin yet another major news icon.
This was the same excuse/claim Insight magazine made when they wrote their BS article about Obama attending a radical Muslim madrassa - that the info came from researchers connected to Hillary. Halperin's got some explaining to do for this.
Yeah, those right wingnuts are getting trickier. Throw some sh*t at one candidate, and say the other one did it. Smells a bit like Turdblossom to me.
Is Media Matters on retainer for the Clinton campaign? I have never seen anything so closely aligned with a particular candidated. I am a strong Democrat who gives regularly (albeit small) to many campaigns per cycle. It is very disturbing to me how little attention Media Matters pays to campaigns other than Clinton's.
MMFA responds to misinformation that the media diseminated, which benefits republicans. There a lot out on Obama (and MMFA has covered it) and considerably more on Clinton. There is no reason MMFA should give "equal time" to other candidtaes unless the level of misinformation is comparable. Right now, the media con's want to attack Hillary, and (too a MUCH lesser extent) Obama. This is the sole reason that MMFA has so much on these two.
To cover anyone else, they'd need something to repsond to. It's not pro-Hillary, it's anti-conservative-misinformation. The con's therefore dictate what MMFA will cover more than anything.
Ms. Sweet, how dare you deny something that makes a jerk look bad. You must be an enemy combatant. When they haul you away, the band will be playing "Ain't She Sweet?
Well it's hardly a secret that political campaigns often drop a dime to the media & provide them with material gathered under *opposition research* instead of releasing the info themselves.
However in this case Halperin is merely speculating that Sweet received research materiel from the Clinton team.
Of course IF Sweet did in fact get her info from the Clinton folks she probably wouldn't admit it.
Bottom line...we have no real way of knowing the truth & Halperin shouldn't have suggested it was a fact.
So, journalists who have no way of knowing the truth get to make things up now? And there's no burden of proof on the person making the assertion?
What was it that Moynihan said about everyone's being entitled to his or her own opinion, but not to his or her own facts?
So, journalists who have no way of knowing the truth get to make things up now?
Did I say that?? Nope. Kindly don't put words in my mouth.
A capital IF....wow, that must mean something. Halpern is wrong that is IT. Why suggest this woman lied?
If you'll read my post, you will see that I raised questions rather than "put words in (your) mouth." And these questions simply flowed logically from the words you did type. You may want to try answering them.
Of course IF Sweet did in fact get her info from the Clinton folks she probably wouldn't admit it.
Um, no. I happened to meet Lynn Sweet at a journalistic workshop when I was still in college several years ago. She is an intellectually honest person; like any other good journalist, short of a confidentiality agreement with a confidential source, Sweet makes clear who her sources are in her articles and wouldn't hide anyone who didn't deserve to be protected. I'm just sayin'.
Besides, if you actually READ her article on Obama, as hard-hitting as it may seem, it's fair and well-researched but there's nothing in there that indicates opposition research. She did what any good journalist would do and looked up his records, called his press office and attempted to get more info from his people.
Chucko, I'm not gonna argue your points here because I've no proof & you made a reasonable argument. All I was doing was sort of playing Devil's Advocate. The media does get their info from various sources...including from campaigns passing on opp research.
But we have no proof that you are playing Devils' Advocate. A lot of people say they are playing the DA but really are causing deflections. Also, who needs another DA..there are sooo many "playing" that card.
I think you should cut Jeter a little slack here. It's not exactly like he has a history of posting on every topic with a contrarian view point just for kicks.
Thanks MHK, I owe ya one :-)
Exactly. Lynn Sweet isn't denying this under oath and there is no reason to trust her unless she is under oath with penalty of perjury to hold her accountable. Geez, we ought to have learned by now that saying doesn't make it so, whether its "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" or "The smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud."
Politicians and reporters lie when it suits their purposes and we all know it. So use your common sense about whether a busy reporter for a big organization, a reporter who gets on TV, doesn't have connections to the opposition research team of as many candidates as she can rather than do her own heavy lifting.
there is absolutely no evidence that she did get anything from the clinton campaign. until some is produced there is no reason to make the charge.
Andra is playing the old game of reversing the burden of proof.
Well said Andra.
No one is accusing Ms. Sweet of lying. However to pretend that journalist don't protect their sources is ridiculous. Furthermore campaigns tipping off reporters with info is fairly common.
she said "i did not use anything in that column that came from the clinton campaign". if you are saying that she might not be truthful about that, you're saying she's lying. you're entitled, but just be clear that's what you're doing.
"
Bottom line...we have no real way of knowing the truth & Halperin shouldn't have suggested it was a fact."- jeter2
You mean, other than Sweet's word she's not lying?
The reason MMFA has a lot of articles on "consevative misinformation" about Mrs Clinton,is because SHE is the main candidate the conservatives talk about the most... They fear her getting the nomination for many obvious reasons...The conservatives don't have a platform to stand on anymore w/ all the controversy on the right about Thier Own Values...And thier own morals...They will have a hard time getting Evangelicals and all the other Far right christians they depend on w/ a candidate like Rudy Gulliani and they're agains the Mormon "cult" as they say...so no Mitt Romney...Where else can they go...Thompson/divorsed...McCain wants "amnesty" They don't have a candidate that can pander to the christian base.
sparkypat, they are absolutely DYING for Hillary to get that nomination. To make the claim that the candidate the GOP goes after during the primaries is the one they are afraid of is painfully naive. She provides them with about their only real chance of winning the White House again in 08.
They just can't help giving her all that attention huh?
Very good post. The GOP would love to go agains Hillary.
Anyone think the media is not biased?
http://www.iq.harvard.edu/NewsEvents/Seminars-WShops/PPE/papers/Tim%20Groseclose%20Media%20Bias%20Paper.pdf
I have seen that study before. If you believe the conclusion that the media are biased, then you have to agree that the ACLU is the most middle of the road organization in the United States. Do you agree with that?
On a scale of 1 to 100, the ACLU got a 49. If the media only cited the ACLU position all of the time, they would be considered completely unbiased. Do you think that is true?