CREW/Media Matters letter to CNN on Ralph Reed
Click here to download the letter.
January 17, 2008
Jonathan Klein
President, CNN/US
CNN
One CNN Center
Atlanta, GA 30303
BY FAX: 404-878-3134
Dear Mr. Klein:
Last week, during CNN's coverage of the New Hampshire presidential primary, former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed provided commentary as a "Republican strategist." It is ironic that a network that prides itself on having the "best political team on television" is furnishing a platform to such a proven liar with a deep bias against one of the major Republican candidates.
As you may know, Ralph Reed played a pivotal role in the recent scandal involving convicted felon and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a story CNN covered extensively. Mr. Reed secretly used his connections and his consulting firm, Century Strategies, to further the goals of Mr. Abramoff's Indian casino clients, while publicly professing he would never take money derived from gambling.
During Mr. Reed's 2006 unsuccessful bid to become the lieutenant governor of Georgia, Mr. Reed repeatedly lied about his role in the scheme. He said he knew nothing about Mr. Abramoff's agenda and merely opposed the expansion of casino gaming. Jim Galloway, Reed Rallies Supporters; Lt. Governor Hopeful Counts on Grass Roots, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 27, 2005. Mr. Reed said of Mr. Abramoff, "He deceived his law firm, he deceived his clients and he deceived me." Id. Mr. Reed further said he had "no direct knowledge" of the source of the money paid to him. Jim Galloway, Reed Helped Others Win, Now Hopes It's His Turn, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 8, 2005. Mr. Reed's spokesperson said that Mr. Reed knew Mr. Abramoff's law firm "had tribal clients, but he did not know their specific clients or their specific interests." Id.
The truth is that Mr. Reed was deeply involved in creating television, radio and grassroots campaigns to drum up public opposition to the expansion of gambling in Alabama, Louisiana and Texas, all paid for by tribal casinos seeking to avoid competition. Emails released by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee confirm both Mr. Reed's role and the fact that he was aware of the source of the funds. For example, on April 4, 1999, Mr. Abramoff asked Mr. Reed to provide a budget for the Choctaw. "Once I get this, I will call Nell at Choctaw and get it approved." Two days later, Mr. Abramoff again emailed Mr. Reed saying, "It would be really helpful if you could get me the invoices as soon as possible so I can get Choctaw to get us checks asap." Mr. Reed replied with a list of the costs already incurred, "what we are out already," amounting to $101,000. On April 9, Mr. Abramoff asked Mr. Reed to provide regular cost updates that he could "pass on to Nell Rogers." On April 21, Mr. Reed submitted a bill for an additional $122,000, which he explained would be used to cover expenses for a rally by pastors and anti-gambling activists as well as inserts in church bulletins. He explained he would need $250,000 to $350,000 for more work. Mr. Reed claimed, "If victory is possible, we will achieve it." By May 10, Mr. Reed had been paid $1.3 million for work Mr. Abramoff billed to the Choctaw. Alan Judd, Reed Emails Upset Allies; Anti-Gambling Groups Express Uneasiness About Consultant's Knowledge That Funds Came From Tribe, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 26, 2005. These are just a few examples; there are literally dozens of other email exchanges between Mr. Reed and Mr. Abramoff regarding the actions Mr. Reed was taking on behalf of tribal casinos in exchange for large sums of money.
Mr. Reed was, not surprisingly, anxious to hide his work for Indian casinos, which was at odds with his stance that he would not accept funds derived from gambling. To that end, Mr. Abramoff arranged for payments to Mr. Reed to run through various conduits. In 2000, Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Reed had an email discussion about whether it would be acceptable to pass money through Americans for Tax Reform. On February 2, 2000, Mr. Abramoff wrote, "Let me know if it will work just to do this through ATR until we can find another group." Mr. Reed responded a few minutes later, "Yes, it will." Mr. Reed also received payments through the American International Center, a fake think tank headed by a former lifeguard, and through the National Center on Public Policy, a charitable organization that did Mr. Abramoff's bidding in return for funding.
Mr. Reed's work on behalf of Mr. Abramoff's tribal clients became public as a result of hearings held by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, spearheaded by Senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Mr. Reed's primary opponent in the lieutenant governor race focused on Mr. Reed's relationship with Mr. Abramoff during the campaign and Mr. Reed lost the race. In addition, The Washington Post has reported that Mr. Reed's defenders allege that Senator McCain released the email exchanges between Mr. Reed and Mr. Abramoff in revenge for Mr. Reed's support of President Bush in the 2000 campaign. Jonathan Weisman, McCain Faces Payback From Old GOP Foes, The Washington Post, January 14, 2008.
Mr. Reed's belief that Senator McCain is to blame for his political loss is groundless. It was Mr. Reed's avaricious decision to play up his credentials as a Christian conservative leader to organize anti-gambling activists on behalf of Mr. Abramoff's Indian tribal casino clients and his obvious hypocrisy that led to his political downfall. Nevertheless, given Mr. Reed's hostility to Sen. McCain, Mr. Reed is hardly an unbiased voice commenting on the Republican candidates' race for their party's nomination.
If asked, most people would probably agree that "the best political team on television" would not include a person with a tenuous relationship with the truth and a well-known enmity toward a particular candidate. As Mr. Reed is, indeed, just such a person, CNN has no business including Mr. Reed as part of its hyped political team in future presidential news coverage.
We look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Melanie Sloan
Executive Director
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
David Brock
President and CEO
Media Matters for America
cc: Joy DiBenedetto
Vice President, Network Booking
David Bohrman
Senior Vice President and
Washington Bureau Chief
MMFA's concern for John McCain is touching, but is it really Reed's animosity towards McCain that is upsetting here, or is it Reed's opinions towards Democrats and the left that is the real rub in all of this?
And can MMFA provide specific examples showing Reed's open hostility, during his commentary, towards McCain during his CNN political coverage this election season?
MMFA's concern for John McCain is touching, but is it really Reed's animosity towards McCain that is upsetting here, or is it Reed's opinions towards Democrats and the left that is the real rub in all of this?
Analysts should be impartial, Tommy, with no axe to grind. Ralph Reed is therefore unqualified to take part in discussions as an impartial analyst
And can MMFA provide specific examples showing Reed's open hostility, during his commentary, towards McCain during his CNN political coverage this election season?
I'm sure they can. Melanie Sloan and David Brock would not have drafted that letter if they didn't.
Reed was responsible for many of the smears against McCain in 2000.
McCain, as chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee investigated Abramoff's and Reed's involvement in criminal activity.
This investigation destroyed Reed's political career and now he has no business being involved as a commentator of any kind during this election.
There was good reason for Reed's fall. There is no reason for what Reed did to McCain in 2000.
I read the conversation. The phrase he used was "with an axe to grind", I believe. By that standard, how is Brazile not impartial?
The point isn't that Reed is conservative, it's that he has a personal bias against a candidate. If Brazile doesn't have one of her own, then how is your question relevant?
No, that's not true. Whether he has acted based on his past history with McCain doesn't change the fact that history exists. It's apparent from the details provided.
I have no idea if he's made any biased comments or not. The whole point is that you don't know if what he's saying is genuine analysis or a product of bias, which is why you shouldn't hire someone in that position.
The potential problem is noteworthy anyway. You don't hire a child molester to work in a day care, and then say "well, he hasn't done anything yet, so what's the problem?"
You know, "objectivity" is something that is (was?) uniquely American in our fourth estate. Many other countries who are democratic in nature have several newspapers within a single community, each espousing differing political viewpoints, and make no claims of objectivity. Perhaps this was just a phase, as our nation has started to turn a blind eye to this kind of rampant partisanship within the media.
I hope not.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/10/post_270.html
Tommy, you sometimes argue just to argue. It didn't take but a few seconds to google the above link.
Mary,
You are going to use the examples in this article as proof of unfair bias on Reeds's part towards McCain? They are very reasoned and sensible analysis' of the McCain candidacy, do you believe they are unfair in some way? Because if not, I believe you've just made my case.
It's already been established that your case is irrelevant. We have no way of knowing whether he's acting on bias or not, and that's exactly why this sort of situation should be avoided.
Of course he what he said sounds like it could be reasonable. What else would he say, that he hates McCain's guts and hopes that he loses?
"First you say his biased is bound to show, eventually, therefore his commentary is invalid and he shouldn't be on CNN, then you say "what else could he say"?"
Where did I say his "biased [sic] is bound to show"? I've said the whole time that it's the potential problem that's being addressed. The "what else would he say?" comment was about the fact that he could subtly express that bias, which I've explained, so I have no idea why you think that there's some mystery about my position here.
I think many of the posters are missing the point. It's not the fact that
Reed is partisan or biased that makes a difference, especially on CNN.
It's the fact that he's a lying, cheating, hypocritical jerk that should be
the deciding factor in determining whether he brings anything to the table.
Nufsaid