howie, how you diappoint me in
your column today...
great, so you want to congratulate your fellow journalists for the investigative work they sometimes do. great, you want to claim that part of the decline in good investigative journalism is due to cutbacks in news operations at print and cable/broadcast outlets, but that hard-hitting and important stories emerge despite the conditions of the industry.
you use the curt weldon story as a good example. and then you let fly this stink bomb as example #2, before the duke cunningham example(after the jump)
The Associated Press broke the story 10 days ago that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had collected $1.1 million on a Las Vegas land sale, even though he had transferred the property three years earlier to a corporation he partially owned, and failed to fully disclose the transactions on federal forms. The Nevada Democrat has agreed to revise his disclosure statements.
never mind, howie, that the reid story is largely bogus, that the ap seems to have it out for reid, you know, that there's no there there. never mind that this is not at all on the order of cunningham's or weldon's or abramoff's misdeeds (abramoff is cited after cunningham). in an attempt to seem bipartisan (or to take a shot at reid) you once again either ignorantly or willfully skew the facts and gloss over important details. how ironic is it that in a piece written to celebrate the successes of investigative journalism that you fail to provide complete and accurate coverage of a story you cite.
and you wonder (or do you) why people think you're not much more than a corporate media tool with no integrity whatsoever.