Most of you, I'm sure, are aware of the misleading hit piece John Solomon of the Associated Press wrote earlier this week on Harry Reid. For those of you who aren't, don't worry, we'll get you up to date below the fold. Short version: the piece contained omissions and distortions, making it a hit piece of dubious honesty.
Well, the group that fired a bureau chief for running a column by a Democrat has run a follow up to the Reid piece. So, surely they have set the record straight, given some balance and perspective, informed the public, etc, etc.
Well ... no. And the actual action is so bad, I really think it's time for a sustained netroots response to the AP.
To look back: a couple of days ago, John Solomon wrote, and the AP moved over the wires, a piece detailing how Harry Reid accepted free boxing tickets from the Nevada Boxing Commission. At the time, Reid was championing legislation giving the federal government more control over the astonishingly corrupt world of boxing, legislation the Nevada commission obviously opposed. It was
apparent right away that this was a non-story. Reid voted against the wishes of the Nevadans, and he didn't break any ethic rules in taking the credentials. But, Solomon made a big point on how McCain "paid" for the tickets to contrast Mr. Straight Talk Express with Harry Reid.
Well, then a couple of days later, TPM Muckraker posted a follow up:
he crux of Solomon's story was that Reid acted wrongly by accepting free boxing tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission. In particular, Solomon focused on a title bout in September 2004 that Reid and McCain both attended. "Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight," Solomon wrote.
But it turns out that it would have been illegal for Reid to reimburse the commission for the seats. That's because these weren't actually tickets - they were credentials with no face value given to V.I.P.'s. And according to the boxing promoter who awarded those credentials to Reid, it is illegal for the commission to accept payment for them. Despite that, McCain insisted on paying, and so the commission simply gave his check (written for a seemingly arbitrary amount) to a charity since it couldn't accept it.
What's more, that same promoter says that in other cases where Reid and McCain received tickets that could be reimbursed, Reid paid. That's a key fact which, if true, was left out of Solomon's article.
So ... Reid didn't break any rules, didn't get any "tickets" at all, and McCain's "reimbursement" was just a bit of grandstanding. Jeepers, grandstanding from McCain?!? Who ever would've guessed?
Now that all of that comes out, an honest, diligent reporter would admit his mistake and publish a follow up article containing the new details. An honest, lazy one would just act a little sheepish to his co-workers and try to forget the whole thing. So, what does Solomon's latest article make him?
I'll let TPM Muckraker explain the latest:
Tonight, the AP released a new story on Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). It purports to show Reid admitting that Solomon was right all along, that Reid mistated senate ethics rules when he initially defended himself against Solomon's piece -- and now he's coming clean.
We were pretty surprised to see Reid admit that. And as it turns out, he didn't.
Solomon just arranges the lead in such a way as to mislead readers into thinking Reid said something he didn't.
Here's the lead in question:
Reversing course, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's office acknowledged Wednesday night he misstated the ethics rules governing his acceptance of free boxing tickets and has decided to avoid taking such gifts in the future.
Oooo, damning. Except it turns out that Harry Reid "acknowledged" only that John McCain didn't have to give any money to the commission, not that Reid did, as the lead clearly implies. In fact, the second paragraphs says that Reid:
The Nevada senator still believes it was "entirely permissible" for him to accept ringside seats for three professional boxing matches in 2004 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission but has nonetheless decided to avoid doing so in the future, his office said.
"In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety," spokesman Jim Manley said.
Now, notice one little bit of bamboozlement that the TPM Mucky Guys didn't catch ... Solomon talks about the "ringside seats for three professional boxing matches," while Reid's statement talks of accepting "these types of credentials." As we saw earlier, the folks in Nevada have reported that Reid did pay for those other tickets, and it's only one specific kind of "credentials" that is the issue. So ... Solomon is misleading on so many levels it's tough to keep track.
This kind of thing really calls into question the ethics of the reporter involved. He has a history of this kind of thing toward Democrats, too. Although, to be fair, I haven't researched whether he does the same thing to Republicans, too ... he may be an equal-opportunity bamboozler, for all I know.
But this isn't necessarily a partisan issue (although it may be). This is about dishonesty in our public discourse, and the premiere print news provider in the country partaking in it. This kind of thing simply can not stand without a response. The only e-mail address I have to the AP is info@ap.org, since they don't have an ombudsman. But, I encourage everyone to use that address and let them know that we demand honesty. Or, if anyone has a better address, put it in comments and I'll try to update this ...
update: There was a question in the comments on how to respond ... just say what you feel, but try to be polite. Point out the factual errors and misleading slant, and ask for a retraction/clarification. Mention disciplinary action, if you'd like. Mostly, just let them know we're watching and that we care about journalistic ethics. And, if you want another e-mail ... I'm ambivalent about giving out personal e-mails, but if someone puts an e-mail up on a web-site, I'd say it's public domain ...
Working off a tip someone e-mailed me anonymously, I Googled "AP National Desk Editor David Minthorn" and lo and behold, his e-mail has been made public. It's dminthorn@ap.org. I plead that everyone who e-mails that address be respectful and polite.