Cross-posted to MN Campaign Report - sorry for the paucity of links for readers outside Minnesota - if you watch the local blog scene here, hopefully you can divine the subject of critiques aimed at conservative pundits...
Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives recently pushed through a bill raising the minimum wage. Soon after, a Republican Congressman reported "something fishy" in the bill: an exemption for American Samoa, where the Del Monte company, through its Starkist subsidiary, packs tuna for sale around the world.
What's the really fishy part? Supposedly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband owns a good deal of stock in Del Monte, which is also based in Pelosi's California Congressional District. Building in an exemption for a constituent company to underpay its employees while pushing a "job-killing" minimum wage hike? SCANDAL.
There's only one problem: It's not true. Nancy Pelosi's husband does not own Del Monte stock. There was an addition made to Pelosi's page on Wikipedia noting that her husband owns this stock, but the entry was removed within hours of its submission - the Wikipedia team keeps a close eye on its political profiles to watch for exactly this type of hatchet job. Likewise, the connection between the minimum wage bill and Samoa is tenuous at best: the bill has been virtually unchanged since its original introduction in 1999, and Del Monte did not buy the Samoa facility until 2002. Lastly, this "news" is being reported in the Washington Times. It can be confusing to keep track of all the Timeses and Posts and Heralds and Tribunes, but let it never be said that the Washington Times is the most scrupulous or balanced of news publications in Washington D.C.
Let's review: Wikipedia entry gets modified. Republican Congressman holds a press conference. Wikipedia entry gets rolled back. Washington Times reports. Local blogs pick up Washington Times, making it sound like a respected publication. In the financial sector, this would be called laundering: passing assets through so many hands and mouths and typesetters that by the time you see them, they look and sound clean as a whistle. The only problem is, the laundering process doesn't give the laundry any more veracity, or remove the stink of a political hatchet job.
Newly-minted Democratic Congressman Tim Walz is being attacked for co-sponsoring this minimum wage bill, on the basis of flimsy evidence that stands refuted, and has nothing to do with the content or intent of the bill anyway. Local conservative pundits have spent plenty of electrons criticizing DFL leaders instead of offering thoughtful, conservative measures to help the DFL legislative majorities provide a balance of economic incentive and requisite government program funding. President Bush has said in recent days that Congressional Democrats aren't offering an alternative to his escalation in Iraq, echoing the well-worn "they aren't for anything, just against America" theme.
There's a deeper problem here - the laundering of facts to fit the purpose of gaining and keeping power. This purported "story" isn't about spurring debate or getting real facts into the public domain, it's about establishing a media narrative that's favorable to leaders who want to keep the rich and the poor exactly where they are, who are pushing a war that has made us less, not more, secure, and who seem to care little for the common good to which they are committed by solemn oath. It's not about truthful discussions, it's about trying to soften a freshman Congressman up for a challenge in 2008.
In the media as in life, caveat emptor: let the buyer, or in the case the reader, beware. Especially when it comes to politics.