So the lead story on today's NYTimes is
"Democrats Split on How Far to Go With Ethics Law"
After the initial sinking feeling, I asked, wait is this like "Democrats in Disarray" or "Al Gore Wears Brown Suits for Women's Votes" or "WMD's Found in Iraq by Man in Baseball Cap" or is it (hold the snigger) real reporting.
Let's look at it, looking for 1) unattributed sources, 2) false construing ("that's not what he said") 3) and unsubstantiated reporter's opinion masquerading as fact. (we need an acronym for this stuff other than BULLSHT)
Update: More Crap, Bottom Line, Rahmbo should have been given power.
More after the break
Let's see the lead is "Democrats Divided"
November 19, 2006
Democrats Split on How Far to Go With Ethics Law
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — After railing for months against Congressional corruption under Republican rule, Democrats on Capitol Hill are divided on how far their proposed ethics overhaul should go.
The next 3 paragraphs are factual but unattributed until the last two sentences:
Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, mindful that voters in the midterm election cited corruption as a major concern, say they are moving quickly to finalize a package of changes for consideration as soon as the new Congress convenes in January.
Their initial proposals, laid out earlier this year, would prohibit members from accepting meals, gifts or travel from lobbyists, require lobbyists to disclose all contacts with lawmakers and bar former lawmakers-turned-lobbyists from entering the floor of the chambers or Congressional gymnasiums.
None of the measures would overhaul campaign financing or create an independent ethics watchdog to enforce the rules. Nor would they significantly restrict earmarks, the pet projects lawmakers can anonymously insert into spending bills, which have figured in several recent corruption scandals and attracted criticism from members in both parties. The proposals would require disclosure of the sponsors of some earmarks, but not all.
Requiring disclosure is a major restriction as opposed to put into the bill the night before by who knows who without a chance to review. The "but not all" is troubling but surely we will get the details later on in the article. (Actually only a few, and none of them are scary.) The next paragraph introduces the dreaded "Some Democrats" followed by a statement by Pelosi coupled with a statement by Obama which makes it look like there is a dispute but it is unclear whether "more teeth" is more than current law, more than Pelosi, more than Lieberman, or just a message from the American Dental Association. The following paragraphs distort it even more. Remember, we are comparing what can be done by rule changes and what requires legislation. Two completely different animals and don't forget which is prey to the Filibustering Elephant in the Room or the Veto Pen of the Boy Emperor.
Some Democrats say their election is a mandate for more sweeping changes, and many newly elected candidates — citing scandals involving several Republican lawmakers last year — made Congressional ethics a major issue during the campaign. After winning the House on election night, Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, promised “the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.”
Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat tapped by party leaders last year to spearhead ethics proposals, said he was pushing for changes with more teeth. “The dynamic is different now,” Mr. Obama said Friday. “We control both chambers now, so it is difficult for us to have an excuse for not doing anything.”
He is pushing to create an independent Congressional ethics commission and advocates broader campaign-finance changes as well. “We need to make sure that those of us who are elected are not dependent on a narrow spectrum of individuals to finance our campaigns,” he said.
Sweeping change, however, may be a tough sell within the party. Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, was embarrassed by disclosures last week that he had dismissed the leadership proposals with a vulgarity at a private meeting. But Mr. Murtha is hardly the only Democrat who objects to broad changes.
Now, notice the slight of hand. "May be a tough sell" followed by Murtha was embarrassed, sounds like Murtha would be a tough sell. Except, who was it who spread those distortions about what he said ? What he said was, it's crap that these problems are here and we have to deal with them when our troops are dying.
Then you have a series of misconstruing statements. What we call lying. Being opposed to an Independent watchdog is not saying you are opposed to ethics.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who will oversee any proposal as the incoming chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for example, said she was opposed to an independent Congressional ethics watchdog. “If the law is clear and precise, members will follow it,” she said in an interview. “As to whether we need to create a new federal bureaucracy to enforce the rules, I would hope not.”
Other Democratic lawmakers argued that the real ethical problem was the Republicans, not the current ethics rules, and that the election had alleviated the need for additional regulations. “There is an understanding on our side that the Republicans paid a price for a lot of the abuses that evolved,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, alluding to earmarks. Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat and a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, said the scandals of the current Congress were “about the K Street Project for the Republicans,” referring to the party’s initiative to put more Republicans in influential lobbying posts and build closer ties to them.
“That was incestuous from the beginning. We never had anything like that,” Mr. Harkin said of Democrats. “That is what soured the whole thing.”
Notice that Frank and Harkin's statements don't support the opening sentence of the paragraph: "Other Democratic lawmakers argued that the real ethical problem was the Republicans, not the current ethics rules, and that the election had alleviated the need for additional regulations." By tying these together, it makes it look like Barney and Tom are saying something different. Besides, Barney Frank is wrong, the Republican abuses didn't evolve, they were intelligently designed.
From there on, the articles goes into more SOS:
- "he said, she said" minimizing the amount of corruption that Republican's did
- People saying, this is just the beginning which is not the same as "Democrats Divided"
- History of Lobbyism
- Finally details on some proposals with arguments on both sides and lots of unattributed ones. Here is a prime example:
Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, said last week that he hoped to add new restrictions on 527 groups, which operate largely outside the fund-raising and spending rules governing candidates or party committees. Many Democrats oppose that idea because many of the groups have supported Democrats.
Mr. McCain, who is exploring a presidential bid, is also pushing to extend the campaign finance rules to 527 groups. And he and some conservative Republicans are stepping up calls to restrict earmarks. But both Republican and Democratic members of the appropriations committees, which dole out earmarks, oppose any intrusions on their power.
Note, that the new restrictions are not spelled out, that "Many Democrats" is the comparative to "Some Democrats" like good, better, best. I think the superlative (best) is probably something like "Libruls" Note again the lack of attributions as in "both Republican and Democratic members of the appropriations committees,"
- Actual discussion of some of the issues.
Frankly, I got too tired to rake through all this crap. (Gosh I must be embarrassed.) For the major newspapers most important article on the most important day, this is halfassed. The right lead should be:
The Democratic election victory has invigorated the debate on what measures should be taken to improve Congressional ethics. In contrast to the Republican measure, watered down as scandals continued to occur, the House and Senate Democratic Leadership and caucus members are proposing and arguing about wide ranging ethics rule changes and legislation
You could then write the same article and maybe include some attribution.
This article is like a play by play of a game that only reports 5% of the action. As in "Someone is up to bat, Look a ball thrown to someone else, someone objects to the call. etc"
Fine reporting NY Times. (That's sarcasm) Write a letter to David Kirkpatrick
Anyhow, sloppy reporting.
Bottom line, don't dispair. There is active public debate on specific proposals to support important ethical reforms. Let me tell you:
- We will not get all we want
- We will move the ball forward in a significant way
- We will do much more than the Republicans would have, will have, or will ever do.
The other open question, is who is the article written for, people trying to trash Dems (kewl kids, Rove), DLCer worried about getting their lunch money cut, a lazy reporter with space to fill ? Unknown.