WaPo's Ombudsman: Kudos For Fairness (And Perserverence)

The left is howling about Deborah Howell's remarks that Jack Abramoff "gave" money to both parties. The sinestrosphere continues pushing -- strenuously-- the disingenuous Howard Dean line that "no Abramoff money went to Democrats."

Howell exposes this howler:

I've heard from lots of angry readers about the remark in my column Sunday that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to both parties. A better way to have said it would be that Abramoff "directed" contributions to both parties.

Lobbyists, seeking influence in Congress, often advise clients on campaign contributions. While Abramoff, a Republican, gave personal contributions only to Republicans, he directed his Indian tribal clients to make millions of dollars in campaign contributions to members of Congress from both parties.

Records from the Federal Elections Commission and the Center for Public Integrity show that Abramoff’s Indian clients contributed between 1999 and 2004 to 195 Republicans and 88 Democrats. The Post has copies of lists sent to tribes by Abramoff with specific directions on what members of Congress were to receive specific amounts.

CBSNews' Public Eye comments:

Howell even offered up documents obtained by the Post to back her up. Not good enough for those upset with Howell – and the paper. It didn’t take long for comments to come flooding in – none too supportive.

The nastiness and name-calling in the "debate forum" caused the WaPo to shut it down.

Since I bash the MSM a lot, it's only fair to also credit them when they get something 100% right-- especially when doing so causes them grief from the people whose opinions they most care about (i.e., their fellow liberals'). It's not easy to take on your core audience and ideological brethren and tell them, "Sorry, I know what you want me to say, but what you want me to say is a lie. You're flat-out wrong, and possibly dishonest."

This whole contretemps illustrates the left's reliance upon slanted reportage and a carefully-controlled and censored flow of information. When they're not getting that, they realize it's a dire threat to their political prospects, and their "outrage" postively redlines before the engine explodes from too much nitrous oxide.

It also illustrates their post-modern-esque belief that the world is not as it is, but as they say it is. And by saying it's otherwise than it is, they think they can change it. And when others won't play ball, again, it's a massive threat to them.

posted by Ace at 12:03 PM

| Access Comments