Presstitute of the Day: Ron Fournier of AP

Screengrab of Obama's face while he is making one of the statements Presstitute Ron Fournier claims is arrogant.

AP reporter Ron Fournier wins the coveted Presstitute of the Day award with his article claiming Obama is arrogant, proving his point by quoting statements by Obama that were clearly made in jest.

And who is Ron Fournier? A long-time friend of the Clintons from Arkansas. Gee, do you think that could have anything to do with his dislike of Obama? From SourceWatch:

"Fournier began his journalism career at the Hot Springs, Ark., Sentinel Record in 1985. He transferred to the Arkansas Democrat in 1987 and began covering then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton a year later. In 1989, Fournier was hired by The AP, which transferred him to Washington, D.C., after Clinton's election in 1992.

Obama walks arrogance line

By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writer Mon Mar 17, 1:57 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Arrogance is a common vice in presidential politics. A person must be more than a little self-important to wake up one day and say, "I belong in the Oval Office."

But there's a line smart politicians don't cross — somewhere between "I'm qualified to be president" and "I'm born to be president." Wherever it lies, Barack Obama better watch his step.

He's bordering on arrogance.

The dictionary defines the word as an "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride." Obama may not be offensive or overbearing, but he can be a bit too cocky for his own good.

The freshman senator told reporters in July that he would overcome Hillary Rodham Clinton's lead in the polls because "to know me is to love me."

A few months later, he said, "Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there."

I must interrupt this article to put the entire exhange in so you realize how deceitful Fournier's claim is.

Here's what was really said:

MORAN: What are you doing out here in western Iowa? It's rural -- I wouldn't think it's Barack Obama country.

OBAMA: You know, every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there.

See the grin on his face in the picture at the head of this post? See the grin on Moran's face? It's a joke. They're both laughing. OK, back to the lying article.

True, there's a certain amount of tongue-in-cheekiness to such remarks — almost as if Obama doesn't want to take his adoring crowds and political ascent too seriously. He was surely kidding when he told supporters in January that by the time he was done speaking "a light will shine down from somewhere."

"It will light upon you," he continued. "You will experience an epiphany. And you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack. I have to do it."

But both Obama and his wife, Michelle, ooze a sense of entitlement.

"Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics," his wife said a few weeks ago, adding that Americans will get only one chance to elect him.

I can't improve on No More Mr. Nice Guy's excellent takedown of this piece of crap.

See also Too Sense: This Just In: Who Does This Uppity Negro Think He Is?

Balloon Juice: Uppity Negro Alert

Connecting the Dots: Didn't You Mean Uppity, Massa?

Presstitute of the Day

CNN's John King.

For these questions to John McCain:

* JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You were speaking yesterday on the one-year anniversary of the president calling for the troop surge about how, A, you think it was the right policy, and, B, you think, frankly, you a little deserve credit, because you stood up and pushed for it when it was unpopular.

It was interesting yesterday. I kept looking at my BlackBerry e-mails all day long. I didn't hear the Democratic candidates talking much about that date. What does that tell you about the evolution of the politics of Iraq, if you will?

* KING: As you know, one of the issues you have had here in South Carolina in the past is either people don't understand your social conservative record or they're not willing to concede your social conservative record.

There's a mailing that hit South Carolina homes yesterday. It's a picture of you and Cindy on the front. It says "Always pro-life, 24-year record." Why do you think you still, after all this time, have to convince these people, "I have been with you from the beginning"?

* KING: The flip side of that mailing shows Cindy holding Bridget ... tiny Bridget, at the Bangladesh orphanage. As you know, some heinous and horrible things were said in the campaign eight years ago about you and about your daughter. Is that mailing in any way meant to tell people, here's the truth?

* KING: You feel good about the state this time?

That was the whole interview -- all four questions. To recap: (1) Democrats want to ignore your Glorious Surge; what does that tell you, huh? (2) Why are South Carolina voters failing to recognize what a stalwart rock-ribbed conservative you've always been? (3) Your baby daughter is absolutely beautiful and it was reprehensible what was done to you and her in 2000. (4) How great do you feel? End of "interview."

And for this response to being criticized for these non-questions by uber-blogger Glenn Greenwald.

Howie My-Wife-Is-A-Republican-Operative Kurtz: Despicable Victim-Blamer

Howard Kurtz, your presstitute of the day.

Mr. Sherri Annis contributes this vile opinion to Predatorgate:

WaPo Media Notes: Cone of Silence

Among the many depressing aspects of the downfall of Mark Foley--who has now done the inevitable checking-into-rehab thing--is that a number of young people could have blown the whistle on this deceptive congressman in recent years, but didn't.

The Washington Post tracked down a couple of them. Former page Patrick McDonald said that at a 2003 reunion he learned of sexual messages that Foley sent three or four ex-classmates and thought, "if this gets out, it will destroy him."

Matthew Loraditch says he has known for years about the "creepy" messages the Florida Republican sent three of his 2002 classmates. But no one wanted to come forward. "You take down a Congress member, and you can't end up trying to do something later," Loraditch said.

Now I don't want to come down on 16-year-old kids (though some are now as old as 21) who must have been intimidated by the whole thing. Indeed, the power imbalance between a big-shot member of Congress and a lowly page is part of what makes this infuriating.

But did they really think that if they told the outside world that the co-chair of the Exploited Children's Caucus was sending them, or their friends, graphic sexual messages, that their future careers would be ruined? That they would be washed up in politics? Isn't it more likely that they would be hailed as brave for doing the right thing?

You fucking sheltered moron, they would be humiiated in the eyes of the world as the targets of a sex predator. All their friends asking, why did he target you? And some of these kids may be gay, and that may be why Foley with his practiced gaydar targeted them. Maybe they're not ready to talk about that yet. Look at Lindsey Graham. He's been in the military and the U.S. Senate, and he's still not ready to talk about being gay.

Howard Kurtz makes me sick. Who could write such drivel? Doesn't he have an editor? Oh, that's right, he works for the Post.

Call The Whiner Line

Our local sports talk radio station, WEEI, has a thing they call "The Whiner Line". Fans call in and pretend to be athletes or owners or some other sports personalities, whining about some coverage, or criticism, or call, or whatever. It's pretty funny, especially the local guys with the thick Boston accents. They even have annual awards for the best rants.

Jim Brady, executive editor of the Washington Post who presided over the Deborah Howell/Abramoff gave to Democrats/NOT/truthiness saga, is pissed off and whiny:

BLOG RAGE | By Jim Brady

Howell's inadvertent error prompted a handful of bloggers to urge their readers to go to post.blog to vent their discontent, and in the subsequent four days we received more than a thousand comments in our public forum. Only, the word "comments" doesn't convey the obscene, vituperative tone of a lot of the postings, which were the sort of things you might find carved on the door of a public toilet stall. About a hundred of them had to be removed for violating the Post site's standards, which don't allow profanity or personal attacks.

I am proud to have made one of the comments so offensive it was permanently deleted. This is what I wrote:

Deborah, you're doin' a heckuva job. Signed, George W. Bush.

Wicked harsh, eh?

Whiner.

Update: In response to a comment, here are previous posts on this subject (no, I'm not writing up this whole thing again, commenter):

Notorious House of Presstitution

I've Been Deleted From the Washington Post -- Twice!!

Presstitute of the Day: Deborah Howell

Deborah Howell, Meet Eugene Robinson

All Together Now

She Still Doesn't Get It

Abramoff Spinsanity

Nina Easton (former Presstitute of the Day), spouse of Republican strategist Russell Schriefer, in today's Boston Globe:

Abramoff's grand aims came early
Made powerhouse of GOP group

Today's Republican spin, I mean article, sets up Abramoff as always outside the Republican mainstream. Crazy guy, that Abramoff, always tilting against the good Republican party. Republicans have been working to keep the crazy rogue elephant Abramoff down for decades:

As Abramoff saw it, the only hitch to his Napoleonic-scale ambition was the pea-sized budget that his sponsors at the Republican National Committee were willing to commit.

[]

His money pleas unheeded, Abramoff spent the next four years, from 1981 to 1985, bypassing the RNC chain of command -- the organization legally responsible for the College Republicans -- to build his own financial juggernaut to advance the group's hard-right agenda, according to memos from College Republican files and interviews with GOP officials involved.

Unbeknownst to the RNC, he launched an expensive direct-mail campaign that left the group in debt, and vendors complaining about unpaid bills. He set up at least two tax-exempt groups to raise money -- over the objections of an RNC lawyer who warned that such groups could not legally engage in political activities. He borrowed money for his cause, even from his father.

''Jack was a freebooting pirate as far as I was concerned," said a Washington attorney, Mark Braden, then the RNC's house counsel. ''He had a strong belief in his own correctness. It was damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."

[]

Looking back, Abramoff's critics inside the Republican Party say his tenure at the College Republicans should have provided a crystal ball into the turns his life might take. ''Look how the seeds of his current destruction are so evident," said Richard Bond, who as RNC deputy chairman repeatedly confronted Abramoff over spending issues.

Ronald Kaufman, then the RNC's political director, described Abramoff's management as ''living on the edge. . . . I don't think any of us thought he was an evil person. But we were really worried about the group and the direction they were taking."

''I remember them being in debt and constantly having financial issues," said William I. Greener III, a former RNC communications director. ''You had the sense of grabbing at air to try to get specifics and details" about where the money had gone."

[]

Paul Erickson, who served as the College Republicans treasurer under Abramoff, dismissed the accusations of RNC officials as untrue and ideologically-based, saying Abramoff's critics were moderates allied with Vice President George H. W. Bush, who ''didn't want conservatism promoted in any sense."

[]

That kind of charged rhetoric repeatedly landed Abramoff in ''hot water" with RNC officials, as RNC communications director Greener noted in a 1983 memo. ''Bad use of words!" Greener scribbled on an Abramoff memo that described efforts to ''smash" PIRGs and United States Student Association chapters, and ''drive the final nail into their coffin sometime within the next year."

Abramoff was admonished by RNC official Bond after a letter to the Palestine Liberation Organization went out over RNC stationery, according to a memo.

''It got to the point where the CR's played it like a war and Republican leaders rolled their eyes," Kaufman said. ''You couldn't trust them not to get in trouble."

[]

Bond, now a former RNC official, characterized Abramoff's assertion that he had gained access to the RNC contributor list as ''outside the realm of reality. That list is like the Holy Grail . . . You can see his early prevarication."

[]

Champing at the RNC bit
Like other RNC affiliates -- groups that represent GOP women, African-Americans, and the like -- the College Republicans were allocated an annual budget. Abramoff's defenders say he was trying to build a far more potent political force than other affiliates, with a national program to train conservative activists.

''We fought, begged, and pleaded" for more funding, recalled Erickson. ''We were sick to death of being on the RNC leash."

The precise amount of the debt was unclear from memos, as well as the memories of RNC officials. But, Bond said, ''speculative direct mail" by the College Republicans was ''completely unauthorized."


So were loans to the College Republicans, but a July 1982 memo from Abramoff to his father, Frank, shows that he borrowed $5,000 for the group. ''If I had known the CRs were out getting loans from people that they potentially couldn't pay back, I would have stopped them dead in their tracks," said Bond.

Determined to find financial footing independent of the RNC, Abramoff proposed setting up a separate group, the College Republican National Fund, whose income would be tax-exempt. But in a March 1982 memo, Braden, the RNC counsel, told Abramoff such a group would skirt tax laws.

'Such organizations may not engage directly or indirectly in political activities," Braden wrote. ''I received last week a print order for stationery for the College Republican National Fund. This activity cannot be funded through College Republicans, nor will the RNC permit the use of its facilities for these purposes."

Memos show that Abramoff set up the fund anyway. As one solicitation suggests, the fund had clear political intent.

[]

The College Republican tactics and unpaid bills led the RNC to demand that Abramoff leave the building and move the group elsewhere, former RNC officials said.

''Jack was a difficult person to work with from a lawyer's point of view," Braden said. Disturbed by the College Republican operation, ''we threw him out. I don't remember what precipitated it, but I remember [the incident]. It was painful. He was a very difficult personality. There were all types of management problems and a lack of trust between us and them."

Bond and Kaufman also recalled asking Abramoff to move out.


[]

Dissent within the ranks
Questions about Abramoff's financial management prompted rumors to circulate within the organization. One competitor in Abramoff's 1983 race for reelection accused Abramoff not only of generating a debt but of embezzling money that he had deposited into a Swiss bank account.

Nothing came of the claims, but they prompted one Abramoff supporter to issue a letter to College Republican convention delegates rebutting these ''personal attacks and character smears."

A short time after leaving the RNC building, Abramoff set up another nonprofit, the USA Foundation, soliciting money from such New Right donors as the Olin Foundation. Although he organized it as a nonpartisan, tax-exempt group, Abramoff served as chairman of both the foundation and the College Republicans.

In 1984, the foundation helped organize ''Student Liberation Day" in support of Reagan's invasion of Grenada. On College Republican stationery, Abramoff wrote: ''While the Student Liberation Day Coalition is nonpartisan and intended only for educational purposes, I don't need to tell you how important this project is to our efforts as CRs. I am confident that an impartial study of the contrasts between the Carter/Mondale failure in Iran and the Reagan victory in Grenada will be most enlightening to voters 12 days before the general election."

By then, the College Republicans had been banished not only from the RNC premises but also from the Reagan White House. At the close of the Student Liberation Day celebration, Abramoff, Erickson, and others traveled to the White House to attend a reception for the American medical students who had been rescued in the invasion. They were blocked.

''Deaver had crossed us off the list," Erickson recalled in a reference to the Reagan adviser, Michael Deaver.

A year later, Abramoff left the College Republicans to pursue other ventures. By then, his four-year tenure had made him a divisive figure.

Erickson defended Abramoff, saying he was promoting the cause of Reagan conservatism, not getting rich. ''Jack governed by sheer force of will," Erickson said. ''Things happened because Jack willed them to happen."

His detractors at the RNC took a different view. Greener said: ''I have found in life that individuals who believe what they are doing is so right and so good and so important are also the individuals that have a high-frequency level of rationalizing away unacceptable behavior."

All Together Now

Beatles - All Together Now Lyrics
(Lennon/McCartney)

One, two, three, four
Can I have a little more?
five, six, seven eight nine ten I love you.

A, B, C, D
Can I bring my friend to tea?
E, F, G H I J I love you.

Sail the ship, Jump the tree
Skip the rope, Look at me

All together now....

Black, white, green, red
Can I take my friend to bed?
Pink, brown, yellow orange blue I love you

All together now....

Sail the ship, Jump the tree
Skip the rope, Look at me

All together now....

The Deborah Howell "Maryland Moment" just continues to grow and draw other WaPo reporters and editors down into the soup. Yesterday Presstitute Jim VandeHei wandered in, in a Post Daily Politics online chat when he answered this straightforward question with a typical "it's a bipartisan scandal" answer:

Arlington, Va.: It's a shame that The Post had to shut down it's Abramoff blog due to the obscene comments. But this all got kicked off because of Deborah Howell's lie in her Sunday ombudsman column, accusing the Democrats of taking money from Jack Abramoff. And in the last election cycle, Democrats got less money from Indian tribes then in the past, so even Howell saying that Abramoff "directed" the tribes to give money to Democrats is false. When will The Post issue a retraction of the Sunday column by Howell?

Jim VandeHei: I anticipate a lot of traffic on this issue, so I will address it at the top. As a bit of background, Deborah Howell, our ombudsman, wrote that Democrats got Abramoff money, too. It was a somewhat inartful way of making the point that Abramoff's clients, at his direction, gave money to members of both parties, but more to Republicans than Democrats. Abramoff himself gave exclusively to Republicans. It is a fact Abramoff is a Republican who did more for Republicans than Democrats. It is also a fact he directed money to Democrats, sought help from Democrats and worked with some Democrats on behalf of his clients.

There's no evidence of that, but no bother from our Jim.

Ok, so Jim is a pathetic excuse for a reporter, so we expect this of him, no?

So now enter stage right Post Executive Editor Jim Brady. A high mucky-muck in Postdom, from his title. He's the guy who shut down comments on the post.blog on Thursday, because of all the "personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech." (or because of all the criticism; who knows?)

So yesterday, when Jim Brady went looking for an outlet to vent his frustration with the criticism of the Post, where did he go? He is interviewed by Hugh Hewitt, an interview posted here on Radioblogger. Hugh Hewitt? A right-winger from day one.

And Brady and Hewitt say a bunch of crap, better catalogued than I could ever do it, here, by Atrios, firedoglake, steve gilliard, armando at dailykos, and others. Basically he repeats the lie that this is a bipartisan scandal. And rips those of us for ripping Howell, the WaPo, and him.

To which I say to Mr. Brady, Meet Eugene Robinson. Introduce him to Deborah Howell. There is an objective truth to be told here. You just don't get it. Yet.

But that's not the object of this post. Everyone who criticized Brady for doing this interview caterwauled on Hugh Hewitt. And I thought, who is this guy? I really don't know anything about him. On to google, where I find the following astonishing fact, in Michael Hiltzik's LATimes blog about the press:

Of course, Hewitt is the guy who as director of the Nixon Library in 1990 proposed to subject researchers to ideological and partisan screening before allowing them access. Shows how committed he is to open discourse and fair debate, doesn’t it? Provides a clue to his character, doesn't it? Also shows how threadbare is the condition of press criticism out there on the loony right, doesn't it?

And apparently Hewitt was pissed that Hiltzik wrote this,and challenged him to the online equivalent of a duel, so Hiltzik compiled the contemporaneous newspaper accounts of Hewitt's 1990 statement, which included this:

LAT (original article)
8 July 1990

And in a sharp departure from the practice at the eight presidential libraries that are run by the National Archives, scholars and researchers will be evaluated before they are admitted to-or turned away from-the library portion of the facility. Hewitt told The Times that researchers will "obviously, certainly" be screened on the basis of the content and slant of their contemplated work.

"I don't think we'd ever open the doors to Bob Woodward. He's not a responsible journalist," Hewitt said, referring to the Washington Post reporter who teamed with colleague Carl Bernstein to produce Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of the Watergate scandal. Hewitt said his judgment was based solely on the 1976 book, "The Final Days," in which Woodward and Bernstein wrote of the last months of Nixon's Administration. Hewitt said the book was "unsourced gossip."

This is the guy Washington Post Executive Editor Jim Brady goes to discuss the Maryland Moment? This is the responsible media outlet he turns to? I wonder how Bob Woodward feels about it. Not that I'm defending Bob Woodward's current incarnation (you could have told us you talked to Libby about Plame, Bob), but still. He's still at the WaPo, isn't he? Isn't this like going to your enemies for aid and comfort?

So, in summary, yesterday, Jim Brady, Executive Editor of the Washington Post, was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt, a man who once tried to ban the Washington Post's Pulitzer-Prize-winning reporter Bob Woodward from the Nixon Library for, among other things, accusations of writing unsourced gossip, and they discussed liberal criticism of the Washington Post for publishing actually unsourced "facts" which turn out to be: false.

All together now! The past is forgiven. Let us all join in the Mighty Wurlitzer.

Journalism is dead. Long live the corporate media.

Presstitute of the Day: Audry Lewis

Apparently, for Richard Scrushy, former CEO of HealthSouth Corp., she was the best journalist his dirty money could buy. Scrushy played this case like a Mastercard commercial: Down payment on Lewis's work, $11,000; Sympathetic media coverage and other public relations work, $150,000; Acquittal on federal accounting fraud charges, priceless.

Writer Claims HealthSouth CEO Scrushy Bought Favorable Press Coverage During Fraud Trial

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) Throughout the six-month trial that led to Richard Scrushy's acquittal in the $2.7 billion fraud at HealthSouth Corp., a small, influential newspaper consistently printed articles sympathetic to the defense of the
fired CEO.

Audry Lewis, the author of those stories in The Birmingham Times, the city's oldest black-owned paper, now says she was secretly working on behalf of Scrushy, who she says paid her $11,000 through a public relations firm and typically read her articles before publication.

Documents obtained by The Associated Press show The Lewis Group wrote a $5,000 check to Audry Lewis on April 29, 2005 -- the day Scrushy hired the company. The head of the company, Times founder Jesse J. Lewis Sr., is not related to Audry Lewis.

The firm wrote another $5,000 check that day to the Rev. Herman Henderson, who employs Audry Lewis at his Believers Temple Church and was among the black preachers supporting Scrushy who were present in the courtroom throughout.

Audry Lewis and Henderson now say Scrushy owes them $150,000 for the newspaper stories and other public relations work, including getting black pastors to attend the trial in a bid to sway the mostly black jury.

The payments raise questions about the legitimacy of the ostensibly grass roots support for Scrushy seen throughout his trial.

Here's another article, with a picture of Lewis: Scrushy Said to Pay for Positive Articles

This article contains this funny quote from an "expert" on "journalism" and "ethics" (all of those are in quotations deliberately: read on)

Kelly McBride, who directs ethics programs of the Poynter Institute, which trains professional journalists, said the payments described by Audry Lewis are "a complete aberration" in American journalism.

McBride said it is so unusual for a reporter to be paid by a news source to write favorable stories that the allegations "are going to be on a lot of people's radar" and will be used as fresh ammunition by critics of the media.

McBride says this is "so unusual" and "a complete aberration" despite the torrent of "pay for play" stories in the papers in the last year. Ah, Kelly McBride, have you ever heard of

Armstrong Williams: Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law

Maggie Gallagher: Writer Backing Bush Plan Had Gotten Federal Contract

Michael McManus: Third columnist caught with hand in the Bush till (salon.com; must watch ad to access site)

Mike Vasilinda: Hey, There Is Money to be Made in This Business!

Charles D. Chieppo: It's Pay Day, Pay Day, Pay Day!

And just last month, conservative columnists Doug Bandow and Peter Ferrara: How many conservative columnists did Jack Abramoff rent for his clients?

Guess not.

Audry Lewis, our latest Presstitute of the Day.

Presstitute of the Day: Deborah Howell

Pissy, pissy, pissy little Deborah Howell.

Howell, you will remember, is the new ombudsperson at the Washington Post. (I'm a feminist. I refuse to call a woman an ombudsman, as the Post does. So sue me.) Howell's been wrong a few times now -- saying the answer to Bob Woodward not telling his editor about his involvement in the Plame case is for Woodward to get an editor, for example.

But her lowest moment (until today) was Sunday, when she published this statement of "fact":

a number of Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.), have gotten Abramoff campaign money.

As though it were fact. However, it is not. As it is not a true fact, it is, in fact, a lie. A very big lie, as this is the Republican Talking Point of the moment, intended to confuse the public.

For the Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal. Abramoff gave all his campaign money -- $172,933 -- exclusively to Republicans. His clients, the Indian tribes, continued to give political contributions to Democrats, as they always had, but in lower amounts than before they hired Abramoff. Those same tribes, however, suddenly more than tripled their contributions to Republicans, at Abramoff's urging.

So it is a lie to say that Democrats have gotten Abramoff campaign money. They didn't get one thin dime. And it is a pernicious lie, as it is intended to mislead the public into thinking the Abramoff scandal is bipartisan. It is not. It is about Republicans cheating, stealing, and pigging out at the trough of political corruption. No Democrats participated in the K Street Project.

Well, blogtopia (yes! skippy coined the term!) was not happy to see a lie masquerading as the truth in the Washington Post. Bloggers, egged on by Jane Hamsher at firedoglake, began bombarding the Post's new blog, post.blog, with comments. (The comments were placed on the most recent post, entitled "New Blog: Maryland Moment", so the uprising of the readers on this issue will ever be known as The Maryland Moment.) Most of the comments were quite civil, pointed out the error, and asked for a retraction and a correction.

The Post's reaction was instructive. No correction has ever been made. Comments were deleted, first just a few, then en masse. (While the Post later blamed the disappearing of the comments on their blogvendor, Typepad, I have my doubts.) After an outcry, comments were reinstated. A Post reporter, Derek Willis, posted a comment in essence defending Howell's lie as truth. That reporter's comment was bombarded with angry denunciations. Then, Presstitute Howie Kurtz got in on the action, declaring Howell's statement had been "inartfully worded", and pushing the lie that
Abramoff was an equal opportunity giver if you looked at the contributions of the tribes. More derisive comments followed.

Still, as of this morning, no correction, no retraction.

Finally at 11:30 a.m. this morning, more than five days after the offending lie appeared in her column, Deborah Howell posted this on the post blog:

Posted at 11:30 AM ET, 01/19/2006
Deborah Howell Responds

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 AbramoffÂ’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.

One of those lists can be viewed in this online graphic, while a graphical summary of giving by Abramoff, his tribal clients and associated lobbyists can be viewed here. The latest developments in the Abramoff investigation are available in this Special Report.

-- Deborah Howell, Washington Post Ombudsman

So, she has (1) refused to admit that her original statement of "fact" was, indeed, a lie; and (2) offered yet another version of "everybody does it". But she's wrong. One of firedoglake's commenters deconstructs her statement and the skewed evidence she uses. In essence, she used an Abramoff document that doesn't match up with actual amounts contributed by the tribes. Nothing like a little misleading on a lovely Thursday morning.

This afternoon the Washington Post shut down its Comments. Indefinitely, they say. Forever, I predict.

So, for lying in print, refusing to correct that lie, replacing the lie with another lie, then shutting down the public's access to their spokeswoman, I award today's Presstitute of the Day award to Deborah Howell.

I have a feeling she'll win more than one of these.

Presstitute of the Day: Howie Kurtz

For relentlessly flogging the Republican effort to Swiftboat Jack Murtha. His Media Notes Online article is front paged on the WaPo website today, giving life to a story that a real journalist would have ignored and let die its own pathetic death. But Howie is a presstitute through and through.

A Swift-Moving Story

Howie whines in response to Murray Waas's criticism of his original article:

I would welcome a deeper examination, as I had three hours to write the story on deadline. But I provided the needed context about Cybercast -- which was formerly called Conservative News Service -- and I'd note that the military, after all, decides when to hand out the medals.

Howie: If you didn't have time to research the story adequately, you shouldn't have submitted it for publication. Why were you in such a rush, anyway? Was Mrs. Kurtz, Sheri Annis, Republican operative, on your case? Maybe I should buy your cell phone records to find out.

The real story on Murtha is on the op-ed pages of the New York Times today, by "James Webb, a secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, [] a Marine platoon and company commander in Vietnam."


Purple Heartbreakers

The accusations against Mr. Murtha were very old news, principally coming from defeated political rivals. Aligned against their charges are an official letter from Marine Corps Headquarters written nearly 40 years ago affirming Mr. Murtha's eligibility for his Purple Hearts - "you are entitled to the Purple Heart and a Gold Star in lieu of a second Purple Heart for wounds received in action" - and the strict tradition of the Marine Corps regarding awards. While in other services lower-level commanders have frequently had authority to issue prestigious awards, in the Marines Mr. Murtha's Vietnam Bronze Star would have required the approval of four different awards boards.

Presstitute of Day: Nina Easton

Play the exciting corporate media game "Name That Source" with Nina Easton in today's Boston Globe as she channels all sorts of Bushco spinners:

Kinder, gentler Bush seen as '06 style
Seeks to boost GOP with compassionate conservative return

WASHINGTON -- Climbing his way out of low public ratings and facing a bruising battle to maintain Republican control of Congress, President Bush is seeking to resurrect his early reputation as a compassionate conservative who reaches across the aisle, according to officials close to the White House.

[]

''We learned our lesson last time," said one GOP strategist close to the White House, referring to the president's ill-fated Social Security plan.

In the coming weeks, the president will continue to advertise progress in Iraq, and the war on terror, as well as highlighting good economic news.

''This White House is conscious of historical trends," said the same strategist. ''You're going to see a focus on legacy items -- war on terror and the economy, focus on creation of jobs."

But the public will also hear the president talk more about education initiatives to bridge the wage gap, as well as conservative ideas to address poverty, especially as New Orleans recovers from Hurricane Katrina, according to officials close to the White House.

[]

President Bush, strategists say, needs to be careful not to anger his conservative base, as he did when he proposed a guest-worker immigrant program. Immigration, officials say, is an issue he will continue to approach gingerly, mostly talking broadly about border security.

Fiscal conservatives remain angry about high deficits and the levels of government spending, so the president is unlikely to make any expensive policy proposals in his State of the Union speech, officials say. Sweeping tax reform plans could also splinter the base and will probably be avoided, they add.

[]

Republican strategists, mindful of the upcoming November election, will also look for opportunities to trap Democrats on Capitol Hill into potentially embarrassing votes, just as they did when Republican House leaders forced a vote after Representative John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and Marine veteran, proposed a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

One area where the White House believes it has staunch public support is the disclosure that the administration, in pursuing terrorists, has wiretapped Americans without a court order. Republicans say they will win any vote that pits physical security against privacy concerns.

Democrats, meanwhile, will try to use the burgeoning ethics scandals to undermine the Bush agenda. ''On the ethics stuff, there's nothing Bush can do. He has no control," said one Republican lobbyist. ''But what he can control and needs to work on is the war. That's the more critical thing for him."

Why let yourself be used to put out spin? This is journalism? Or it just pillow talk?

Because Nina Easton is from the Howie Kurtz School of Journalism. Keeps it in the family, where they all, in baseball parlance, bat right and throw right.

Here's the announcement of her wedding to Russell Schriefer from the New York Times.

Mr. Schriefer, also 46, is a Republican strategist and a founder of the Stevens & Schriefer Group, the Washington-based political consulting firm; he has helped advised numerous Republicans, including Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000. This year he served as the program director for the Republican Convention and was a media adviser to President Bush. The bridegroom graduated from Manhattan College.

Nina Easton, Presstitute.

Presstitute of the Day: Jim VandeHei Buys Operation Photo Op, Oval Office edition, 1.0, Hook, Line and Sinker

Is Jim VandeHei the worst political journalist currently plying his trade? He's gotta make the top five, for gems like this:

New York Times on Operation Photo Op, Oval Office edition: Visited by a Host of Administrations Past, Bush Hears Some Chastening Words

Jim VandeHei's take on the very same meeting, for the Washington Post: Voices From History Echo Anew
Former Cabinet Officers Offer Advice on Iraq to Commander in Chief

Journalism is all about the basics, right? Who, what, when, where, why.

Like, how long did this "meeting" take?

VandeHei:

Bush spent an hour with [] prominent foreign policy voices

Not really, according to David Sanger of the New York Times:

an exceedingly upbeat 40-minute briefing to 13 former secretaries of state and defense about how well things are going in Iraq,

followed by

But if it was a bipartisan consultation, as advertised by the White House, it was a brief one. Mr. Bush allowed 5 to 10 minutes for interchange with the group - which included three veterans of the Vietnam era: Robert S. McNamara, Melvin R. Laird and James R. Schlesinger - before herding the whole group into the Oval Office for what he called a "family picture."

And who did the assembled really get to meet with? Not exactly the principals:

Those who wanted to impart more wisdom to the current occupants of the White House were sent back across the hall to meet again with Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But as several of the participants noted, by that time Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had gone on to other meetings.

All of the detail provided by Sanger, omitted by VandeHei, as to the details of the meeting tell us the truth. It was a photo op, using the former officials for that nice Oval Office photo at the top of each article. Bush didn't even meet with them for more than 5 or 10 minutes, if he listened at all. (Listening not exactly his forte, you know?)

VandeHei's concludes his paean of praise to Bush for the photo op with this obsequious paragraph:

Still, it was a sense of the span of history in the room -- as much as the future of Iraq -- that left a lasting impression for many in attendance. "It was a sense that when we walked into the room and you see the personalities as far back as McNamara . . . that it was a good feeling among people who have shouldered considerable responsibility in the past and understand what this administration now confronts," Cohen said.

Presstitute.

Presstitute of the Day: Gloria Borger

I heard Gloria Borger's report on the Abramoff indictment on the CBS morning show. She ended her description of his nefarious doings by saying, of course, Abramoff gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans.

This is not true. Abramoff never gave money to any Democrat.

Bloomberg (via firedoglake):

Between 2001 and 2004, Abramoff gave more than $127,000 to Republican candidates and committees and nothing to Democrats, federal records show.

Jack Abramoff's political contribution history, from the Federal Election Commission (via Newsmeat). Not a penny, not to one Democrat.

Gloria Borger: Presstitute, delivering (false) Republican talking points as fact.

Who Gave the Presstitute Special Treatment?

Inquiring Minds Want to Know.

Nights in White House satin: The comings and goings of Jeff Gannon

Okay, maybe there's no scandal here. Lots of people, mostly tourists, visit the White House. But it does seem odd that Gannon was there at least 32 times on days when there were no briefings, or returned later in the day to the presidential mansion after a briefing. Seems he'd spend about an hour or hour and a half in the White House on these occasions. Or he'd be there for an hour or hour and a half before or after the briefings. I suppose that it could be shown he was there to consult with someone about what sort of questions he might raise in the next briefing, that could produce a small scandal. But the media hasn't really taken on the president's manipulation of reporters to date and protested and exposed it effectively.

The records also show days when Gannon checked in but never properly checked out, beginning in July 2003 or five months after he started his White House journalistic activities. This doesn't necessarily cry out "Scandal!" since lots of people have slept over at the Bush White House. But usually they're big fundraisers or family members. For someone like Gannon to be there, apparently sleeping over, on twelve different nights seems curious. Surely he had his own lodgings nearby. But after all, in his "reporter" capacity he was a friend of the administration and like Jacko says, friends often let friends sleep over. Dowbenko indicates that the president was in his house on all these occasions, but I imagine Laura and the Secret Service people were there too. Of course it is a big house, room for everybody and a degree of privacy even in these terror-haunted, well-monitored times.

White House, Secret Service Stories on Gannon/Guckert Passes Don’t Match

Friday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told ePluribus Media that his office had never requested a 30-day security clearance for James D. Guckert, aka "Jeff Gannon," directly contradicting a statement made earlier that day by the U.S. Secret Service.

The Secret Service’s "30-day access list program," used by the White House press office, would have allowed Guckert to visit the briefing room for a 30-day period without undergoing daily criminal-history checks.

But not the Corporate Media, they're so over it:

Gannon's story left critics tarnished, too

The phrase in BOLD is the real truth about the corporate media's (non)coverage of the story:

Despite the sex pictures, the linchpin of the scandal was always the allegation that Bush and/or his press secretary, Scott McClellan, catered to Gannon so that his softball questions would make the president look good. Having Gannon in the press room allowed McClellan to change the subject whenever a mainstream reporter began to bore in with a tough line of questioning, according to the bloggers who promoted the story.

But the allegation was never proven. McClellan argued that he called on questioners in a routine manner, getting to Gannon only after fielding inquiries from larger news outlets in a fairly predictable order. Veteran White House correspondents backed him up. Meanwhile, McClellan maintained that his office did not give Gannon favorable treatment in getting a press pass. Former White House press secretaries from the Clinton administration generally sided with McClellan.

At that point, despite the lurid aspects of Gannon's past, most newspapers gave up on the matter as a news story.

Yes, this is the low to which the corporate media has fallen. If the source denies the story, IT'S OVER! Time to look for the next runaway bride.