There are a couple of simple, and rather obvious, questions that CBS seems not to have asked, or at the very least, certainly didn’t report. I don’t see anyone else asking these questions either, yet they go to the heart of the matter.
If we’re to believe that Karl Rove--from the White House--enlisted the aid of Ms. Simpson, repeatedly, for undercover political operations (in Alabama?), Mr. Rove would be stupid indeed to enlist anyone other than the best. If we buy the idea that the President’s political advisor was trying to surveil Alabama’s governor in the hope of catching him in a sexually compromising position, wouldn’t he seek someone with two essential qualities: access and skill? Yet no one seems to have asked if Ms. Simpson had the kind of access that would have made the mission even remotely likely to bear fruit, nor has anyone apparently asked if she had the requisite skills in a rather arcane art. Did she even have the necessary camera equipment and the experience to use it?
From the current reporting, I see nothing to indicate that she had such access, and as a run of the mill local lawyer and low level campaign volunteer, there is surely no indication that she had the necessary background or skills. Interesting how such basic questions tend not to be asked by the MSM in such situations. One might even be tempted to think that, like the miraculous anti-Bush memos, this story was just too good to check, but that’s just me.
Just a couple of quick comments. It is the duty of the press to ensure that its stories are fully accurate and balanced, and that every fact has been checked and confirmed prior to running said stories. It is not the obligation of those vaguely accused by the press of potential wrongdoing (or in many cases, of merely annoying the press) to prove themselves innocent. This is particularly true in cases where the traditional journalistic standard of never running anything that isn’t confirmed by at least two independent sources is utterly ignored, as it all too often is these days. Don’t believe me? Very well then Harry 91, I have twelve unimpeachable, higly placed, and reliable sources who have told me that you are a three headed space alien from Venus who is here to kidnap Earth women. It is now your responsibility to disprove that assertion.
Regarding actionable legal issues, every media outlet understands that if it publishes malicious lies, it can be sued. Indeed, it is difficult to prove such things, but CBS has been successfully sued for slander and libel in the past. Their liability in this case may attach--and of course, I don’t know every detail of this case--if they have knowingly published falsehoods against Mr. Rove, or if they should have known they were doing so. This is always a possibility about which every sentient reporter is aware.
Perhaps I might not be such a bad teacher after all? Try any journalism 101 book for a readout on proper journalistic ethics. Is CBS following the rules?
Just a couple of quick comments. It is the duty of the press to ensure that its stories are fully accurate and balanced,
Wow you really don’t know your subject matter. What exactly do you mean by balanced? If you watch Fox news then it is balanced to the right, MSNBC to the left.
Hmmm that didn’t quite work out....let me try again.
Fair and balanced assumes that somehow both A + B have a valid argument. So, when A proves something beyond a reasonable doubt, then B should still be given a platform to spew a few lies to muddy up the waters.
Fair and balanced reporting implies that both sides of a “controversy” have equal weight.
Only a true idiot would actually believe that.
Regarding actionable legal issues, every media outlet understands that if it publishes malicious lies, it can be sued.
Yep agreed but nothing has yet been proven as lies. Your opinion doesn’t count. You of course teach your students that....right....your opinion is worthless.
I don’t know every detail of this case--if they have knowingly published falsehoods against Mr. Rove, or if they should have known they were doing so. This is always a possibility about which every sentient reporter is aware.
You admit you don’t know much about the case, nice. You have an opinion on this case. You’ll be teaching your students your opinion. GREAT
Perhaps I might not be such a bad teacher after all?
Yeah....I’ve had Sunday School Teachers with less bias.
Rather than a lawsuit for libel and/or slander, let’s get Rove to demand that Ms. Simpson (a/k/a Bad Wig Woman) be photographed as a “Republican operative” planting Obama for President signs in front of that AL KKK meeting hall!
That’ll teach her to lie!
Rather than a lawsuit for libel and/or slander, let’s get Rove to demand that Ms. Simpson (a/k/a Bad Wig Woman) be photographed as a “Republican operative” planting Obama for President signs in front of that AL KKK meeting hall!
That’ll teach her to lie!
Oh no I actually laughed at that one.....I must be tired.
NewsBusters has covered how CBS handled the Simpson claims. Will any other television news organization, other than Fox News querying Karl Rove, deal with what may be journalistic malpractice? Any newspaper outside Alabama? Any magazine?
What did CBS do to check Ms. Simpson and her allegations out, to ensure that her accusations might be relied on? As John notes, others, including Don Siegelman, deny her claims. A 60 Minutes producer could have turned up denials, which would increase the need to check out both Ms. Simpson and her allegations. (A U.S. House investigation also has interest, but this note concerns what CBS did.)
“When in doubt, keep it out” and “when in doubt, check it out” may be hackneyed expressions of journalists. But journalists and organizations who value their reputation and credibility follow both expressions, always. Did anyone at 60 Minutes ever feel any doubt? Did anyone check her or the story out?
Thanks to the Internet, it’s easy to find six listed lawyers in Rainsville, Ms. Simpson’s hometown in northeast Alabama, population, fewer than 5,000. But I’d prefer to send a woman to Rainsville, to ask discreet questions, none singling Ms. Simpson out, at a beauty parlor. It doesn’t seem prudent to start with the lawyers, who may be professional friends or rivals. But the ways to check Ms. Simpson out seem obvious and not difficult for an operation like 60 Minutes to imagine and to do.
Whatever professional judgment 60 Minutes staff bring to a story disappeared this time. Why? Perhaps the heat of partisan passion blinded the staffers. That’s not new at CBS; I stopped watching the network for anything other than sports or Cristy after some CBS guy laid it to Newt Gingrich with heavy sarcasm when the Republicans took the House in 1994. Apparently, CBS has not changed a bit.
NewsBusters has covered how CBS handled the Simpson claims. Will any other television news organization, other than Fox News querying Karl Rove, deal with what may be journalistic malpractice? Any newspaper outside Alabama? Any magazine?
What did CBS do to check Ms. Simpson and her allegations out, to ensure that her accusations might be relied on? As John notes, others, including Don Siegelman, deny her claims. A 60 Minutes producer could have turned up denials, which would increase the need to check out both Ms. Simpson and her allegations. (A U.S. House investigation also has interest, but this note concerns what CBS did.)
“When in doubt, keep it out” and “when in doubt, check it out” may be hackneyed expressions of journalists. But journalists and organizations who value their reputation and credibility follow both expressions, always. Did anyone at 60 Minutes ever feel any doubt? Did anyone check her or the story out?
Thanks to the Internet, it’s easy to find six listed lawyers in Rainsville, Ms. Simpson’s hometown in northeast Alabama, population, fewer than 5,000. But I’d prefer to send a woman to Rainsville, to ask discreet questions, none singling Ms. Simpson out, at a beauty parlor. It doesn’t seem prudent to start with the lawyers, who may be professional friends or rivals. But the ways to check Ms. Simpson out seem obvious and not difficult for an operation like 60 Minutes to imagine and to do.
Whatever professional judgment 60 Minutes staff bring to a story disappeared this time. Why? Perhaps the heat of partisan passion blinded the staffers. That’s not new at CBS; I stopped watching the network for anything other than sports or Cristy after some CBS guy laid it to Newt Gingrich with heavy sarcasm when the Republicans took the House in 1994. Apparently, CBS News has not changed a bit.
These are the same people who make the argument that
1) Republican are bad people
2) Voting on machines can be rigged
3) Therefore, anytime Republicans win an election it is thanks to Diebold.
How does one argue with such logic?
Nobody can reach the hardcore kooks, but developing a thorough argument to kook konspiracy helps deter fellow travelers on the Left from dishing it out as often. They know they’re just inviting an argument they can’t win.
And then there’s the larger audience who tend to disagree with us on policy but understand there are crooks in politics and Siegelman was declared one of them by a jury.
Then there is the trial judge, Mark Fuller. Simpson alleges that Judge Fuller is part of the conspiracy, too. She concocted a bizarre theory that Fuller--to my knowledge, a competent and respected federal judge--had a conflict of interest (like Butts), in that he is an investor in an aviation company that has federal contracts, and one of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys handling the Siegelman prosecution is an Air Force Reserve officer. Don’t spend a lot of time trying to get your mind around that one; in my professional opinion, the claim is frivolous.
Why does John dismiss this so quickly, why does he say not to look too closely at that stuff. Oh wait a minute....
...But think about that for a moment. Fuller, an Alabama Republican stalwart, leaves for the federal bench—then finds his work as District Attorney under investigation by his replacement Gary McAliley. Fuller’s federal position was secure but his reputation was bruised, and he responded to his critics by insisting he left the D.A.’s office in “sound financial condition.” But he also let it be known that he felt that he was under political attack—by a recent Siegelman appointee.
The second question is why, given that a case against Don Siegelman had been commenced in Birmingham before Chief Judge U.W. Clemon, ending in a dismissal with prejudice, the federal prosecutors were suddenly before a new grand jury in a new district. Conventionally, criminal claims against a defendant are joined, but here they were not. There seem to be plenty of illegitimate reasons for this strange bifurcation, the most troubling being that the prosecutors were busily shopping for a judge to their liking—a very dubious practice, and something that judges should guard against. But Judge Fuller raised no questions on the matter.
the RICO statute be used extremely sparingly, if at all, in political cases. Procedures are in place which limit its use and require approval at a very high level in the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C....
One of the charges against Siegelman, on which he was convicted, was that he had accepted gifts from an Alabama lobbyist. When that lobbyist testified, he made the point that he done the same thing–except in a much larger way—with Alabama Republican Senator Jefferson Sessions, without the Justice Department raising any questions about it....Judge Fuller owes his judgeship in part to Jefferson Sessions, moreover, he was an active supporter and campaign donor to Sessions’s senatorial campaign...No charges were ever brought against Sessions, nor was any investigation ever undertaken. Yet Siegelman was convicted on this charge.
So we return to our original question: did Mark Fuller perform the essential functions that the citizens expect of a federal judge? The answer is no. The conviction was a travesty.
Judge Fuller held a controlling 43.75% interest in government contractor Doss Aviation, Inc. After investigating these claims for over a month, the attorneys filed a motion for Fuller’s recusal on April 18, 2007. The motion stated that Fuller’s total stake in Doss Aviation was worth between $1-5 million, and that Fuller’s income from his stock for 2004 was between $100,001 and $1 million dollars.
Doss Aviation and its subsidiaries also held contracts with the FBI. This is problematic when one considers that FBI agents were present at Siegelman’s trial, and that Fuller took the extraordinary step of inviting them to sit at counsel’s table throughout trial. Moreover, while the case was pending, Doss Aviation received a $178 million contract from the federal government.
In other words there a ton more to this story than just Simpson. Google Rove and let’s not forget a whole cast of characters involvement in Alabama’s politics going back to 94.
-This story isn’t about Rove
-It isn’t about Simpson
-This story is about very dirty politics played by a bunch of noodleheads who are now scrambling to not get caught.
I’ll give Powerline a chance to catch up with this case (they do claim they are relatively new to it)
In another thread you were making a BIG DEAL over Simpson and a phone log and the fact she testified about something or other. Simpson in turn was of interest largely because of her Rove allegations. She’s the main focus of the 60 Minutes piece, which in turn is the subject of this Powerline post, in case you missed it. Now you say forget Simpson and Rove, and by extension 60 Minutes. Now its about Fuller. A classic MOVING GOALPOST SYNDROME
If claims about Fuller were the extent of this whole thing, would it have been on 60 Minutes? The question answers itself.
Why isn’t the major media going after this story? They reacted quickly over the TNG documents, but they are AWOL on this one. Is it still too early for it to catch on, or do they not care because Bush is not running for office? It seems like it would be a real story if it were true.
I admit, I want it to catch fire because it sounds like a lot of horsesh*t, and I want to see 60 minutes get their nose rubbed in it for putting up such a flimsy story.
John - thanks for your coverage of this issue. It is important that the public understand the facts, as they relate to Dana Jill Simpson. Unfortunately, the larger media outlets are ignoring these facts as well as our repeated attempts for equal time to refute the allegations. Dana Jill Simpson was no more a “Republican Operative” than i am a reporter for CBS 60 Minutes. Thanks again for your help in spreading the message -
1) Siegelman was a rather shady character. The number of counts brought (admittedly many dismissed) and the constant stream of suspect dealings, even the sale of his home were of a pattern. If an more upright fellow had been charged with a single trivial offense blown out of proportion I would be more inclined to listen to conspiracy stories.
2) The CBS witness is not terribly credible and there is no other support.
3) The notion that Rove got into this matter in an uncontrolled environment (a conference call) involving a US attorney with express anticipatory discussions of a prosecution is very, very, very hard to believe. He is far too sophisticated for that and it is a low percentage play in any event.
4) That there is some contact between US Attorneys and senior party officials proves nothing other than it is a politically appointed office sought by politically active people who have political friends. If such contact were evidence of impropriety, all US Attorneys ever appointed would be guilty.
5) For Democrats to complain that this was brought as a RICO case is amazing. Democrats LOVE RICO when going after everyone they don’t like including abortion clinic protesters.
6) The claim that the supposed link between the trial judge’s investment portfolio and the FBI was grounds for recusal is a stretch.
7) All judges in Alabama and most Southern states have partisan ties. I think that is unfortunate and that electing judges is a bad idea but in this instance it also means that there is no point seeking to dismiss a judge as an alleged partisan when all the others are too. You just have to scrutinize his actions on appeal.
8) That prosecutors refiled in another court is unremarkable. If they thought they had a case and the first judge did not give them a fair shake, why not? Apparently double jeopardy did not attach.
9) Defenders of Siegelman are overreaching .
John - thanks for your coverage of this issue. It is important that the public understand the facts, as they relate to Dana Jill Simpson. Unfortunately, the larger media outlets are ignoring these facts as well as our repeated attempts for equal time to refute the allegations. Dana Jill Simpson was no more a “Republican Operative” than i am a reporter for CBS 60 Minutes. Thanks again for your help in spreading the message -
Philip Bryan
Communications Director
Alabama Republican Party
205.212.5900
Wow that really isn’t real is it. I mean come on, a “political case” still under appeal (no court transcripts have been released yet, I guess they type slow) and here we have the Communications Director thanking John.
The larger media or “liberal media” are ignoring the really weak character assasination of Jill Simpson because so much else does not add up.
Thanking John for “catapaulting the the propaganda” you just can’t make this stuff up.
Wow that really isn’t real is it. I mean come on, a “political case” still under appeal (no court transcripts have been released yet, I guess they type slow) and here we have the Communications Director thanking John.
The larger media or “liberal media” are ignoring the really weak character assasination of Jill Simpson because so much else does not add up.
Thanking John for “catapaulting the the propaganda” you just can’t make this stuff up.
LOL
Sheesh, Harry. Is everything a conspiracy? Here’s how the transcript thing works. The steno types and types and comes up with the proposed transcript. It’s proposed because stenos are human and may miss things or spell things wrong or not hear things just right. So the proposed transcript is submitted to the attorneys for the parties. They review and then sign off. Once the parties agree, the transcript is official and released. It is, however, not unheard of for the steno to lose days of notes and recordings, or fail to release them in a pay dispute. In a long and complex trial, it takes a while.
I’m afraid that if you are LOL over this one, you are LOL alone.
P.S., I’m still waiting for your post telling us all that you have filed a complaint with the Alabama Judicial Standards Commission.
