Yesterday, the Washington Times printed a story that implicated some Democrats in the Abramoff Investigation. As it turns out, there seems to be little Truth to their claims.

There's an investigation, but Harry Reid isn't part of it
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/
It seems like a pretty big deal. The Washington Times, . . . reported yesterday that a Justice Department investigation into congressional corruption, stemming from Jack Abramoff, is focusing on a "first tier" of lawmakers and staffers. Specifically, five lawmakers, the Times said, are under scrutiny: Sens. Conrad Burns, Montana Republican; Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat; and Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, along with Reps. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, and Bob Ney, Ohio Republican.

This didn't make a lot of sense. The three Republicans mentioned clearly have an Abramoff problem and the idea that they're facing a criminal investigation would hardly come as a surprise. But the Dems mentioned haven't done anything to warrant an investigation. Dorgan received support from the Choctaw Indians, but Dorgan was working with the tribe long before Abramoff was stealing from them. Indeed, there's no evidence of Abramoff dealing with Dorgan at all, so the notion that the non-existent relationship would be the matter of a Justice Department probe was far-fetched, to put it mildly.

And what about Harry Reid? The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports today that the Washington Times is just plain wrong.

The Justice Department is not focusing on Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada as part of an investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a source close to the probe said Wednesday in challenging a published report.

. . .

Reid spokeswoman Tessa Hafen called the Washington Times story "completely baseless…. Senator Reid's office has not been contacted by the Justice Department at all," Hafen said. . .



Add this to the many Articles I’ve seen that try to implicate the Democrats in this scandal; when no one can show a single Democrat getting money from Abramoff.

Much of the Media, when it does print something incorrect, does issue a correction; something I rarely see from certain Media element.


So my questions are:

Do certain element of the Media intentionally engage in spreading Lies?

Or, do they truly believe the information they print?

And if they do, how can that be explained when Zero Democrats have received money from Abramoff? As the Article above shows; some Democrats have been working with these Tribes long before Abramoff got involved.

Do certain element of the Media intentionally engage in spreading Lies?

In my book of cource these unreputable media sources are agents of propaganda. The Washington Times is owned by a Korean Rev Sun Yong Moon. Do you remember the cult moonies in the airports pan handling many years ago. Same guy.


It has to do with human factors, as we all know if is almost impossible to change a first impression when you meet people. And this is the same human factors the propaganda game is made with, once they make a lie/mis-statement the correction is almost never read and thus the lie has a significant advantage in propagating.

Or, do they truly believe the information they print?

No they do not care, they jump the gun and just print it if it fits their propaganda MO.

Also a great book to read is by a righty “Blinded By the Right” he backs this up and he worked for Rev Moon and the Washington Times.

He was also paid a million dollars to use the lowest low life journalism standards to promote the righty cause. He spills the beans on how the right does it. He was a MAJOR part of it. In fact Rush and Newt and Clarence Thomas the Judge silvermen were his friends till he spilled the beans. Rush use to quote him all the time.


And if they do, how can that be explained when Zero Democrats have received money from Abramoff? As the Article above shows; some Democrats have been working with these Tribes long before Abramoff got involved

I think the numbers were the dems lost money once Abramoff got involved, a 4 percent decrease in what they were receiving overall, whereas the republicans went up 50% at least not including the nearly 70 million Abramoff was getting and doling out.

I think it's more subtle than this. The members of the "media" are human just like everyone else. They have their own version of reality and what is "objective". To make things worse, the near uniform liberal corporate culture of the mainstream media just reinforces this view; it doesn't draw into question any of their inherent biases, tendencies, or prejudgements.

I also think that many of them believe they have a "duty" to do what is "right" in their book. Unfortunately, in many cases this means promoting the liberal side of the story, demonizing the "conservative" side and in some cases, covering up or diminishing wrong-doing by those they feel culturally, socially, and politically aligned with; ie., liberals.

Abrahamoff is a non-story with respect to what's happening in the world and what has happened in Washington. It's like Abu Graib, Bush's "wiretapping", Cheney's hunting accident, or WMD's in Iraq; a manufactured politically-motivated story to push a particular world-view independent of context, history, or any sort of objective fairness.

Are the media people liars? No. But they sure aren't objective in any sense of the word. They are also seemingly intellectually lazy when it comes to challenging some of their OWN biases and beliefs since they tend to adopt group-think on almost EVERY issue that conforms to the modern liberal orthodox religion.

Yeah, well, speaking of "inherent biases, tendencies, or prejudgements" and a lack of objectivity, groupthink, covering up or diminishing wrong-doing by those they feel culturally, socially, and politically aligned and a distinct lack of objective fairness, did you actually read your following statement after writing it?



It would seem lordhelmet is not without a sense of irony. There's nothing quite like being accused of a lack of objectivity by somebody who hears no evil, sees no evil and denies any evil when it conflicts with his own "modern conservative orthodox religion."

I bolded my question to you. Can you explain this logic, that corporations who own the media would put out a product that would cost them business? If I remember from my college Finance courses that I aced the objective of the financial manager is to maximize shareholder wealth.

here is a link on how far a corporation is willing to go with getting their directed message out. Wal-Mart is hiring conservative bloggers....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/technolo....html?th&emc=th



I wonder how many military sponsored bloggers there are out there, ie military looks the other way when their employees blog on taxpayer time. In the real world they would be fired. I bet there are some in all major blogs.. Remember the supposed independent blogger that broke the memogate was a big wig republican operative.