home

The Deborah Howell Controversy

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:27:49 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I have yet to write a word about the Washington Post-Deborah Howell controversy. It got so ugly so fast and spread into such a malicious maelstrom and blogswarm, that I really didn't want to take part in it. The issue of whether Howell, the Post's Omsbudman, intentionally mis-stated last week that Jack Abramoff personally had contributed to Democrats as well as Republicans in an effort to make the corruption scandal appear bi-partisan, too quickly (for my taste) got overshadowed by obscenities and ridicule. The same happened with the secondary issue of WAPO shutting down comments on the topic at its blog.

Avedon Carol at Sideshow has now weighed in, and because I agree with her on both points, I'm chiming in to echo her sentiments. The first point : Good for Howell for apologizing, but in doing so, it appears she made another mis-statement. She admits Abramoff did not personally contribute to Democrats, but says he directed others, including his Indian tribe clients to contribute to Democrats.

Like Avedon, I haven't seen any evidence of that. And there is a good argument to be made that Abramoff's clients contributed less to Democrats after Abramoff began representing them. (Also see Armando on this point.)

The second point is that the ugly, profane and sexist attacks on Howell are just that....ugly, profane and sexist. I think they detract from the writers' underlying arguments. If you want to be taken seriously, fact-based refutations are far more successful, particularly when trying to reach those outside the choir.

And that's about all I have to say on the topic. For those who disagree with me, Jane at Firedoglake has been leading the troops on the topic, and I recommend all of her passionate posts.

< The Pentagon's Domestic Spy Program | FBI Investigates CA's Use of Prisoners As 'Peacekeepers' >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Deborah Howell Controversy | 40 comments (40 topical)
    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 10:17:11 AM EST
    josh marshall has some good stuff too. One point that he makes suggests that Howell is not unbiased. Her first posts at WaPo (last month) spearheaded an effort to get Froomkin's column clearly marked as opinion and not news in order to protect unsuspecting readers that he was not a WH news man. He also nails it by pointing out that all MSM goes out of their way to avoid ever being accused of having a liberal bias. Well worth a read. josh marshall

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 10:19:49 AM EST
    Josh Marshall has an interesting perspective on this, and I agree. It is time that people in e.g. the Washington Post get used to a firestorm from the Left when they make factual errors. It only serves to even the odds a bit back towards our neutrality. The Right have been very effective at this for a long time. As for profanity, etc., welcome to the internet.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 10:53:14 AM EST
    Deb Howell:
    My mistake set off a firestorm. I heard that I was lying, that Democrats never got a penny of Abramoff-tainted money, that I was trying to say it was a bipartisan scandal, as some Republicans claim. I didn't say that. It's not a bipartisan scandal; it's a Republican scandal, and that's why the Republicans are scurrying around trying to enact lobbying reforms.
    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    Wow I never thought the establishment media whores would be so upset over a bunch of stupid bloggers. I thought we had all been properly marginalized by now. Blog on people. To the NSA: I'm Che's Lounge and I approve of massage.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#3)
    by DonS on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:01:07 AM EST
    Atrios clearly explains why it is important to protest against the, even inadvertant or inattentive, way in which the media is coopted into regurgitating the administration line. Unfortunately, perception is reality in our media driven world, and those who create and reinforce perception cannot expect to be trusted just because they say they're trustworthy. They should expect intense scrutiny. KOS has a detailed post on the supposed deluge of profanity, showing its bs. [links deleted, not in html format and they skewed the site. Instructions are in comment box if you'd like to repost them.]

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#6)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:01:31 AM EST
    Howell also says that she has "lists" of Abramhoff directed contributions. Why not just publish these lists and end the controversy once and for all? Shades of Nixon and his pumpkin patch list

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    If Howell is honestly confused about the difference between a fraudster giving bribes, and the victims of a fraudster making legal campaign donations to politicians they've always supported, then she deserves to be sacked. In an earlier thread, JimAKAppj was linking to some diagrams that were supposed to explain Howell's claim that one-third of "Abramoff's money" was going to Democrats. Those diagrams were a perfect example of how to lie with statistics. The money that went to Democratic politicians as legal campaign contributions wasn't by any stretch Abramoff's money: he did not give money to the tribes to donate to Democrats. He didn't give money to the tribes at all: they gave money to him, enormous fees for which he often didn't do the work he was supposed to do. Howell - deliberately or out of ignorance - was running together all the money coming from Abramoff as the tribes representative, and the tribes themselves, and making no distinction either between money from the tribes or money from Abramoff, nor between legal donations and illegal bribes. If she failed to make these distinctions because she didn't comprehend that they were important, she deserves to be sacked for being too ignorant to be ombudsman: if she failed to make these distinctions because she wanted to make it look like the Democrats were also involved in the scandal, she deserves to be sacked for being too corrupt to be ombudsman.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#8)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:04:19 AM EST
    Howell did link to a partial cut and paste graphic that purports to show how much the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to donated to political campaigns in the 2002 election cycle Opensecrets.org shows that Max Cleland did not get the amount displayed - how many others are false?

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:18:57 AM EST
    The profanity argument is a red herring. It is a way for people to rationalize ignore you, but they were going to ignore you anyway. Absent the profanity, they would just come up with another rationalization. Anytime that the Washington Post wants to pay for my time to post a comment, to research the facts, and to guarantee me 2-6 column inches, I will happily remove the profanity. Until then, I will express my outrage to their inaccuracy, their bias, and their coverups on my own time, (and taking risks at work), as I see fit. Yes, it is a quick and easy drive-by. But they weren't listening anyway. Your honor, yes, the facts indicate that I punched them in the nose and then I refused to apologize for that, but they then shouted a profanity at me! Outrageous! I am such a victim! You must rule in my favor!

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#11)
    by Mike on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:29:28 AM EST
    I just wrote about the entire Howell thing as well. And I don't disagree with what you are saying in principle. But think about it. Didn't the "blogswarm" work? Doesn't it always? I compare it to negative campaigning. No one admits to liking it and it works marvelously.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:42:41 AM EST
    Another way I look at it is this. If we were having a conversation, I wouldn't curse. But when it's only a show conversation, and that they are not willing to converse with their readers, and they brag that it's a true conversation, and try to turn that show into power or prestige or traffic or advertising clicks, well then it's up to me in my limited time to crap on their website. They want power and traffic and advertising dollars for a sham? I want to drive that incentive down. They aren't looking for a conversation, they are looking for dollars and what they want is not a dialogue, what they want is an echo chamber. Fletcher: There's another old saying, Senator: Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:58:31 AM EST
    John Horse - The article was from the Washington Post and merely shows the money given to various politicans. Whether legal or not, the money was given. Period. And the money was given by the groups named to the politicans named. Period. If the Left thinks that the public thinks that the millions donated were done because the tribes just liked the various members then the Left is very misinformed. Washinton Post link. Et al - The tribes did not hire a lobbyist to ignore his advice. They gave what they gave to who they gave because of what they were told. A dollar is a dollar to the Repubs and to the Demos alike. And they all came from the same fountain. punisher quoted:
    Factual errors, distortions, and general misinformation on which those right wing narratives are hung are repeated over and over again both by right wing hacks and mainstream journalists...
    Change right wing to left wing and you have TANG and Rathergate. Ding7777 - Cleland is not on the Washinton Post graphic. Where is he swown besides opensecrets.org, and what shows that opensecrets is more accurate than the other source? et al - Anyway you cut it vulgar attack language detracts from the message. And I am sure the Repubs are happy to have it used by the Left. So go on and "feel good." That works for Karl.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 12:23:24 PM EST
    PPJ: Change right wing to left wing and you have TANG and Rathergate. Good point, Jim. Left and right should be in agreement that the media needs to get the facts straight.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 12:46:18 PM EST
    The tribes did not hire a lobbyist to ignore his advice. They gave what they gave to who they gave because of what they were told. A dollar is a dollar to the Repubs and to the Demos alike. And they all came from the same fountain. ...Wait. Jim, are you saying that the whole Abramoff scandal is really the fault of the Amerind tribal associations? "The same fountain" - the legal donations the tribes made to the Democratic and Republican congresspeople, the high fees they paid Abramoff: yes, they came from "the same fountain" - the tribes who were running casinos. Are you trying to whip up a moral scandal based on the horror of gambling? Unfortunately for the Republican party, Jim, the scandal isn't about what the tribes did with their money, or how they got it: it's about what Abramoff did, and how the Republican party got theirs. The bribes paid to politicians, and the money laundered through phony charities, those came from the same fountain: Abramoff. Who is in trouble both for giving bribes and for money laundering, and also with the tribes who paid his fees, because he didn't do what he was paid to do. In trying to claim that there is material for scandal in the tribes donating money - legally - to Democrats, you are trying to claim that the root of the scandal isn't Abramoff - it's the Amerind tribes who were running casinos. Which is rather foolish of you: neither they, nor the Democratic politicians who received their donations, were breaking the law.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ, the Post graphic you link to demonstrates only what money tribal groups gave to politicians. Whether true or not, it is utterly irrelevant without knowing how much of it, if any, was "directed" by Abramoff. The Post also showed a second graphic, which you don't link to, that purported to demonstrate a link. However, it was visibly doctored and did not agree with election commission reports. The Posts positions were absurd on the face of it. They apparently never talked to a single Indian about the issue. But why talk to ignorant redskins when you can get your talking points, er information, from white men? If you want a reasonably accurate accounting of the money, check out this Bloomberg story. Interestingly, it was written before Christmas, so it's not like accurate information wasn't available to the Post. They were a bunch of wankers over this story and deserved what they got.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 01:44:05 PM EST
    I didnt realize it was Indian tribes that were being investigated and charged - be sure and keep us posted on this developement Jim. And I could have used you at Christmas time to supplement the Christmas turky. Btw, your "fighter pilot" hero is going down faster than Ann Coulter at a Scaife Foundation weekend fundraiser,

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 01:46:19 PM EST
    et al - One more time. You are asking us to suspend reality and believe that the tribes hired Abramoff, gave him a ton of money in fees and then didn't take his advice on who to give their money. Sure. Uh-huh. That's right. No doubt. shargash - The WP article is straight forward. Nothing hidden. Who gave whar to who is well defined. No parsing. As Sgt Friday saud, "Just the facts, mam."

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 01:48:39 PM EST
    jondee - Abramoff has been charged with money laundering and tax evasion, not giving money to only Repubs. The issue is, what he and his clients were doing. Hope that clears it all up.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 02:02:37 PM EST
    In reality, tribes who gave $$ to Dems did so before they hired JA, after they hired JA, they gave less $$ to Dems. ONLY rethugs are under investigation, mainly because they changed their vote after the bribe. Giving $$ to political causes that already espouse your view is legal, giving $$ to change your vote is called 'bribery.'

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 02:14:30 PM EST
    Dont make me laugh. He's a Bush Pioneer who's former personal assistant is now Roves personal assistant. As I said, going down and going down fast. And lets see your evidence that the tribes money was Abramoffs money - if thats what your claiming.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 02:19:08 PM EST
    And as far as language goes, seeing as how a good percentage of your "base" is apparently illiterate, Im not overly concerned.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#23)
    by MikeDitto on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 02:43:53 PM EST
    Jim, I think I get your point. You're making it in kind of a partisan way, so I think it's getting lost. The pay for play system is not a Republican system. It's been around for a long time, but has exploded since the advent of unrestricted TV advertising, and exploded again when deregulation caused the cost of ads to skyrocket. It was well-entrenched in the Jim Wright congress in the late 80s, and the Democrats had created an environment in Congress where the body was essentially unipolar, and where power was created by who had the most money. As part of the Contract on America, the Gingrich congress was supposed to reform all of that. Among other things, Gingrich promised to allow amendments to bills to be introduced on the house floor once again. That promise lasted about a New York minute, and under the rising power of Tom DeLay and others it was basically quashed. When Gingrich left, all hell broke loose. DeLay took a corrupt system created in large part by the Democrats in the 1980s and amplified it about a hundred fold. What was once seen as a unipolar congress with little protection for the minority now seems like a bipartisan wonderland in hindsight. And the lukewarm and meaningless "reform" proposals presented by both parties to outlaw steak dinners and golf trips that were already illegal says a lot about how the congressional leadership in both parties wants this culture of corruption to live on. The Abramoff scandal is in fact a Republican scandal. But the response of both parties since it has come to light (and it came to light years before indictments were handed down) makes it absolutely a bipartisan scandal. They should all be voted out.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 02:49:55 PM EST
    Michael, I'm not sure that is the point Jim's making. (It's worth discussing, though.) What Jim seems to be saying is that the source of all the corruption is the tribal organizations, not Abramoff.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#25)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 04:01:33 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ I was using this graphic And yes, Max Cleland is listed on it as having $2000 directed to him (which opensecrets.org does not show). Opensecrets gets its info from FEC

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 04:50:04 PM EST
    Talk Left's moralizing on this one leaves me unmoved. The right figured out a long time ago that when the press doesn't push your narrative you come down on them like a ton of bricks. In this case, the left isn't even asking that Howell & the post push their narrative, only that they manage some semblence of competence. Does Ms. Howell feel bruised? Every so sorry. Maybe she will remember the response she got when she ignorantly pushed the Right's lies & pretended that they were journalism. No sympathy. She deserved everything she got.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 05:17:36 PM EST
    Jane, as usual, says it best:
    And the bottom line is this: when a news organization gets it wrong, they are going to be called on it -- as loudly and as often as it takes until they do the right thing and report honestly on the facts. The chips will fall where they fall -- but enabling corruption will not be tolerated in the face of clear, honest facts. Period.
    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 06:20:17 PM EST
    not giving money to only Repubs but he's been charged with bribing someone unnamed in his indictment who most people identify as Ney(R-Ohio). Also, nobody is saying that he should be charged with anything on the grounds that he gave money to only Republicans, so bringing up a straw man is fine if someone here needs one for their cabbage patch, but some people say that doesn't countribute to the understanding of anyone here.(or so we've been told)

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#29)
    by MikeDitto on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:32:48 PM EST
    J- the tribes are only a link in the chain of corruption. They, like all interest groups, are doing what they have to do in order to be heard. I'm sick of interest groups being demonized. People have, as their first right, the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. It just costs a helluva lot of money anymore to get yourself heard, which is a direct result of what it costs to become a representative of We the People. Either party could make a bold plan to change the way elections are financed, but all we hear is crickets chirping. But back on topic, Howell's error was bad. She should have just come out with a correction and avoided the backlash. The backlash was over the top, but it was to be expected. But beyond making a basic correction, Howell could have expanded her criticism to the complete absence of political will on both sides to enact real reform and correct a problem that is trans-partisan. And she didn't really do that, either--which tells me she's just not following the story enough, and probably shouldn't have made the comment to begin with.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#30)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:37:23 PM EST
    If the Left thinks that the public thinks that the millions donated were done because the tribes just liked the various members then the Left is very misinformed.
    If the Right thinks the public thinks "Hey, look over there!" is a defense then they are very misinformed. The Party of Jesus and the Rule of Law and Restoring Honor and Integrity said one thing and did another. No sleight-of-hand is going to change that fact.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#31)
    by MikeDitto on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 12:45:49 AM EST
    SSS you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The Republicans are in charge and they got that way by promising to clean up this mess, and instead they just made it much much worse and completely to their advantage. They are the ones who should pay a political price come November in terms of the balance of power. But I strongly recommend that people look at their Democratic congresspersons as well and see if a primary challenge might not be in order. After a scandal of this magnitude followed by no substantive response to fix it, no house seat should be considered safe.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 06:06:53 AM EST
    Michael Ditto - The only real solution is term limits. Get'em out of DC before the rot sets in. scar - The public thinks this is a "Washington" problem. The Demos attempt to blame the Repubs only makes them look bad. The WP article was spot on and defined the bi-partisanship of the giving and influence. ding7777 - Thanks. Now. Why do you think opensecrets.org is more accurate than the WaPost? I mean, this not the NY Times we're speaking about. ;-) Michael Ditto - I'm not blaming the tribes, just noting that they hired Abramoff as a lobbyists, and they gave money to he said give to. He is the Fountain. et al - If you want to see why various people got money, and others did not, go to this link and you will get a state by state breakdown of where, and how many, indian casinos are located. Washington, for example, has 16. When you start to try and control what people do not see as a crime or problem, the results are are easy to predict. Want to go have a drink at the Speakeasy anyone?

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#33)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:42:13 AM EST
    JimakaPP opensecrets.org (The Center for Responsive Politics) is a non-partisan, non-profit research group. google could have provided that info for you

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 09:21:09 AM EST
    atrios has posted interviews with Howell from 1992. Perhaps she was born again or developed an allergy to, er...profanity, but she sure was comfortable pumping out words that now only "the unwashed masses" use. I can not quote her here due to TL policy, but go see what she said then. I read much of the comments before WaPo deleted them and they were not as nasty as they said they were.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 09:23:18 AM EST
    here is the link

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:20:19 PM EST
    Dark Avenger - The tribes hired a lobbyist. He told them who to pay. They paid. Some Demos, some Repubs. You can't get around that simple, easy to understand, point. ding7777 - And you could have provided a link. Really, I wasn't picking on you when I asked. And I have no doubt opensecrets is a wonderful organization with the best intentions. But what does that have to do with being more accurate than the Washungton Post? squeaky - The issue isn't what she knew. I would guess we all know the words, and that we all have used, use and will use, the words. It is about time and place. Vulgar language may be ignored and even somewhat accepted in the locker room, but not in the grocery store checkout line. But keep it up. Karl appreciates it. And O'Reilly made a whole spot on it tonight. Way to go!

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:37:11 PM EST
    PPJ: ...O'Reilly made a whole spot on it tonight. I hope that Democrats don't spend too much time worrying about what O'Reilly might do a segment on.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 07:49:11 PM EST
    BTW, Jim, out here on the West coast O'Reilly's not on for another 1/2 hour! Please no spoilers! And that goes double if Greta Van Susteren ever figures out what happened to Holloway girl!

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#40)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:15:10 PM EST
    Dark Avenger - The tribes hired a lobbyist. He told them who to pay. They paid. Some Demos
    Every tribe who paid dems had already paid dems BJ*. After JA they paid less money to dems. Get it? Got it. Good! *before jack. Why ... what were you thinking;-)

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 10:31:04 PM EST
    Dark Avenger - The tribes hired a lobbyist. He told them who to pay. They paid. Some Demos, some Repubs. And the amounts paid to the Demos were 30 to 36% of the total, the Repubs got 70 to 64% of the total, but you attempt to make it seem equal by using the word some. Also, said lobbyist handed out contrabutions to Republicans only. So to paraphrase you, some Republicans, no Demos were the direct recipients of JA's 'generosity'. You can't get around that simple, easy to understand, point. Sailor just set fire to your point, you might want to clean up the ashes and move on. The simple point you keep evading and failing to recognize is: The only folks who are threatened by having a direct connection to Abramoff are Republicans. Nobody who only received tribal contributions are in legal peril from having done so. Gotta link to disprove me? No? That's what I thought.

    Re: The Deborah Howell Controversy (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 08:47:48 PM EST
    For all of you who missed the hate speech and profanity in response to Howell's hack lie(s), well it looks like there was none, or maybe 12 out of 1500. Unbelievable cyber sleuth jukeboxgrad over at kos proves beyond a doubt that the offensive posts were ones that were just inconveniently politically embarrassing to her. I have never read anything quite like his diary. Everything is backed up with archived material, a technology Howell obviously did not know existed. Had she known she would never risked blatantly lying about the content of the 1500 commenters to her post. She has been caught and needs to set the record straight. Oh, the I Love Lucy segment is a must see. via jane hamsher at fdl

    The Deborah Howell Controversy | 40 comments (40 topical)