The Associated Press reported Thursday that Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has much stronger ties to former lobbyist Jack Abramoff than had been previously believed. Yet, most of the mainstream media have ignored this stunning revelation suggesting that, contrary to press assertions, this isn’t just a Republican scandal.
According to AP: “Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid portrays convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's activities as involving only Republicans. But Abramoff's billing records and congressional correspondence tell a different story."
The article continued: “The activities -- detailed in billing records and correspondence obtained by The Associated Press -- are far more extensive than previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners and clients.”
Yet, according to LexisNexis, none of the broadcast networks reported this on their evening programs on Thursday. This is quite surprising, as all three networks have done at least 25 stories including the name “Abramoff” in their various news programs just this year. I guess a story that would tie one of the most powerful Democrats to this corrupt lobbyist just wasn’t considered newsworthy by the various producers at ABC, CBS, and NBC.
The New York Times apparently felt the same way. It published two articles about Abramoff today. But, neither referred to Reid’s involvement with the lobbyist. Instead, one Times article discussed e-mail messages received by the editor of the Washingtonian magazine from Abramoff that “cast doubt on Mr. Bush's insistence that he does not recall the two of them meeting.” The second piece placed on B3 addressed lobbying loopholes in state legislatures, with a reference to Abramoff’s national activities. However, the Times’ editors must have come to the conclusion that its readers wouldn’t be interested in knowing about Sen. Reid’s involvement with the disgraced lobbyist.
USA Today shared this view, for according to LexisNexis, it didn’t print anything about Abramoff in today’s print edition either.