As NewsBusters editor Matthew Sheffield recently wrote, the John Edwards scandal demonstrates why the public is moving to the Web for news. A big reason for the public relying more and more on the Web for news is that the blogosphere is willing to do the investigative footwork that the mainstream media often neglects. A perfect illustration of this are the revelations made today by the DBKP blog about the suspicious aircraft leasing arrangements made by John Edwards' moneyman, Fred Baron:
John Edwards and Fred Baron have had a close relationship over the last ten years. Both Edwards and Baron are successful trial attorneys and both shared the dream of seeing John Edwards elected President.
Both may, at some point, want to share some information on campaign travel billings.
A DBKP reader, known only as "Phil Ander", did some independent research into the Edwards' campaign's use of Baron's private jet and turned up some interesting information--and more questions. The research must have taken some time to compile--it took two of us some time just to confirm and follow its weaving, winding trail.
And that willingness to follow "its weaving, winding trail," is something the MSM often fails to do because of bias. The Edwards scandal is now something they hope just goes away so as not to interfere with Barack Obama's campaign and his upcoming coronation at the Democrat convention. So let us now look at the material that the DBKP blog dug up:
The information on the Internet does not jibe. There is probably a logical explanation but it is not apparent.
1. Reports filed by the Edwards campaign show many (apparently 128) payments for “airfare” to Frederick Baron (Federal Election Commission, fec.gov; opensecrets.org). There are more airfare payments to Frederick Baron than any other airfare payee.2. There appears to be only one entry for airfare payment to Baron & Budd, of $2,517, according to the Open Secrets website.3. Baron’s full name is Frederick Martin Baron. He lives in Dallas, TX (Wikipedia entry for Fred Baron, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Baron; website for Baron’s charitable foundation, Baron & Blue Foundation, baronandbluefdn.org).
4. Baron’s Wikipedia page and many news items on the internet state the campaign paid Fred Baron $1.1 million (or other substantial figures, depending on the date reported) to rent his Hawker 800 private jet.
5. FAA records and other sites, such as aircraftdata.net, do not show any aircraft - - whether a Hawker 800 or other aircraft - - registered in the name of Fred or Frederick M. Baron. Two planes are registered to a Fred N. Baron in Garberville, CA. Neither is a Hawker 800. Fred N. Baron seems to be unconnected to Fred/Frederick M. Baron of Dallas, TX.
6 The Hawker 800, formerly manufactured by Raytheon, is now the BAE 125 Series 800, manufactured by British Aerospace and assembled by Hawker Beechcraft, according to the Wikipedia page, Hawker 800 ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_800). 7. A BAE 125 800, N-number 178AX, has been registered to Baron & Budd since January 2006, FAA online aircraft registration data shows.
8. Fred Baron and his wife, Lisa Blue, sometimes known as Lisa Baron, left Baron & Budd in 2002 and litigation ensued between the Barons and the firm. Neither Fred Baron nor Lisa Blue are listed as lawyers at Baron & Budd’s website, baronandbudd.com. It seems unlikely the firm’s BAE 125 a/k/a Hawker 800 is leased to or actually owned by the Barons.
If there are no registration records for an aircraft in Fred Baron’s name, why is the campaign paying Frederick Baron for airfare?If Fred Baron’s ownership is through a corporation, why were the payments listed repeatedly to him instead of the corporation?
Assuming there is error, and Fred Baron does, in fact, own a Hawker 800 (or BAE 125 800), why would he engage in the business of leasing it and receiving substantial income in his individual name rather than doing business through a corporation for liability and tax reasons? He is a lawyer and would know to consider a corporation for doing business. He set up a not-for-profit corporation for his charitable foundation, Baron & Blue, so it seems like he would also set up a corporate entity for his aircraft leasing business and require all payments to be made to it.
If a payment were made erroneously to the individual rather to the business once or twice, it could be a simple error, but it seems unusual that dozens of payments would be paid to Baron individually.
Would there not be a difference in accounting for income and being able to deduct expenses for an individual and a corporation?
Would it be possible, if payments were made to an individual for jet leasing, that excess funds could be paid without easy detection and then passed on to other parties?
On the other hand, it seems such an obvious mistake that surely there is some mistake by the campaign in reporting or by Edwards and Baron, both lawyers.Did Fred Baron personally pay income on the $1.1 million jet lease payments?Is it possible to obtain flight records to determine how payments were applied to flights?
Can the campaign provide a copy of the contract with Fred Baron for jet leasing and cancelled checks made in payment?
Is it possible to compare flight expense data of Edwards’ campaign with other candidates to see if the expenses are in the ballpark?
Does anyone have information on a Hawker 800 or other aircraft owned by Fred/Frederick M. Baron, including registration, N-number (the tail number?) and photos?On a different topic, if Midline Groove was paid in excess of $114,000 for video production pursuant to a contract, did Midline Groove or the campaign pay Rielle Hunter’s hotel and meals expenses on the road?
Can the campaign provide a contract to make clear how those expenses were paid and to clear up other questions about the services provided?
These questions might be the starting point for the enterprising MSM reporter, when next Fred Baron or John Edwards surfaces to face the press.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Matthew
August 20, 2008 - 08:37 ET by ricklailI know that the Raleigh N&O is not a national mainstream paper but they have done quiet a bit of reporting on this. It really surprised me because they used to be the water boy for Edwards. This is the article that got me to believe they have had enough of him.
Be kind to your kids. They'll be choosing your nursing home.
The sucess of the
August 20, 2008 - 08:56 ET by NewsbusterbrownThe sucess of the blogosphere is why there are some calls to add them to the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" debate, which is even more ludicrous and indefensible than trying to curtail free speech on the airwaves.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Credit should go
August 20, 2008 - 09:04 ET by sarcasmoTo "Phil Ander," if only for the humor value. But The Enquirer is also still on the job.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Incorrect Conclusion
August 20, 2008 - 09:10 ET by Remixer96P.J,
While I think you have a point in your article, I think you also draw an incorrect conclusion from it.
You assert, correctly in my opinion, that bloggers and the like have taken up some of the slack in investigative journalism. You then provide the Edwards case as an example.
However, I don't think your conclusion, "A big reason for the public relying more and more on the web for news is that the blogosphere is willing to do the investigative footwork that the mainstream media often neglects," follows from your example.
First, you provide only this single example of a case unfollowed by MSM. A single example does not an argument make, but given the length of posts, I don't find this to be the most important argument.
Second, I think extrapolating from one case to the generalization that MSM "neglects" investigative footwok is invalid. I would argue instead that they do a good deal of it, just on stories they find to be important. THEN bias comes into play in the selection of stories, but not in their follow through. After all, the reports on CIA black sites, Guantanamo, and the like were very thorough. Your charge of bias as it stands reads more as a charge of incompetence than bias, which I think is incorrect.
Third, I think the primary reason people are flocking to the web has to do with increased choice. People can choose what they want to see far more freely on the web than on tv. As a whole, the Internet is known for this, far more so than its rigorous standards in fact checking. As such, I would argue that increased investigative reporting, at least at this time, is not the key reason people are getting more news from the web than television.
MSM Bias
August 20, 2008 - 09:28 ET by P.J. GladnickA single case? I'm focusing on the Edwards scandal because that is the latest scandal. Remember the Lewinsky scandal? That was broken on the WEB by the Drudge report. Also I'm not accusing the MSM of incompetence on the Edwards scandal. I'm declaring them to be neglectful due to bias. They were forced to report on the scandal because of the heat from the National Enquirer and the web but now they just want it to go away for the most part.
Right now the MSM is more concerned about investigating the "cone of silence" than the Edwards scandal.
That's right Gladnick
August 20, 2008 - 09:36 ET by Cool ArrowDrudge found out NEWSWEEK was sitting on a story disparaging of Billy Boy. (notice, "sitting on" means "not reporting")
I forgot all about that.
I ♣ my seal
Impressed
August 20, 2008 - 10:34 ET by Remixer96P.J.,
First, I'm impressed you responded. It's appreciated, believe it or not.
I wasn't politically conscious when the Lewinsky scandal broke, but if the nearest reference that you can cite where the web broke an investigative story better than MSM is the Lewinsky scandal, then I think that doesn't speak too strongly to your point of current shifts towards web news consumption.
And let's not forget all the false investigation that turns up on the Internet as well, such as the "faked" certificate of live birth.
If you didn't intend to call MSM incompetent, then I apologize. However, when I read about a mainstream unwillingness to follow "weaving, winding trails" then I hear an accusation against professional competency, not simply bias.
And again, I agree that MSM can certainly and many times is neglectful due to bias, such as with the cone of silence story.
Remixer...
August 20, 2008 - 09:52 ET by ontheright...surely you jest, and must be very, very new here.
This is only one in a long, long list of stories where the MSM has dropped the ball while practising bias by omission.
Keep your eye on the prize and you will see it ad nauseum.
Again
August 20, 2008 - 10:36 ET by Remixer96ontheright,
Again, bias by omission is something I agree MSM does, but I read PJ's article as an accusation of unwillingness to fully investigate stories, which is something I see as a question of competence.
Sigh!
August 20, 2008 - 11:07 ET by P.J. GladnickSigh! As I stated. NOT a matter of competence. More of BIAS. But keep reading NewsBusters you will find a lot of stories about MSM unwillingness to investigate Democrats. Also we have the issue of omitting party labels when reporting scandals. Guess which party's label is deleted in scandal reports?
I just vomited in my mouth
August 20, 2008 - 11:59 ET by Bender@Remixer96
I just vomited in my mouth a little from reading your post.
From the tone of your post, you are obviously a reporter living in a journalistic white tower.
The very reason 'Newsbusters' was created was to document the daily non-stop journalistic malpractice that comes from the liberal/socialist/unpatriotic/traitorous (e.g. NYT)/marxist/alternative lifestyle/religion hating/Boy Scout mocking/ (take your pick - longer list available) MSM.
One example you say? How about thousands?
You conveniently ignored the fact that public opinion polls rate journalists lower than child molesters (hyperbole of course). I wonder why that would be if the profession was so 'unbiased' and did its job fairly and accurately?
While I disagree with your assessment of 'reality', I welcome your discussion.
Incorrect Conclusion?
August 22, 2008 - 04:31 ET by mondorebI agree to some degree with your points; however, on this particular story, there was no investigative footwork done in the MSM prior to late July. There are admissions many places in the MSM for their failure to investigate, as well as excuses for it.
Back in December, there were a few blogs following up on the Enquirer's reporting of the many facts the tabloid laid out in the December edition of the story. There were no mentions of this in any MSM outlet.
None. Zip. Nada.
From November 29, 2007 until July 24, 2008, Edwards never had to answer one question on the record about any of the facts in the Enquirer story. I might add that personally, DBKP had over 30 stories in the same time frame--and a couple small scoops over everyone. Doug Ross also carried regular coverage into January and after.
This was due to slogging through records that any MSM reporters could have accessed, but didn't. The fact that several items, reported in December by Ross and DBKP, were confirmed in August, within days of Edwards giving the MSM the okay to report on the story, is proof of this, I think.
Once more, I'll point out that the most searched-for term during periods of late December was "Rielle Hunter". Why was this so?
MSM news consumers never heard those two words anywhere in the MSM until late July. News consumers searched the Internet because it was the only place they could obtain news on this topic.
If this is the "choice" you're referring to--the choice between obtaining information and the choice to remain in the dark--I agree with practically your entire comment.