Amanda Carpenter has an interesting little blurb over at Townhall.com where she reports on Townhall's catching the Washington Post misidentifying three donors as McCain contributors when, in reality, these donors did not donate to the McCain campaign at all. It seems some due diligence was dropped at the Washington Post, for sure. Good thing the new media was there to correct the story!
In his story headlined "Bundler Collects from Unlikely Sources," the Post's Matthew Mosk thought he had a way to insinuate that McCain was taking campaign donations from some "unlikely" Muslims. Mosk detailed what he thought was the campaign donations from three people, Ibrahim Marabeh, and Nadia and Shawn Abdalla, each with Muslim sounding names, that he claimed donated to the McCain campaign through a campaign "bundler" named Harry Sargeant III -- a bundler being a campaign supporter that goes out and gathers many donations from friends and associates for his candidate of choice.
Mosk apparently thought that Harry Sargeant III was suspicious because he owns an oil-trading company and the three others apparently seemed suspicious merely because of the sound of their names. But at her Townhall blog, Carpenter discovered in short order than none of the four donors in the Washington Post story donated to the McCain campaign at all.
Mosk also tried to shoehorn into the story the tale of disgraced Clinton "bundler" Norman Hsu, who was "indicted in part on charges of circumventing legal giving limits by routing contributions though 'straw donors,'" even though there are no allegations of likewise illegalities with Mr. Sargeant's campaign donations. As if merely mentioning Hsu was enough to tar Sergeant as "unlikely" regardless of the lack of connection or similarities between the two.
As soon as the Post piece came out Carpenter wondered where the Post got its evidence of the donations.
Since this information is not easily found, the WaPo should have explained where it came from in their story. Or it could be, this is just simply not true. And if that's the case they should apologize to the McCain campaign and promptly post a correction online and in tomorrow's paper.
And only hours after the Townhall piece, the Post suddenly appended a correction to the Mosk story.
An earlier version of this story about campaign donations that Florida businessman Harry Sargeant III raised for Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton incorrectly identified three individuals as being among the donors Sargeant solicited on behalf of McCain. Those donors -- Rite Aid manager Ibrahim Marabeh, and lounge owners Nadia and Shawn Abdalla -- wrote checks to Giuliani and Clinton, not McCain. Also, the first name of Faisal Abdullah, a McCain donor, was misspelled in some versions of the story.
The power of the new media shows itself again.
But consider this: Carpenter just used a publicly available resource to track campaign donations to see that Mosk's claims were suspect. Was this so hard for Mosk and the editors of the Post to do? We all make mistakes, of course, but what does this say of the editorial work at the Post?
(Photo credit: Maryland Public Television)



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Misidentifies?
August 7, 2008 - 02:16 ET by Cool ArrowWarner, I believe the term you were looking for is racial stereotyping.
Looks like a clear cut case of Libs secretly hating Muslims to me.
Well...
August 7, 2008 - 02:27 ET by Warner Todd HustonI'll let you guys come right out and say what I was thinking!
Thanks, WTH
August 7, 2008 - 02:39 ET by Cool ArrowI just knew there was a reason behind that softball headline.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
LOL
August 7, 2008 - 02:48 ET by Warner Todd HustonLOL, I try to leave the more "direct" speaking for my personal blog at www.Publiusforum.com!
Hey Barnicle!!
August 7, 2008 - 05:24 ET by motherbeltThere go those "crazy" bloggers again!!
Matthew Mosk
August 7, 2008 - 05:34 ET by PShannonMosk is an active associate of the Obama Campaign.
Mosk
August 7, 2008 - 05:44 ET by Cool ArrowSo the Obama camp wants the word out the Obama will even kick allah to the curb for his cause.
This sounds eerily familiar.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
See, they have layers and
August 7, 2008 - 07:05 ET by benrandSee, they have layers and layers, upon layers, of editorial staff that can sift through stories like these, page one stories, big important stories, and help get the facts of the story correct.
There are schools that educate them in the extremely arudous task of finding facts and disproving erroneous conclusions.
What a wonderful, marvelous job they do. I am so glad that they consider themselves the controllers of what my opinions will be.
Thank you fine journalists and editors. You do SUCH GREAT WORK!!!
This Was a Page One Story
August 7, 2008 - 07:06 ET by cjbreischThis was a page one story. Complete with photos of McCain.
Let that sink in for a minute.
This is no better than "Rathergate", and the fact that it's getting as little attention as it is speaks volumes about how new media is starting to feel about old media.
Ho hum. Another fake story from old media trying to hurt a Republican Presidential candidate. But hey, what's going on with Brett Favre?
This is about protecting Obama
August 7, 2008 - 07:22 ET by amberObama is having serious issues with campaign contributions so the media is trying to find anything they can on McCain. That is all this is about.
Obama's most recent? He sent "Obama for President" shirts to Gaza and they were sold for a profit of over $30,000 and the Obama campaign accepted the donations from that. Later Obama said they returned the money, but the t-shirt sellers said they never received any of it back. There are many questionable contributions. Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs has been researching Obama's FEC documents.
Good thing the name MOSK has
August 7, 2008 - 07:35 ET by SickofLibsGood thing the name MOSK has no Muslim implications.
I am now leaving for 9 am Mass at my cherch.
UPDATE: NYT Jumps on Discredited Story
August 7, 2008 - 12:14 ET by cjbreischFrom the "You have got to be kidding me" department:
http://www.nytimes.c...
Apparently The Washington
August 7, 2008 - 12:32 ET by needleApparently The Washington Post, but not Matthew Mosk, has admitted to making these mistakes. However, apparently there has been no apology to anyone. Has there been any explanation for how these so-called facts appeared out of nowhere, or are we entitled to assume Mr. Mosk was inventing lies wholesale and using the WaPo as a vehicle for broadcasting disinformation?
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.