Writing in the "Swampland" blog for Time magazine today, Karen Tumulty insisted the U.S. attorney firings deserved "massive commitment of journalistic resources" before going on to cite a study showing that media attention in the past few weeks has skewed heavily towards the non-scandal scandal:
... And before all our commenters jump on me, let me stipulate: I think the unfolding U.S. Attorneys story is a huge one, it deserves a massive commitment of journalistic resources, it is not likely to go away any time soon and I'm skeptical that Alberto Gonzales is going to survive it. I also believe that history has shown us many times that the broadest measures of public interest are a lagging indicator of the significance of a story. Finally, the blogosphere deserves huge credit for leading the way on it.
Translation: "the public don't know it yet, but this is an important story, we're going to make it an important story, and, kudos to liberal bloggers for making a fuss over it."
In 1993, Time magazine didn't show the same interest in blowing up the Clinton/Reno firings into a story the public would care about. [continued...]
MRC/NB's Tim Graham did some digging in Time magazine's coverage as archived by Nexis and found anything but "massive" coverage from Time. In fact, the magazine practically surpressed yawns over possible political calculations behind the firings :
April 5, 1993 edition:
Last Tuesday, after being on the job only 11 days, Attorney General Janet Reno had the Justice Department moving and shaking. She requested the prompt resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys around the country "to build a team" that represents "my views" and those of the President. Although expected eventually, the move triggered alarms at the Washington prosecutorial office, which has been probing the finances of a key Democratic floor captain, House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski. Reno insists there was "no linkage"' between the dismissals and the probe, which insiders say will continue.
April 12, 1993 edition:
WHEN U.S. ATTORNEY JAY STEPHENS RESIGNED FROM HIS POST under pressure from the Clinton Administration last week, he complained that his departure could impede the investigation of alleged corruption in the House post office as well as alleged wrongdoing by House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski. But Justice Department sources confirm the case is set to move ahead without Stephens. Prosecutors are 30 to 60 days away from announcing the indictments of a former Congressman and a former top-ranking official at the House post office.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Per your translation - who is
March 27, 2007 - 14:52 ET by FastEdPer your translation - who is doing the reporting? Bloggers or "journalists"? And our interest is lagging because we haven't been subjected to wall-to-wall coverage yet.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I don't much care if they c
March 27, 2007 - 15:07 ET by heldmywI don't much care if they cover it 24/7 with bloody gloves and white Bronco chase.
It's just not much of a story.
The inconvenient business of "serve at the pleasure of the President" pretty much caps it, and whether or not these 8 people were sacked for political reasons, or someone just didn't like the shape of their head is of zero concern.
Huff, puff, stomp and rave MSM. It's a pathetic little do-nothin'.
Perhaps you should move on to the raising of the old Equal Rights Amendment? Not THERE's a zombie that will entertain you!
the "new" time? s
March 27, 2007 - 15:12 ET by buddycthe "new" time? sounds like maggie carlson could have written this comment!
just another on a long list of reasons to ignore time.
At the pleasure of the Presid
March 27, 2007 - 15:16 ET by rimskyAt the pleasure of the President.. USA's are political appointments.. Clinton fired ALL 93 in office at time when he first took office, and under much more suspicious circumstances than those of the 8 being fired now..
No matter how many times we may say these things, all the left has to do is trot out their professional appearance makers, and part time senators (especially Schumer) so they can spout off the talking points for the evening news so that it continues to be a story. Repeat nothing often enough and it morphs into something.
I think Time knew - but Time made a decision.
March 27, 2007 - 15:31 ET by Gary HallHi Ken - I agree --- don't have time today to dig, however. Did you and Tim look at Time's April 4th 1994 piece, "Into the Line of Fire," which revisits the 1993 firings after laying out:
The last paragraph surely indicates that indeed many journalists indeed might have felt that "a massive commitment of journalistic resources" were waranted (and needed) HOWEVER, in the end, as you noted - there was little interest within the broad media (and at Time) in involving the puplic in any of it -- doing what they would never pass up on the other side of the isle, so they hold it all in (just like Eason Jordan did). I quote that closing paragraph:
Well, the public cares - if and when they know of it.
PS - an aside - the piece also mentions Mac Mclarty, Clinton's Chief of Staff then. One would wonder if the media would ever revisit the 90's Frontline production of the Oklahoma gas scandal (McClarty and Ron Brown (and family), etc.) I think I still have it on tape - Of course "The Fixers" got an hour on Public TV - but the media had little interest. Oh, what the people don't know. Great piece today - thanks, gary.
American justice
March 27, 2007 - 16:44 ET by SportPoliticsAmerican justice.
Yeah, it makes me sick Gary. No wonder it's not often brought up. Just think how many of the democrats are filthy thieves and criminals. I guess it's a holdover from the days of mafia assisted elections and union break the kneecaps lines. And drug and prostitution trafficking. And the Louisiana pay to play bribery protection racket, and the drown your sexpartner while drunk and the wife is home pregnant get out of it free card.
Yep, that last example is really something. Their big daddy is a manslaughter evading drunken lawyer friended up expired drivers license schwimmer....
lol - I do not wonder why the democrats all think, and all try to get away with it, all the time. Quite obviously they often do get away with it.
The "dead story", of course it is a democrat:
[
Starting in the 1990s, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) chose an unusual way to funnel federal funds into his poverty-ridden district. He set up a network of nonprofit organizations to administer the millions of dollars he directed to such public endeavors as high-tech research and historic preservation.
Over the same period, Mollohan's personal fortunes soared. From 2000 to 2004, his assets grew from no more than $565,000 to at least $6.3 million. The partners in his rapidly expanding real estate empire included the head of one of these nonprofit groups and the owner of a local company for which he arranged substantial federal aid. ]
Not over the same period. You correctyour own mistake in the next sentence...but it at least made it "seem plausible without collusion", since you said over the same time period - denoting "the 1990's" ...
The subtle wordings that "help" the democrat thief along are not to be left unprinted.
Ronald Reagan often told the
March 27, 2007 - 15:38 ET by KC MulvilleRonald Reagan often told the story of the boy who received the pile of manure for his birthday, and was overjoyed because he was certain that with so much manure, there had to be a pony somewhere. Here, the liberal news media is creating the pile in the first place, but then (in their delusion), they believe that there must be a pony (i.e., a scandal) somewhere.
The worst lie is the lie you tell yourself.
It’s even worse when you believe it.
Here's some manure KC
March 27, 2007 - 16:55 ET by SportPoliticsPlenty of crap to go around here KC:
May 15th, 2006 - last time WaPo could bring their lib jackasses in line enough to cover the criminal democrat,but they whined more about Abramoff... rofl - they really suck.
Alan B Mollohan - disgraced democrat - former ethics committee chair... and free reigning criminal.
[ "Mollohan has earmarked tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners. That immediately raises the question whether these funds were allocated to promote the public good or to promote his interests and the interests of his partners," said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative watchdog group. "He also got very rich very quick, and that suggests a relationship that is suspect if not corrupt."]
Gee, ya think the dems re-elected him ?
[ Mollohan is now engaged in the most arduous election of his career. Republicans have recruited Chris Wakim, a state legislator and Persian Gulf War veteran, to run against him]
Did they re-elect him... I bet they did.
If we are to understand the D
March 27, 2007 - 15:45 ET by GalvanicIf we are to understand the Dem elites and their MSM mimickers, it is totally okay to fire all 93 US Attorneys at one time for no reason other than to put your own team on the field (Clinton/Reno). They acknowledge that this is political, and within the authrotiy of the Executive Branch.
But there's something wrong if you fire 8 of the 93 US Attorney you appointed because you want to make a change (Bush/Gonzales). They claim that Bush and Gonzales were acting politically (yeah, okay, so?), though they have yet to show how they acted illegally or unConstituitionally.
And Tumulty wants the MSM to throw all its weight into this one? What am I missing here?
Hey, I'd love to see the Dems take this on up to the Supreme Court. It'll be DOA, because those attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.
legs
March 27, 2007 - 16:27 ET by iveseenitallNo legs to this story yet, Mr. "Journalist"? Come on, create some "news". How else are we going to nail Bush? Meet me in the parking garage at midnight.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
You're missing a lot, Galvani
March 27, 2007 - 17:07 ET by waka wakaYou're missing a lot, Galvanic. Firing for political reasons at the beginning of a term like Reagan, Clinton, Bush did is fine. Firing because the attorneys are not indicting Democrats on trumped-up "voter fraud" charges or because they're indicting too many corrupt Republicans is not.
Throw in repeated lies about the true reasons for the firings (see above), and you've got yourself one heck of a scandal. But don't take my word for it. Ask Monica Goodling, who's PLEADING THE FIFTH! Ask Gone-zo, who had one doozy of an uncomfortable roundtable discussion today sitting beside Patrick Fitzgerald.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
I hope they ALL plead the 5th.
March 27, 2007 - 17:28 ET by SportPoliticsI hope they ALL plead the 5th. That would be justice for the stupid lying coven of democrats.
DO IT - ALL OF YOU PLEAD THE 5TH. HAVE INSTANT MEMORY LOSS OF EVERYTHING.
The democrats are going about trying to "make someone create a crime", because they do not have one, and cannot name one. That's how ******ed stupid you people are.
If Washington players aren't onto that, maybe they need to be railroaded.
" There's no crime here, but if we harrass and impugn people enough with our power, we can surely get them to do something we can label a crime. Then we can use the courts to harrass them some more. It's only a matter of time before we squeeze blood out of this turnip.The commies would be proud. "
" I'm a liberal twerp jerkoff. I believe that if you make use of the bill of rights, it means you are a guilty criminal and should be convicted, even though I cannot name a crime, even a statute that could apply. Eventually we will have our facsist government and all the power to harrass everyone. 1-9-8-4 down and out. "
What you're missing Galvanic
March 27, 2007 - 17:18 ET by SportPoliticsWhat you're missing Galvanic: It's legal, just, and honorable for demolibs to take radical measures to institute their dogma of criminals are sick and need help into the government machine.
On the other hand, republicans that demand obeying the law and being punished if you don't, are so far off how things should be, that the very idea that they institute their own policies should be a crime.
It is illegal to be a republican.
From what I understand, some
March 28, 2007 - 09:22 ET by GalvanicFrom what I understand, some firings were to replace the office holders with more favored lawyers. Hey, that's the spoils system. In at least Carol Lam's case, for over 3 yearss she had ignored DoJ guidance to prosecute human-smugglers (aka coyotes), and though she was good on the big cases, she failed to administer policy from the top. That's also a legitimate reason to fire someone.
The Dems have deliberately clouded the discussion by accusing the WH of tampering with the "judicial process," as if Bush and company has strayed into that realm of Constitutional government reserved for the Judicial branch. But that's just not true.
As for pleading the Fifth, I'm sure many will do so after watching the Scooter Libby episode. Though no crime was ever proven to be committed in the Plame episode, Libby got caught changing his story in a case where the prosecutor already had all the answers. These DoJ underlings may fear the same trap.
The money quote of this sto
March 27, 2007 - 16:27 ET by motherbeltThe money quote of this story is:
the
unfolding U.S. Attorneys story... [ ]... is not likely to go away any
time soon...
That's not a guess, that's a promise. Tumulty and others will see to that.
mushroom
March 27, 2007 - 22:47 ET by Jerry MackIf there is no story, invent one. The mushrooms must be fed their daily dose of "Get Bush".
After only a few months, th
March 28, 2007 - 00:54 ET by radiofitz34After only a few months, the Democratic majority is acting exactly like a disfunctional family. Spending weeks passing non-binding bills about the war, starting investigation after investigation, threatening to cut off funding for the war, setting time tables to end the war, calling for impeachment of Bush, wanting to add 24 billion in pork to that military spending bill. Gosh if you didn't know any better, you would think they are ....communists.