« A "Historic" Compromise | Main | And I'm Obsessed, Dammit! »
January 19, 2007
A Tale of Two Articles
There are two John Edwards stories in the Washington Post today. One is on the front page, above the fold, and it concerns his house. His former house. in an article heavy on insinuation and light on, well, anything, we learn that Edwards' real estate agent has, after 18 months, sold his Georgetown home below its asking price to a corporate executive who's engage in union busting and possible stock fraud. At no point does it appear, or is it said, or is it even suggested that the buyer knew Edwards, that Edwards knew the buyer, or that anything occurred between these two men save for their real estate intermediaries conducting a property sale.
The other is in the back of the A section, on the op-ed page, beneath EJ Dionne's byline. EJ notes that Edwards is the only Democrat offering honest analysis of the tradeoffs between deficit reduction and social investment. In it, Edwards admits he wants to increase the capital gains tax because he believes "it's wrong to tax income from work at a higher rate than income from capital -- an extension of his long-standing theme that the country should not value 'wealth over work.'" He argues for rolling back the cuts for the rich and admits "prepared to disappoint voters who make a balanced budget their top priority: in favor of universal health care and renewable energy investment.
Now, which of these articles is a straightforward reporting of fact and which, at its base, is an opinion piece? Dionne's column would appear to report the policy preferences of a leading Democratic candidate for president. The front pager appears to insinuate that the sale of John Edwards' house to a corporate executive makes his populism insincere. That last bit I'd expect out of George Will. But the first bit, the reportage of a serious candidate's uncommon candor about his vision for the country, that seems the sort of article that should grace the first page of the nation's leading political newspaper.
So why didn't it?
Update: Over at the Thinkery, Stephen offers a look into the future:
Anyway, here's a preview of Solomon's next articles:
Crime Committed on Same Street Hillary Clinton Used to go to the Airport.
Tom Vilsack Once Bought a Hamburger at a McDonald's, and the Dude Behind the Counter Smokes Pot on the Weekends.
Barack Obama's Middle Name is "Hussein. Oh, wait, that one's already being done.
January 19, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
John Solomon's bias (except AP) has been visible for some time. Why he was hired is a total mystery, unless....
Perhaps the 'unless' is answered by the article placement. Either it's because editorial judgement is that scandals (and in this case, non-scandals) play better to advertisers and subcribers than policy wonkery. That is possible, but given that WaPo makes its living, literally, from people who care about political wonkery, this explanation is not persuasive.
More likely, the placement is because WaPo has decided to increase its bias against liberals/Democrats in the news pages and THAT's why they hired John Solomon - noted hit man against all Democratic figures.
See, it's easy to figure this stuff out from a bedroom in Portland OR - but the WaPo management thinks we are all riding in a turnip truck and could care less.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jan 19, 2007 2:20:15 PM
sorry, morning fingers at work in my comment:
should be: "John Solomon's bias (ex-AP)".
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jan 19, 2007 2:21:50 PM
And how far below? Doesn't it note that it was stuck on the real estate market for a long time?
I'm not sure if Solomon is a hack or just a terrible reporter pasting opposition research into an article.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Jan 19, 2007 2:36:45 PM
Damn you, Ezra, I like you and all, but I thought that for once I found an interesting article and blogged about it before you. Then I come here and find this already up.
Posted by: Stephen | Jan 19, 2007 2:37:59 PM
That really is an odd story, especially for the front page. I'm all for heightened scrutiny for politicians' business deals, regardless of party affiliation, but this sounds like a rather routine house sale. I don't know much about real estate, but 10% below asking (especially after 18 months) really doesn't seem irregular.
Even had Edwards been aware of the business habits of the buyer, I'm stuggling to see why that should have stopped the sale. Had Edwards not sold, the guy would have just bought a different house (as a Chistmas present?!?) and Edwards' house would have remained on the market a little longer and perhaps sold for a little less. I don't see how any of that aids the causes of unions or corporate ethics reformers.
Posted by: Royko | Jan 19, 2007 2:45:37 PM
EJ notes that Edwards is the only Democrat offering honest analysis of the tradeoffs between deficit reduction and social investment.
How much is the social investment Edwards is promoting going to cost?
Posted by: Alon Levy | Jan 19, 2007 2:54:47 PM
Greg Sargent (TPM) has more on the Edwards-Union issue.
Turns out that Solomon didn't even contact one of the two unions involved (UFCW) and they see no problem - "The official told me that UFCW doesn't see anything whatsoever wrong with what Edwards did. What's more, the official said that Solomon didn't even contact the union at all for comment on the story."
The other union (SEIU) was quoted saying "According to the story, this union official said "he was unaware of the Edwards home deal and would reserve judgment on it."
Solomon is not only slimey, he's also a swift-boater, with all the (in)credibility that implies.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jan 19, 2007 3:12:19 PM
Edwards can expect a lot of stuff like the cover story and the mini-scandal involving his employee shopping at Wal-Mart. He's the secular-progressive mirror image of a Religious right pol, someone who's pushing a politics with a heavy moral component; as such he's set himself up for charges of hypocrisy. His challenge is to preach morality without seeming like a moralist, cause there's nothing the press hates more. Already there's been many a story that refers to him as the multi-millionaire advocate for the working poor, or some such. (Oh, the irony! How could someone who's rich care about the poor? You see, it's better if the rich don't care about the poor.) And remember, Edwards, unlike the last two Democratic nominees and current president, made his own wealth. He's taken to making fun of himself for repeatedly sayiing "I'm the son of a millworker" but, well, he is. I don't love politics by biography, but it's hardly a stretch to think that Edwards cares about the working class in part because he grew up working class. In fact, these attack stories will probably end up helping Edwards, assuming there's nothing to them, and I assume there isn't. One of the reasons I feel good about Edwards is that he's already been through a national campaign: he's been vetted and emerged unscathed. You never know, of course, but there's good reason to believe the guy is clean.
Posted by: david mizner | Jan 19, 2007 3:17:20 PM
I think we have an early entry in the "Most Humorous Post" category.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Jan 19, 2007 3:20:08 PM
"You never know, of course, but there's good reason to believe the guy is clean."
Clean doesn't matter. See:Swiftboat.
But Swiftboating may not matter. See:Clinton's high approval ratings.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jan 19, 2007 4:35:36 PM
It's not so much Solomon's bias that's his problem. It's his consistent MO of writing breathless scandalised articles about utter non-stories, which are often filled with inaccuracies. The guys at TPM have been keeping tabs on him for a while.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Jan 19, 2007 4:38:40 PM
"See:Clinton's high approval ratings."
Is that why you're supporting her, Bob, her improved approval ratings? Or is it her relentless corporate-sponsored centrism that puts a tingle in your dingle?
Now's when you claim Edwards is dangerous and evil figure.
Posted by: david mizner | Jan 19, 2007 5:07:36 PM
John Solomon: happy to transcribe oppo smears, no matter who pays his wages.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Jan 19, 2007 5:34:22 PM
"Is that why you're supporting her, Bob"
I was unclear. I was speaking of Bill, and that despite the relentless bad press, his approval ratings remained very high. I am not sure when and why the MSM attacks work, and when and why they don't. But I am not afraid. If Edwards wants to be President, he will overcome it.
I am supporting HRC because she is inevitable, of course. Inevitable. Inevitable.
Nah, really. To the extent I support HRC which ain't much, it is largely because everyone else hates her. How could I not support her? I'm Bob! (Also she is inevitable.)
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jan 19, 2007 5:42:46 PM
It is strange that this piece appeared on page one. I can see why they investigated it, but it appears there was only smoke, no fire. At most you could argue, as the piece suggested, that presidential candidates should be more careful. Nothing to merit its placement.
Bob, Bill was hardly inevitable.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 19, 2007 5:45:03 PM
"I was speaking of Bill."
Ah, now I get it. Yeah, the impact of bad press might have less to do with the nature of the stories than with their target. Stuff sticks to certain people. Edwards and Hillary have both stuff thrown at them; Obama not so much.
Posted by: david mizner | Jan 19, 2007 6:16:01 PM
Fox News is warming up on Obama since he announced his exploratory committee. Did you know he smokes and attended a madrassa?
Posted by: Sanpete | Jan 19, 2007 7:08:35 PM
The most threatening to the status quo = the most attacked by the guardians of the status quo. Any questions?
Posted by: chimneyswift | Jan 19, 2007 7:29:38 PM
Wait, so the insinuation is that Edwards deliberately sold the house to this nasty fellow at less than market price. That's not the same as "shady lawyer bribes Edwards" - the lawyer paid under the odds. That's like "Edwards bribes shady lawyer". We obviously have a new sort of political corruption scandal in which politicians bribe businessmen, not the other way round.
Posted by: ajay | Jan 21, 2007 6:47:45 PM
I'm with Ajay; if the sale was for "much higher than the asking price", that might be suspicious. I can't see any reason for Edwards to be bribing an executive.
Posted by: SamChevre | Jan 22, 2007 12:29:30 PM
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
Posted by: judy | Sep 26, 2007 4:44:03 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.