Campaign Desk

Let’s Get Rezko Right

The Chicago Tribune shows the way; others falter

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

Just five years ago, Barack Obama worked in Springfield, Illinois, chairing the State Senate’s Health and Human services committee. Now, of course, he stands at the threshold of the Democratic party’s presidential nomination.

Meanwhile in Chicago, Tony Rezko, a Chicago real estate baron, is the target of a complicated federal corruption trial involving extortion charges surrounding a state hospitals board. As we all know, Rezko was a one-time patron and supporter of Obama, among many other politicians. With that fact, his state-level political corruption trial has been elevated to national prominence.

It would be crazy to think that the press wouldn’t—or shouldn’t—cover any mention of Obama’s name in such a high profile trial. Other candidates would deserve no less.

But journalists need to be careful about cherrypicking and playing up Obama’s name from the barest mention in a trial document or transcript. When the evidence is ambiguous or not relevant to any suggestion of collusion between Obama and Rezko, or when there’s no hint of wrongdoing on Obama’s part, the press needs to frame the revelations soberly, carefully, and accurately.

That’s not what happened earlier this week, when a 2003 email vaguely mentioning Barack Obama was entered into the trial record.

The New York Times and The Associated Press, writing for a national audience, played loose with the exact wording of the email and amped up Obama’s role. The local Chicago Tribune stuck to the hard facts, and downplayed the sensationalist national angle.

The email in question is extremely vague. It was sent on June 23, 2003 to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s lawyer by one Matt Pickering, an associate of lobbyist David Wilhelm. It recommended four names for the governor to name to the state hospitals board. It also mentioned that Wilhelm’s firm had “worked closely” with eight people, including Obama, in an attempt to reform and reauthorize the board. The connection between the eight people who collaborated on the reform and the four names recommended for the board is unclear, and possibly non-existent.

The board’s composition is key in the case, as it’s alleged that Rezko later took control of the board via proxies and shook down contractors seeking business with the body. The defense produced the email—along with other documents from Blagojevich’s administration—to suggest that Rezko wasn’t the only person successfully making recommendations for the board.

So we have eight reform-collaborators, Obama among them, who may or may not have been consulted on board recommendations. They may or may not have made these four recommendations. And Obama, and/or the seven others, may or may not have made the recommendations at Rezko’s behest. Phew.

For what it’s worth, Rezko’s lawyers say the email doesn’t imply a link between Obama and the recommended names. The New York Times followed up with Wilhelm, who says his firm never consulted Obama about appointments to the board. (Although Wilhelm, once a Blagojevich advisor, and these days an Obama superdelegate and surrogate, certainly has a dog or two in the fight.)

As you can see, this gets confusing quickly. But that didn’t stop The Associated Press from simply headlining their article “Obama consulted on board appointees, Rezko trial told.” They led with this graf:

Sen. Barack Obama was among eight state officials and others consulted about who should be appointed to a state board that later became involved in what prosecutors describe as a fraud scheme, according to a memo discussed Monday at Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s trial.

The Times took a similar, though less definitive tack, in its A-20 article “In Developer’s Trial, E-Mail Note Cites an Obama Link.” The Times admitted the email was “vaguely worded” but still wrote this:

Mr. Pickering said he and Mr. Wilhelm had “worked closely” over six months with several state legislators to extend the life of the health facilities board. He then listed Democratic and Republican leaders in the state House and Senate, including Mr. Obama.

Mr. Pickering’s message went on to suggest four candidates to serve on the board, stating that “our attached recommendations reflect that involvement” with the political leaders.

For contrast, look how a local played it. The Chicago Tribune, in a substantial write-up of all the day’s testimony, wrote:

In one e-mail, Pickering laid out a list of four people he and Wilhelm wanted Blagojevich to consider for appointment to the hospital planning board. Pickering also mentioned that the firm had worked closely with several top legislators, Obama included, in pushing legislation to overhaul the hospital board.

That’s the clearest gloss of the e-mail’s contents. Sure, not as definitive—or sensational—on any Obama role in the board recommendations, but again, it’s a careful and accurate summary.

But it’s worth taking a step back to ask why, exactly, Obama (or the seven other people mentioned in the email) consulting or not-consulting with Wilhelm is relevant in the national Rezko-Obama context. It would only matter if there’s evidence that Obama’s hypothetical nods to the board were made on Rezko’s behalf. But there isn’t.

Obama’s prominence means the national press is giving a hard look to any Rezko ties. And they should be. But making too much out of disclosures like these, in a quest to feed the great national appetite for Obama dirt, is a mistake. Yes, smoke can indicate fire. But this wasn’t even smoke.

CJR

If you enjoy this kind of press criticism please consider a subscription to our magazine, Columbia Journalism Review—a deal via the Web site at $19.95.

To subscribe, to give CJR as a gift, to renew, or to check student and CJR in the Classroom rates, click here.

Comments

Menlo Bob

Thu 13 Mar 2008 11:32 AM

Yes, yes...let's be very cautious in throwing around the Obama name. We in the press are very invested in him becoming the president. We've avoided vetting him thus far--no need to mess it up now. It would look silly for us if, after giving him a pass on his close association with a corrupt official, to now say there really was something to the story after all. Must not mess with the already low press approval numbs.

TDC

Thu 13 Mar 2008 10:32 PM

Seriously what is the big deal? Rezko and Obama were only close friends for 17 years, Rezko only raised a couple of hundred thousand for him over Obama's career, Obama only lobbied to get state subsidies for Rezko's slumlord business, and Rezko only bought and left undeveloped a plot of land next to Obama's house so he'd get a big yard to go with his big new house.

Whats the big deal? After all, the press left that Jack Abramoff fellow be, and certainly didnt try and pull a guilt by association with anyone he donated to.

Move along people, nothing to see here, nothing to see here.

padikiller

Fri 14 Mar 2008 09:11 AM

The "Code of Professional Journalism" requires that Obama's ties to the criminal element only be scrutinized by the press if he mounts a third-party candidacy when Billary steals the Democratic nominination.

The funny thing is that these CJR kiddies really think they're doing the journalism thing properly.

LwPhD

Sat 15 Mar 2008 08:08 AM

@Menlo Bob, @TDC, and @padikiller

O.K. You three have the floor. You can now straighten everyone out with your insightful understanding of this case.

Please make a list of the items that have come out recently in the Rezko case that haven't been reported before and materially tie him to wrongdoing. I'm sure this will be easy for you, as you have such strong opinions about his ties to Rezko, that you clearly must have evidence for it. Otherwise, you'd merely be speculating based on personal irrational beliefs.

Don't get me wrong, Rezko ties deserve a lot of scrutiny. But media scrutiny is not the same as innuendo. If you've got nothing more than innuendo, refrain from broadcasting your ill-conceived "contributions" to anyone who will listen or read. There is already a well-documented set of ties between Obama and Rezko, stop trying to manufacture more without the evidence to back it up.

padikiller

Sat 15 Mar 2008 10:49 AM

CJR's Political Bias, Illustrated

What Clint Hendler Had To Say About The NYT's Hit Piece on McCain

"One of the chief complaints about The New York Times’ story on the relationship between McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman is that the paper is implying more than it has proven. That’s certainly true, but as far as journalism goes, it’s an awfully wrongheaded criticism.

So much of reporting, especially reporting on situations where the facts are hidden, unclear, or developing, depends on creating meaning from only what is known, which is often a set of suggestive, but not definitive, facts. A lot of journalism magic happens between readers’ ears."

What Clint Hendler Says About Criticism of Obama

"Obama’s prominence means the national press is giving a hard look to any Rezko ties. And they should be. But making too much out of disclosures like these, in a quest to feed the great national appetite for Obama dirt, is a mistake"

LwPhD

Sat 15 Mar 2008 01:26 PM

@padkiller

Let me get this right. You have only innuendo against Obama, and you rely on the biases revealed by mistakes by others to set your standards? (In other words, if McCain can be criticized by innuendo, so can Obama.)

So, here's your quandary. Do you Stay consistent? In this case, you must either give Obama a pass absent hard eveidence or apply your innuendo to both Obama and McCain equally. On the other hand, if you remain inconsistent, then you just forfeit all credibility. Personally, I find consistency based on hard evidence preferable. YMMV.

padikiller

Sat 15 Mar 2008 02:00 PM

LOL!

The moonbats here are suddenly worried about MY "consistency" in criticizing Clint Hendler's one-sided liberal crybaby defense of Obama!...

Forget the little fact that the "premier" academic journalistic "watchdog" publication is hopelessly infested with screwy liberal bias and unprofessionalism...

Let's talk about straightening out the guys who post comments on the website...

Too, too funny!...

It's a laugh a minute here in McLearyland!

LwPhD

Sat 15 Mar 2008 10:42 PM

Touche padkiller. Indeed, if you say your comments are so insignificant as to not merit addressing, then who am I to disagree? So, we'll leave it at that. Your hypocrisy leaves you in a precarious position with regard to addressing the standards of the journal. So, you've rendered yourself impotent to do anything because you've lost credibility. I personally believe that the Iseman story is a complete waste of time and a distraction. And similarly, Rezko is too. There simply isn't any "there" there. But the real "moonbats" are those complain at one while ignoring thie other.

padikiller

Sat 15 Mar 2008 11:39 PM

My (mis)perceived "hypocrisy" has nothing to do with anything.

It just ain't about me, Dude... No matter how hard you click your ruby red slippers together.

Your diatriabe is just another silly dodge- a red herring offered in failed attempt to draq attention away from the liberal bias that is clearly displayed in Mr. Hendler's selective tolerance for propounding unfounded innuendo in that wacky world of "professional journalism".

Your attempted diversion is merely the latest iteration of the "The Ole' Liberal Two-Step"... It is a knee-jerk response that I've seen fifty bazillion times when wounded liberals hit the Wall of Truth without seat belts. It's just not going to work on me. You might as well deal with it.

Why don't you worry about CJR and it's adolescent "watchdogs" instead of vainly attempting to prod me into some stupid and insubstantial tangential argument?

If you truly believe (and I doubt you do) that both of Mr. Hendler's stories are wastes of time, then why don't you expend your typing energy jumping on Mr. Hendler for his (real, proven and irrefutable) hypocrisy?...

HUH?.....

LwPhD

Sun 16 Mar 2008 12:42 PM

@padkiller

Your rhetoric begins to spiral into the irrelevant. Let's dispense with the puerile allusions to fairy tales and baseless assumptions about me shall we? Now, to the business at hand; should innuendo be allowed to comprise the meat of the media we consume? I believe that hypocrisy on this front isn't allowed, so I allow only two answers. "Yes, always", or "No, never". My preference is "No, never". I'm not clear on your preference. In fact, perhaps your only preference is consistency, which I applaud.

But your apparent desire for consistency is revealed by your comments, which are definitely written through a partisan lens. For example, your baseless assumption that I am in fact a "liberal" or that I have written a diatribe. While I may have taken issue with your comments, I hardly consider them to comprise a diatribe. Perhaps I have offended your delicate sensibilities? I note that I have not directed my comments at my perception of your ideology nor have I assaulted your character. In fact, doing so would almost be considered knee-jerk. Don't you think?

Nor do I consider it fruitful to "jump on" Mr. Hendler or that his apparent hypocrisy is "real, proven, and irrefutable". I do acknowledge that he would have to do quite a bit of explaining, and that the bar is sufficiently high that I find it unlikely he can cross it. However, a priori rejection of even a response from him is the height of irrationality. Confront him directly, and ask for an explanation. If he refuses to respond, or his response is inadequate, then you can begin to consider him provisionally to be a hypocrite.

You can do it yourself. In fact, here's an example I sent to Clint's e-mail, just this morning:

I recently read your two posts entitled "McCausation" and "Let’s Get Rezko Right". I have noted that, while in the former case, you suggest quite strongly that speculation about the unproven facts regarding the Iseman/McCain relationship is above criticism. In the latter post, you make the case that the press ought to tread lightly in the absence of hard facts. There seems to be some dissonance between your approaches to these apparently analogous situations. Would you kindly justify your decision to treat these two issues with such different standards? I am personally inclined to dismiss both reports as mere innuendo until more evidence is forthcoming. To use your words, I feel that, in both the Rezko case and in the Iseman case, what we see "wasn't even smoke". However, you come to a vastly different conclusion. Can you please enlighten me as to why such a decision was made?

Now, why don't you send your own message to Clint, supporting his discretion on Rezko and criticizing his lack of discretion with regard to Iseman?

Cheers,

LwPhD

padikiller

Sun 16 Mar 2008 01:11 PM

I do not understand this pressing need of yours to determine MY take on the politics of journalism...

It doesn't matter... It's not about me or you... It's about the self-proclaimed "watchdogs" who hop on their high horses to criticize others, while simultaneously doing everything in their power to further their own screwy liberal agendas.

You sent Mr. Hendler an email... That's good... I posted a message here.... Same thing, only public....

If you think this "watchdog" is going to deal with his bias and respond in any sort of a mature and professional manner, then you have another think coming, in my estimation.

If he responds at all, he will, in all likelihood, expend a day's woth of energy doing the Liberal Two-Step- attempting to set up a case for tolerating innuendo against McCain, while simultaneously rejecting it when used against a Democrat...

I've seen it over and over again from daft liberals... It reads like an Orwell novel.... I'm sure we'll read the argument that some innuendo is "more equal" than other innuendo, and therefore worthy of CJR's approval...

There is no justification for using innuendo in any circumstances. The only relevant POINT to be made here is that CJR is contributing to the downfall of the profession by spewing one-sided liberal stupidity left and right...

My political views (or yours or any other commenter's views) will not change the fact that CJR has become a silly liberal mouthpiece.

LwPhD

Sun 16 Mar 2008 01:37 PM

@padkiller

Upon re-reading all of your posts in both articles, I can see that (with the notable exception of your first post in THIS thread, ie the Billary comment) you do consistently argue the same point, that McCain shouldn't be subject to media innuendo. However, it was rather difficult to glean that thread, as you seem to wear your ideology on your sleeve first and foremost. In fact, a fair reading of your comments is notable first for the dripping disdain for "liberals" and second for your defense of McCain's suffering from innuendo.

And yes, this is about you and me and all media consumers. Our reaction to media determines how it is served. Because of this silly party system of ours that is driven by two parties, as if they can represent the full diversity of opinion in this nation, we have many people who sympathize with one point of view to the exclusion of the other. And when their preferred party is criticized (fairly or otherwise), knee-jerk defense is hurled at the purveyors of the criticism. So, the media feels it has to cater to that slanted RvsD perspective, whether or not it is truly salient.

If you truly intended change the minds of the editors and authors, perhaps you should try to avoid partisan language. If the author truly is partisan, opposing them as the opposite flavor is unlikely to help, and YOU'VE wasted your time. Similarly, by posting in a public forum, you've also got the ability to influence others. However, by adopting a partisan posture, you are unlikely to sway those who remain undecided. They will merely ignore your apparently partisan point of view.

Again, my main point was, coarsening the discourse (reread the first three comments), you and the other two have lent support to the idea that innuendo in journalism is acceptable, failed to make a credible case for bias when it clearly exists, and turn off all but the partisan bystanders who already agree with you. On the other hand, a more judicious application of your intellect (which is clearly up to the task at hand) may have yielded dividends more efficiently. Who's wasting time and talent?

padikiller

Sun 16 Mar 2008 01:51 PM

Playing nice doesn't work in McLearyland...

Trust me, I've been here a while... The CJR-types read these comments thoroughly and they most certainly have their eyes on me. I have wrestled many a correction from these self-proclaimed "watchdogs" over the years.

It doesn't matter what my politics are. It doesn't matter what your politics are. And it shouldn't matter what Clint Hendler's politics are.

I am a trial attorney. I have to defend people every day that I personally don't believe should be sucking air. But it's my job and I have to do it the best that I can. So I do it. It's this "ethical" thing that people who call themselves "professionals" have going on.

Journalists have a similar professional responsibility to recognize and overcome their biases in covering the news...

The CJR "watchdogs" are asleep at the switch, ethically-speaking. Waking them up is easiest at high volume. I speak from experience.

TDC

Tue 18 Mar 2008 10:20 AM

LwPhD: “Again, my main point was, coarsening the discourse (reread the first three comments), you and the other two have lent support to the idea that innuendo in journalism is acceptable, failed to make a credible case for bias when it clearly exists, and turn off all but the partisan bystanders who already agree with you. “

What I personally think of innuendo in journalism is irrelevant as I, in the grand scheme of things, have no way of communication anything of note to a mass audience. What my comments, and Padkiller’s I would assume, were addressing was the apparent double standard on when to apply “innuendo” journalism and to whom to apply it to.

I do think that there are legitimate questions that need to be asked about the friends and associates that Obama made during his political rise to power in Chicago. As a Chicago native and son of a former union BA I know too well the kinds of shenanigans that go on in Chicago politics and the media’s disinterest in them.

Clint Hendler

Tue 18 Mar 2008 01:40 PM

LwPhD: Thanks for your comment.

The short answer is that the situations aren’t analogous.

Here, for me, is the crux: as far as I know, there’s nothing—no evidence, no unnamed sources, not even any informed speculation—that Obama acted in a way that helped Rezko with health board appointments. We’d have to know that he did something or tried to do something helpful before we could even consider the possibility of a quid pro quo.

Last week The New York Times and the AP strongly suggested that this very ambiguously worded email hinted that Obama may have acted in a way that helped Rezko. A fair reading of the email, and an examination of the surrounding facts, are far, far, less conclusive, maybe even exculpatory.

With Iseman, sure, we don’t know that McCain acted to help her client (Paxson) because he’d gotten campaign assistance from Paxson, or because of their alleged romance. Short of a smoking-gun record or a McCain confession, we’ll never know why he did what he did. It’s essentially unprovable. But we do know that he acted in an extraordinary way that would have been and was helpful. That raises the possibility of a quid pro quo. And that's fair ground for reporting.

padikiller

Tue 18 Mar 2008 10:47 PM

Orwellian Word Fun With A Juvenile, Pompous Self-Proclaimed CJR "Watchdog" of "Professional Journalism"

Clint Hendler Babbles Some Particularly Silly Drivel In Defense f His Stupidity

"...With Iseman, sure, we don’t know that McCain acted to help her client (Paxson)... ...But we do know that he acted in an extraordinary way that would have been and was helpful..." (emphasis added to enhance the effect of this nonsense)

padikiller delivers the CJR Pop Quiz

You got that, gentle readers?...

We'll never know if McCain helped Iseman.. But there's no question that he was helpful to her...

GOTCHA there, Oh Watchdog of Wonder!..... Do you have some Kool-Aid for us to drink?... Or maybe a bridge to sell us, Oh Pundit of Pundits?....

For the sake of Sweet Jeebus!... Does CJR have anybody with a couple of functioning neurons watching over the so-called "professionals" who vomit this kind of ridiculous stupidity upon readers?...

HUH?.....

padikiller

Tue 18 Mar 2008 11:00 PM

One More Time To Send Hendler's Nonsense All The Way Home

Mr Hendler wrote: ""...With Iseman, sure, we don’t know that McCain acted to help her client (Paxson)... ...But we do know that he acted in an extraordinary way that would have been and was helpful..."

padikiller notes

This Hendler guy must have written speeches for Bill "I Do Not Recall/I Did Not Have Sexual Relations" Clinton...

And the sick thing is that the ignorant liberal moonbats of the world will eat this guy's idiocy for breakfast and spit it back up by lunchtime...

LwPhD

Wed 19 Mar 2008 07:36 AM

@padkiller

Dear Lord person, didn't anybody teach you manners? Whether you're right, wrong, or indifferent, there is never cause for the ad hominem facetious tone of your posts. It is amazing how many adults revert to childhood when they are ensconced safely behind their monitors.

But more to the point, regarding Clint's treatment of Rezko vs. Iseman. I agree with him... to a point. Indeed, reports about illegality in the dealings between Obama and Rezko is pure speculation and should be off limits. Also, McCain's ties (of whatever variety) to lobbyists are also matters of public record.

However, as I said, Clint would have to exceed a high bar, and I think despite my agreement on half the story, that the other half falls short. For example, as a matter of public record, detailing the relationship between Rezko and Obama is fair game. On the other hand, salacious implications of sexual impropriety (which aren't even illegal) should not be the focus of the relationship between McCain and Iseman, especially with the dearth of evidence provided by the times. The key take home from the NYT piece is the presence of a deep of the relationship at all regardless of whether or not any hanky panky took place. After all, we should care if McCain (or Obama or Clinton) had a close (platonic) relationship of a Paxson lobbyist in any circumstance.

The problem again is us. If people would actually be critical and demand more from their publications than simple entertainment, then the sexual content (Clinton, Vitter & Spitzer, eg), inflammatory potential (Hagee & Wright eg) or charisma (Bush vs. Gore) wouldn't be the key issues. But media consumers read and watch more for entertainment than information.

But back to the actual point of THIS thread. Speculation about illegal ties between Obama and Rezko are not based in any factual reporting that I know of and are therefore irresponsible. If new reporting subsequently reveals evidence, then by all means, pounce on him. He would deserve it, not only for the illegality of it, but for the hypocrisy of his claims to running as an ethical candidate.

padikiller

Wed 19 Mar 2008 08:18 AM

padikiller prognosticated previously

If you think this "watchdog" is going to deal with his bias and respond in any sort of a mature and professional manner, then you have another think coming, in my estimation.

If he responds at all, he will, in all likelihood, expend a day's worth of energy doing the Liberal Two-Step- attempting to set up a case for tolerating innuendo against McCain, while simultaneously rejecting it when used against a Democrat...

I've seen it over and over again from daft liberals... It reads like an Orwell novel.... I'm sure we'll read the argument that some innuendo is "more equal" than other innuendo, and therefore worthy of CJR's approval...

Clint Hendler Coughs Up The Doublespeak, True To Form

"...With Iseman, sure, we don’t know that McCain acted to help her client (Paxson)... ...But we do know that he acted in an extraordinary way that would have been and was helpful..."

padikiller notes

Yep... Straight out of an Orwell novel...

And yes... It angers me to see the profession denigrated by this kind of irresponsible, immature hackery..

Any self-proclaimed "watchdog" who has the nerve to attach his name to idiotic posts like this deserves a whole hell of a lot worse than anything I've given him here...

He deserves the bum's rush to the street.

padikiller

Wed 19 Mar 2008 08:59 AM

LwPhd Chastises from His High Horse

Whether you're right, wrong, or indifferent, there is never cause for the ad hominem facetious tone of your posts. It is amazing how many adults revert to childhood when they are ensconced safely behind their monitors.

padikiller notes

So my use of pseudononymous ad hominem... Results in LwPhd directing pseudononymous ad hominem to me...

Orwell is having a field day in his grave today!...