NEVADA — Last week, The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein and Ryan Grim reported that Harry Reid told them that a “Bain investor” told him that Mitt Romney “didn’t pay any taxes for ten years.” (And: breathe).
That unsubstantiated claim (Reid wouldn’t identify his source and even told HuffPost he was “not certain” the claim was true), as the savvy Senate Majority Leader surely anticipated, has returned to the headlines for a week now the subject of Romney’s tax returns and his refusal to release more of them (as presidential contenders have done for decades).
What have those headlines—and, of course, the stories below them—looked like here in Reid’s home state? Did reporters highlight—up high in each story—the untrustworthiness of Reid’s claim (an approach my editors argued for here last week and Brendan Nyhan elaborated on here yesterday)? Or did that key point get lost in the increasingly shrill back and forth over the claim and Romney’s refusal to release more returns?
On August 1, in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, reporter Steve Tetreault didn’t write anywhere in his own words that Reid’s claim was unsubstantiated (there’s no hint of that fact at all in the headline, first or second paragraphs). In the story’s third paragraph, Tetreault repeated Reid’s “I’m not certain [it’s true]” comment to HuffPost, but then moved on in the next graph to “Democrats cheered as the Senate majority leader from Nevada focused new attention on a perceived Romney weak spot” and, two graphs later, “Republicans, meanwhile, cried foul at an accusation that they complained lacked any supporting evidence.” That the claim lacked any supporting evidence is not merely a Republican complaint (to be therefore easily dismissed by some portion of Tetreault’s readers). It’s a fact, and one that Tetreault should have written up high in the story and in his own words.
In the same piece, Tetreault reported that Reid got on the phone with Nevada reporters the day after HuffPost’s report and told them what they should be writing. Said Reid:
What if [Romney] has paid no taxes, like I am saying he hasn’t. What if he has all these moneys as we already know in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Swiss banks. I mean, gee whiz, rather than ask me why I should do this, that is a story you should be writing.
In other words: don’t emphasize Reid passing along evidence-free claims. Write about Romney and his foreign bank accounts and (what) if he hasn’t paid taxes.
The Review-Journal’s Laura Myers hasn’t exactly followed Reid’s reporting advice. Her first mention of the matter came in the third graph of an August 3rd piece reporting on Romney’s “quick visit to North Las Vegas” and how Romney “rejected [Reid’s] unsubstantiated charges” (there, she said it in her own words!) in a news conference there.
In a blog piece Monday, Myers managed to get into her first sentence the fact that Reid’s claim is “based on no public evidence.” Myers also reminded readers that Reid “threw out all sorts of unsubstantiated charges” in his first US Senate race many years ago. Myers’s lede:
Anyone shocked by U.S. Sen. Harry Reid accusing GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years based on no public evidence, doesn’t know the political knife-fighter from Searchlight.
In the Democrat’s first bid for the U.S. Senate, Reid threw out all sorts of unsubstantiated charges against Paul Laxalt, the former Republican governor of Nevada who went on to defeat Reid by 611 votes in a recount .
.including the charge that “there were years Laxalt had paid no income taxes and people should know why.”
(The Huffington Post, in its initial story last week, suggested Reid’s launching of unsubstantiated charges was something unusual, something that Reid wouldn’t normally be willing to do. “Reid is known more as a back room brawler than a public flamethrower,” wrote HuffPost’s Stein and Grim. “So his willingness to throw this private conversation into the media frenzy over Romney’s taxes underscores the low opinion he has of the Republican candidate.”)
- 1
- 2
This incident is really kind of neat from a journalism. critique perspective. As the old saying goes, if a democrat says the earth is round and a republican says the earth is flat, the press will report that "views on the shape of the earth differ". Here we have a case where the democrat has made an unsubstantiated claim (which could be very easily substantiated by the republican candidate) and the press reports not that shapes of the tax returns differ, but that "the democrat is wrong".
At least when the fox news crazies were making claims about Obama's Kenyan birth, the press waited for access to the records to refute it.
Interesting at any rate.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 03:56 PM
What the tone of the press coverage (which has been critical of Reid's unsubstantiated claim but has also stressed Romney's refusal to release his tax records) says to me is that the working press -- as opposed to the Olympian "fact checkers" -- is properly concerned about the Romney tax record issue and wants to see those records released. They are concerned, though perhaps less so, about Reid making a currently unsubstantiated claim to politically force Romney to do the right thing. This is the real life of politics that the working reporters are engaged in, as opposed to the abstract philosophical quest for perfect ethics and morality. Bottom line is that the truth of whether Romney paid his fair share of taxes matters more to them -- and I suspect to most voters -- than the basis for Reid's tactical political maneuver.
#2 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 05:36 PM
All well and good. Almost every reporter has used the term "unsubstantiated" numerous times and without fail when reporting this story. Some have called it a pants-on-fire, four pinocchio "lie" (aside: do they think that Reid just made up his source, or are they calling the source who made the assertion a liar? ) Anyway, almost every political journalist has weighed in on the matter; almost without exception in a negative way. As I said, all well and good. Evidently the beltway thinks this is out of civil bounds.
Now, let's see you write the very same descriptors -- unsubstantiated! untrustowrothy! pants-on-fire liar! -- to some of the demonstrably bald face lies coming out of the Romney campaign. No, we don't see any beltway journo calling Romneys outright lies unsubstantiated, untrustworthy. We don't see a lot of chin-stroking or handwringing musing about Romney's much more egregious, much more blatant, much more demonstrably false statements.
It's like the entire beltway has risen up in collective outrage and signed up to work on Romney's behalf in policing the Democrats. But why don't the Republicans get the same kind of treatment. Reporters like you who write these chin-stroking articles trying to debunk Harry Reids accusation, in turn just copy and paste anything Romney says, especially the lies, like good stenographers. If anything, you just get a counterstatement from the Dems, and then just leave it there. Why is that?
p.s. At least someone is Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity, Vol. XXVIII. Because everyone knows, mainstream media can't/won't do it.
#3 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 07:49 PM
Someone else does a review of journalists covering the story:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/villager-pearl-clutching-jonathan-karl.html
"Here's the thing. As Charles Pierce points out in his piece on the subject, nobody is talking about the tax returns we've seen. It's all the tax returns he refuses to show to the American people. So Karl is being disingenuous...
And no, this is not the most outrageous thing ever said on the floor of the Senate. I seem to recall a gentleman by the name of Joe McCarthy saying some pretty outrageous things. Indeed, a Senator was once caned by another one there. However, Karl wasn't around for any of that and he didn't personally see them, so I guess they aren't relevant. However, he was around for the Senate testimony of Representative Bill McCollum, who gave this recitation on the floor before the entire country, which was watching with rapt attention:
[smutty smut smut Clenis cigar smut]..
Considering the rank partisan gossip they routinely pass off as news, the mere idea that these reporters are claiming that Reid must produce his anonymous source is hilarious.
But this is the Villager in action --- putting on bourgeois affectations in order to appear as if they are morally upright Real Americans when, in fact, they live in a decadent world of double dealing and backstabbing and participate in it with relish, just as courtiers have done for millenia. Jonathan Karl clutching his pearls over Reid's political gambit is akin to the NRA protesting gun violence. Except the NRA would never try to get away with something so absurd...
These are documents that presidential candidates routinely provide and thre's nothing stopping him from doing it. But for the first time in history, the press and many commentators have decided that it's indelicate to cite an anonymous source who claims to know why they are not being released.
If only he had mentioned breasts and orgasms (or even dirty twitter pics) perhaps they might have been persuaded that it was newsworthy anyway."
Cokie's law applies to the people under the law. Rich republicans are above the law. Cokie's been fitted with a muzzle, and Romney doesn't have to answer to anyone about his taxes. Iokiyar.
Democrats can diaf.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 10:41 PM
Mere rumors...or a US Senator seeking the truth?
Reid is Right as Rain ...and Willard is all Wet.
‘Cause Americans have a RIGHT to see the tax returns
of anyone who wants to be their President --the highest office in the land.
NO if’s, ...No and’s, ...and NO big fat but’s about it!
Case Closed.
ESPECIALLY with someone like Mitt -whose past and present life is
full of flip-flops, questionable business practices, tax loopholes,
hidden assets and investments, ...and who knows what else.
Confession is good for the soul, Mitt. Even for someone as soul-less as you.
So just Relax, Repent, and Release your Returns, Mr. Romney
…OR… go back to Playing with your Pet dancing Ponies.
Come out of your gold-plated 10-car closet Mitt, and STOP with this
“Don’t ask, Don’t tell” nonsense! No problem -we’ll understand.
Unless …perhaps ….just perhaps …you’re HIDING something, dear Willard?
Inquiring minds want to know.
And you want even MORE tax cuts and loopholes for you and your rich buddies, Mitt? WHAT GALL! These fat cats aren’t satisfied - they want it ALL ...EVERYTHING! But tell me Mitt, just how MANY cars and houses can you hog? And just how MANY silver spoons can you stuff into your smirking mouth?
Mitt baby, you can fool some of the people some of the time,but -please- take my advice:
IF you just want to run for dog-catcher then KEEP your precious tax returns,
and clean off your car roof. OTHERWISE, if you wanna be our President, THEN PUT UP,
or shut up and go away ….preferably BEFORE the convention.
The super-rich think that they have the God-given right to do anything they want in this great country -while the REST of us get screwed! ENOUGH!!! The divine right of kings ended a long long time ago Mitt. And so should your sorry excuse for a candidacy.
Nothing personal, guy. Really. Super-Rich, arrogant, power-hungry Republicans are people too! It's just their "culture" that bothers me (as you're so fond of saying). ‘Cause making lots and lot of money can be SUCH a dirty business. Right, fella?
BOTTOM LINE: It’s Laundry Time, Mitt.
------SO COME CLEAN------.
I’m from the “Show Me” State....where it’s not enough
to just SAY that you’re “not a crook”....AFTER you’re President
...like Tricky Dick Nixon.
S-H-O-W ME NOW!
#5 Posted by stanchaz, CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 11:13 PM
Mere rumors...or a US Senator seeking the truth?
Reid is Right as Rain ...and Willard is all Wet.
‘Cause Americans have a RIGHT to see the tax returns
of anyone who wants to be their President --the highest office in the land.
NO if’s, ...No and’s, ...and NO big fat but’s about it!
Case Closed.
ESPECIALLY with someone like Mitt -whose past and present life is
full of flip-flops, questionable business practices, tax loopholes,
hidden assets and investments, ...and who knows what else.
Confession is good for the soul, Mitt. Even for someone as soul-less as you.
So just Relax, Repent, and Release your Returns, Mr. Romney
…OR… go back to Playing with your Pet dancing Ponies.
Come out of your gold-plated 10-car closet Mitt, and STOP with this
“Don’t ask, Don’t tell” nonsense! No problem -we’ll understand.
Unless …perhaps ….just perhaps …you’re HIDING something, dear Willard?
Inquiring minds want to know.
And you want even MORE tax cuts and loopholes for you and your rich buddies, Mitt? WHAT GALL! These fat cats aren’t satisfied - they want it ALL ...EVERYTHING! But tell me Mitt, just how MANY cars and houses can you hog? And just how MANY silver spoons can you stuff into your smirking mouth?
Mitt baby, you can fool some of the people some of the time,but -please- take my advice:
IF you just want to run for dog-catcher then KEEP your precious tax returns,
and clean off your car roof. OTHERWISE, if you wanna be our President, THEN PUT UP,
or shut up and go away ….preferably BEFORE the convention.
The super-rich think that they have the God-given right to do anything they want in this great country -while the REST of us get screwed! ENOUGH!!! The divine right of kings ended a long long time ago Mitt. And so should your sorry excuse for a candidacy.
Nothing personal, guy. Really. Super-Rich, arrogant, power-hungry Republicans are people too! It's just their "culture" that bothers me (as you're so fond of saying). ‘Cause making lots and lot of money can be SUCH a dirty business. Right, fella?
BOTTOM LINE: It’s Laundry Time, Mitt.
------SO COME CLEAN------.
I’m from the “Show Me” State....where it’s not enough
to just SAY that you’re “not a crook”....AFTER you’re President
...like Tricky Dick Nixon.
S-H-O-W ME NOW!
#6 Posted by stancchaz, CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 11:15 PM
It's entirely possible that a very rich guy like Romney paid NO income taxes. See James Stewart's article today. So much for the "fact checkers'" experts. That's why this can't be settled without seeing Romney's returns:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/business/in-the-superrich-clues-to-romneys-tax-returns-common-sense.html?_r=2&hp
#7 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 06:18 PM