Those tensions came to the fore on January 29, when the FBI raided Melgen’s South Florida ophthalmology practice as part of a Medicare fraud investigation. The following day, the Herald reported that the FBI was also probing Melgen’s ties to Menendez—including allegations from a “shadowy tipster” that “the two allegedly hired underage prostitutes.” The prostitution claims soon began cropping up in other mainstream outlets. As Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple wrote at the time, it was apparently the FBI probe that “moved the prostitution matter from what Fox News eminence Bill O’Reilly termed ‘lascivious crap’ to what journalists term ‘fair game.’” Wemple also pointed out that an investigation “based on thin and shifty charges” is a flimsy peg to hang a story on.
On the whole, though, the media struck a reasonable balance, at least initially. Many reported in depth on the favors Menendez had allegedly done Melgen, including trying to persuade top federal health officials, who found that Melgen had grossly overbilled Medicare, that the findings were unjust. While some mentioned the prostitution claims, they did so in passing, and they stressed that the claims were dubious. In early February, for example, the Post noted that “the allegations—made by an anonymous whistleblower and first publicized on a conservative Web site—have not been verified independently.”
Those reporters who dug into the evidence found more reason for skepticism. The Miami Herald, which ushered the allegations into the mainstream, dispatched a team of reporters to the Dominican Republican to try to find the alleged prostitutes, based on names and contact information in the tipster’s emails. They turned up “shreds of evidence” that were consistent with Williams’s tale, but “no concrete links” tying Menendez to prostitution. As for the women in question, they were “nowhere to be found.”
The relative restraint with which the mainstream press handled prostitution allegations vexed conservative media watchdogs like the Media Research Center.
Then, in mid-February, something shifted. First, on Friday, February 15, the Post splashed a juicy headline across its site: “FBI Probing Allegations Sen. Menendez Patronized Prostitutes In Dominican Republic.” The following day, a variation of the story ran on page one of the paper. The probe had been public for weeks by this point. The Post added no new information on the prostitution front, except that the FBI had sent agents to the Dominican Republic to interview witnesses, and that it had “found no evidence to support the claim.” Some might argue that the FBI failing to substantiate unsubstantiated allegations, especially of the sort that can destroy a person’s reputation, is hardly grounds for rehashing them on A1. But other outlets followed suit, including Politico and The Hill, which ran pieces based on the Post’s reporting; the following Monday, CBS aired its segment, which “confirmed” an investigation was underway.
Most of these reports explained that the FBI had found little or no evidence to support the prostitution allegations. But the bold-face headlines hyping an official probe gave these claims new credibility; meanwhile, the better-founded allegations about Menendez using his influence to benefit a major donor became B-matter.
The shift in tone since has been palpable. While there have been few new developments in the case, over the last two weeks the mainstream press has run dozens of stories, columns, and blog posts about Menendez’s plummeting approval ratings, his response to the scandal, and the potential fallout. Most toss in the prostitution allegations with little or no context. “Unsubstantiated” has morphed into “allegedly”—as in, “Menendez is in hot water for flying to the Dominican Republic with Melgen, allegedly to visit prostitutes,” full stop. Rather than tell the backstory, many journalists mention offhandedly that Menendez “has denied” the allegations—or, worse, link to The Daily Caller report.
The vacuum of evidence has been noted by at least one media critic. It has been acknowledged publicly by the woman who initiated the FBI investigation. It has even been laid out in telling detail by reporters describing the allegations to their audience—and yet the accusations are only given more weight as time goes on. The episode shows how easily scandals are manufactured in the media echo chamber, especially as more partisans enter the fray.
Partisan echo chambers indeed. Your 'twisting' of whats known about Menendez's tastes for underage Dominican hookers reminds me of CJR's treatment of John Edwards a few years back:
Update: The Edwards affair allegations? False and false. Both sides say so.
While denials, of course, don’t necessarily guarantee falsity, in the absence of any real evidence, the alleged affair seems to be one to forget.
Unless, of course, you’re Mickey Kaus. The pundit drags the non-story along today by complaining about e-mails he’s received from readers—which argue that if Matt Drudge, “Arbiter of Truth,” didn’t carry the story, Kaus shouldn’t have, either. Apparently still thirsting for the juicy irony the Edwards allegations failed to provide, Kaus gets defensive by accusing Drudge of the very “low evidentiary threshhold [sic]” for journalistic veracity that Kaus himself exhibited yesterday. And he goes further than judging Drudge: after setting the bar for truth ridiculously low, Kaus today sets the bar for falsity almost impossibly high.
Makes me wonder who the real whores are.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 4 Mar 2013 at 06:02 PM
This is an example of what Geraldo Rivera speaking at an Investigative Reporters and Editors meeting in Boston called "Investigative Repeating."
The readers of your article might ponder whether a story of alleged influence peddling, for his campaign contributor would make the grade as a report as "news worthy" or whether it might be simply considered "business as usual."
During the Abscam investigation another New Jersey Senator Harrison Williams was convicted on dubious evidence. This is story worth reexamining.
#2 Posted by David Reno, CJR on Wed 6 Mar 2013 at 12:18 PM