For the last month, Republicans have been trying mightily to paint the IRS’s Tea Party targeting scheme as proof that the Obama administration is wielding its federal powers as a weapon against opponents. And, despite the lack of evidence, many reporters have readily embraced this storyline.
In recent days, though, several journalists have begun pushing back.The most remarked-upon example is Candy Crowley. On Sunday, Darrell Issa, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, appeared on her CNN show, State of the Union. He claimed that the committee’s interviews with IRS employees in the Cincinnati branch office, which improperly singled out Tea Party groups for scrutiny, suggested that the effort “was coordinated right out of Washington headquarters” and provided excerpts of interviews that ostensibly support these allegations. But Crowley was wary. “I want to talk about how problematic it is to get excerpts, because we know that you interviewed these people probably for hours,” she said. “It’s hard for us to judge what’s going on.” She then highlighted a passage from one excerpted interview:
Congressional investigator: So is it your perspective that ultimately the responsible parties for the decisions that were reported by the IG are not in the Cincinnati office?
IRS employee #1: I don’t know how to answer that question. I mean, from an agent standpoint, we didn’t do anything wrong. We followed directions based on other people telling us what to do.Congressional investigator: And you ultimately followed directions from Washington; is that correct?
IRS employee #1: If direction had come down from Washington, yes.
Congressional investigator: But with respect to the particular scrutiny that was given to Tea Party applications, those directions emanated from Washington; is that right?
IRS employee #1: I believe so.
“It’s totally not definitive,” Crowley continued. “You know that your critics say Republicans—and you in particular—cherry-pick information that go to your foregone conclusion. So it worries us to put this kind of stuff out. Can you not put the whole transcript out?” Issa replied that he planned to make the entire transcript public and predicted that congressional investigators would prove the targeting was “coordinated in all likelihood right out of Washington headquarters.” To which Crowley responded, “But as yet you don’t have that direct link.”
The Atlantic’s Garance Franke-Ruta also deserves props for cutting through the breathless rhetoric. Last week, The Daily Caller reported that former IRS commissioner Doug Shulman had visited the Obama White House at least 157 times, a finding the Caller claimed “strongly suggests coordination by White House officials in the campaign against the president’s political opponents.” After taking a hard look at the Caller’s source documents, Franke-Ruta discovered that the conservative news site had skipped over important context. While Shulman had been cleared to attend 157 meetings, the vast majority of those clearances were for meetings with officials involved in implementing Obama’s healthcare law—an effort in which the IRS plays a major role. Moreover, Shulman apparently only attended a fraction of them. As Franke-Ruta wrote:
Indeed, of the 157 events Shulman was cleared to attend, White House records only provide time of arrival information—confirming that he actually went to them—for 11 events over the 2009-2012 period.
Poof. There goes the Caller’s theory.

I thought journalists were there to find evidence, not act on it. Oh, well . . . No story here folks, move along.
All I ask of Mariah and CJR is that they assert to their readers who are not already in the tank for the Administration that they would regard the IRS scandal in exactly the same way if the parties, groups, and ideologies were reversed - prefereably with straight faces. CJR has found enough guts to acknowledge this administration's hostility to the press, which has quite outrun that of previous administrations, but still (because it is apparently impossible to concede that any right-wingers are ever correct vis-a-vis their opponents on an issue), but still has its head in the sand when it comes to the manifestations of hostility toward Republicans. 'The media' is not always pro-Democratic, but it is always anti-Republican, probably for demographic reasons.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 4 Jun 2013 at 05:14 PM
So a reporter is arguing against investigating - how novel. An anonymous source doesn't count as "real evidence"? How about Lerner pleading the Fifth - no smoke no fire there either? funny how the evidentiary hurdle is raised when it's a scandal affecting your guys.
Boy, the O admin sure is lucky to have Mariah and her ilk covering their backsides.
#2 Posted by Jayat, CJR on Tue 4 Jun 2013 at 11:56 PM
Jayat, if asserting Fifth Amendment rights is wrong, what about Second Amendment rights? For example, is stockpiling guns evidence that one is planning to commit a crime or worse?
The Fifth Amendment exists specifically to protect citizens against witch hunts, and Issa made it clear in 2011 that he planned to investigate anything and everything about this Administration until something sticks. Lerner may well be guilty of something -- but asserting his Fifth Amendment rights gives us no evidence for that claim.
#3 Posted by DanB, CJR on Thu 6 Jun 2013 at 07:56 AM
DanB, you misunderstood my comment. There is nothing wrong with a citizen taking the Fifth. However, doing so strongly implies that the person has something to hide - most likely illegal. One would expect a journalist in that case to investigate, no?
Mariah Blake is advocating that we NOT investigate. Again, that is an extraordinary position for a reporter to take.
[And the Fifth does not "Protect against witch hunts", but against self-incrimination.]
Try reading the above article, replacing the word "IRS" with "Enron." If Jeff Skilling pled the Fifth would reporters ignore it?
#4 Posted by Jayat, CJR on Thu 6 Jun 2013 at 10:46 AM