Karl Rove, Rupert Murdoch and Media Bias
August 20th, 2009Guest Column
by Rep. John Conyers
In the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove says that I — and others — owe him an apology for allegations that have been made about him during the course of the House Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the dismissal of United States Attorneys and related issues about the politicization of the Department of Justice.
Mr. Rove’s self-serving assertions on this subject are simply inconsistent with the documents that the Judiciary Committee recently released and his claims have been discredited by the analysis of the documents and reporting on these matters by credible news outlets across the country. Anyone interested in the truth can read the documents for themselves (here) or the reporting on these matters from the top papers in the U.S. — The Washington Post (here) and The New York Times (here) — as well as alternative, independent news sites such as The Locust Fork News-Journal (here).
Mr. Rove’s points are largely a repeat of his prior discredited statements, and the purpose of this post is not to rehash Mr. Rove’s rehash.
What may be of broader interest is the apparent editorial decision of the Wall Street Journal to prominently feature Mr. Rove’s self-serving assertions in its editorial pages, while burying and redacting the original story documenting the facts contained in these documents in the news pages.
On the day after the documents were released, the Journal‘s print edition relegated the story to its “News in Brief” section, running an item of six sentences — 193 words (by way of contrast, the next story in the same section about a college basketball coach impregnating a woman was eight paragraphs and 248 words).
Nothing in the Journal‘s print coverage of the Committee’s release quotes from any of the documents or from any Democrat or investigator about the specific evidence contained therein, even though the Journal used its apparently precious space to report that the Justice Department and White House declined to comment. (To be fair to the reporter, a longer piece appeared in the online edition).
At the same time, the print piece helpfully includes Mr. Rove’s full day-is-night quote asserting that the documents “show politics played no role in the Bush administration’s removal of U.S. attorneys” and other false assertions. And — in lieu of any quotes — it includes the assertion (also helpful to Mr. Rove) that “it remains far from certain whether the… documents released… contain information that would help prosecutors” without any further support or explanation, while omitting the reporter’s online analysis of the numerous specific documents and facts that, in the reporter’s words posted only online “appeared to bolster allegations that David Iglesias . . . was fired for partisan reasons.”
In contrast to the Journal‘s miserly allocation of column width for reporting on the document release, today’s opinion piece by Mr. Rove is 13 paragraphs and 968 words long. It is featured in all formats of the paper.
The point is not that I feel slighted. I have been a public official for more than 40 years and I have taken my fair share of shots from the media, and have seen worthy issues ignored before. The point is that the collective result of the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial decisions are that its readers are left unaware of the basic facts.
So, for example, when Mr, Rove claims that all he did with complaints from New Mexico Republicans about United States Attorney Iglesias’s unwillingness to prosecute Democrats for the purpose of providing an electoral advantage for Republicans was “pass them to the appropriate officials… to determine if they were accurate and weigh them appropriately,” Journal readers are left unaware that testimony from White House Counsel Harriet Miers and emails from others contradict Mr. Rove.
In the Committee documents, Ms. Miers describes an “agitated” Mr. Rove calling her from the road in new Mexico saying that something had to be done about Mr. Iglesias. Ms. Miers could not rule out that Mr. Rove expressly demanded that Mr. Iglesias should be fired. An email from a Rove deputy to Mr. Rove asked why Iglesias was “shy about doing his job on Madrid.” Patsy Madrid was a Democratic Congressional candidate at the time.
When Rupert Murdoch acquired the Journal, substantial concerns were raised about the number of media properties he owned and the right wing bias of his news ventures. Many questioned whether the Wall Street Journal would become just another New York Post or, worse, Fox News.
While the Journal‘s editorial page had been conservative for some time, the news division had been largely balanced and thorough. (Indeed, the reporter’s online piece is balanced and thorough.) Many wondered whether Murdoch would put his right wing slant on the news pages as well.
The Journal‘s handling of this chapter of the USA scandal seems to bring that question to a head — is it a sign that the editorial staff of the Journal‘s news division — or at least its editing — has taken on Murdoch’s right-wing bias?
It is certainly true that editorial judgments are made for many reasons and that mistakes are made in the crush of time and, for the sake, of the many accomplished journalists who work at the Journal, I hope that this was simply a mistake. But there is reason to worry.
And with respect to the Journal‘s coverage and commentary on this particular matter, one thing at least is clear. If anyone is owed an apology, it is the Journal‘s readers who depend on the Journal for fair and accurate coverage of the news.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Tags: David Iglesias US Attorney, DOJ, John Conyers, Karl Rove, Media News, Politicization, U.S. Attorney Scandal
August 20th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I’m sending the URL to every one of the few conservative friends I have.
August 20th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Share it on Facebook…
August 20th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Respectfully speaking, Mr Conyers: why aren’t you doing anything about it? Karl Rove has been playing you (and all democrats) for a sucker for far too long. He has ignored subpoenas, lied to you, and shown no contrition for his serial misdeeds.
The longer you delay prosecuting this bad man, the more complicit you appear.
Frankly, I am tired of hearing that you are “contemplating action against”, or “considering prosecution of” Karl Rove. Let’s see some action. This pitty-pat handling of the crimes of the former administration is a microcosm of WHY the democrats are not getting the job for which they were elected, done.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:44 pm
A Letter to the Editor to the Wall Street Journal from Jill Simpson
Dear Mr. Murdoch and all the editors at the Wall Street Journal
My Response to the article “Closing in on Rove.”
I want to thank you from the very bottom of my heart for running Karl Rove’s delusional article, “Closing in on Rove,” on August 20, 2009. The reason I want to thank you is that Mr. Rove has clearly lied about me in this article. You have captured and printed it without even checking to see if it is so or not. The lie he has told is and I quote, “Judiciary Democrats didn’t get testimony from either Mr. Siegelman or Dana Jill Simpson, the eccentric Alabama lawyer, who drew attention by publicly supporting the allegations.” In case you are unaware, I testified on September 14, 2007, before the House Judiciary Committee lawyers that were selected to question me. I most definitely gave sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Democrats. In fact, I gave over one hundred and forty three pages of testimony before the Judiciary Democratic and Republican lawyers. It is unfortunate that your paper does not give a rip about the truth or you would have checked out the bold-faced lie that Karl Rove put in his article before you printed it.
Further, I find it extremely tacky that you allow him to call me an eccentric Alabama lawyer. I ask, did you check with anyone other than Karl Rove, who clearly hates me for telling on him? Karl also states in his article, “I also understand that Mr. Siegelman and Ms. Simpson refused to cooperate with the Justice Department’s review of his claim of political persecution, while I willingly gave sworn testimony.” It was announced on May 15, 2009, that Mr. Rove was subpoenaed to testify by Nora Dannehy of the DOJ about the firing of the nine U.S. attorneys in a criminal matter. I would hardly call that willingly giving sworn testimony. Further, he pointedly refused to agree to give sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee this summer and did not take a sworn oath before chatting with the House Judiciary lawyers that questioned him. I might add that I gladly and freely gave sworn testimony. Mr. Rove, however, has willfully misled the public in this article into thinking that I have refused to give sworn testimony to the DOJ in the case in which he was subpoenaed to testify. I have never been subpoenaed or contacted by Nora Dannehy to testify in the investigation she is conducting on Karl Rove. I believe the reason for this is the fact that she is appointed the special prosecutor solely for the nine fired United States attorneys. Anyone who has read the transcript of my testimony before the House Judiciary lawyers, my affidavit, and watched the 60 Minutes piece would know I have never made a direct claim of having any personal knowledge about the fired United States attorneys. What I believe Mr. Rove is trying to do here is to confuse the public.
I would additionally like to state that I have had very limited contact with the Department of Justice since testifying before the House Judiciary lawyers. One contact is from Lisa Howard. She contacted my attorney in the fall of 2008 and contended that she was working at the DOJ for the Office of Professional Responsibility and asked about me possibly testifying and asked for my address. My attorney communicated to her that I had already told my story in an affidavit and given four hours of testimony under oath before the House Judiciary Committee and that both of these documents were readily available and represented all I knew about the prosecution of Don Siegelman. Ms. Howard did not ask for a copy of these documents nor has she every subpoenaed me or asked to interview me, and been refused, to the best of my knowledge.
In December of 2008, I was contacted by an individual I knew and her attorney about the OPR conducting an investigation on me and asking questions about my sex life and the adoption of my four-year-old daughter. I contacted the man they identified as working for the DOJ’s OPR, Jim Sullivan, who happens to work for Alice Martin. I asked him if I was the target of an investigation since he had conversations with the woman who contacted me about whether I had bought a baby for $300,000 after his asking her about it. He would not confirm or deny if I was a target to investigation on the ridiculous claim that I had bought a baby for $300,000, which was untrue, but he admitted asking the questions the woman said he had asked her. Within a week or two, the woman contacted me again and said that a Mr. Causey, A Washington OPR attorney, had contacted her. I had my attorney write the DOJ’s OPR office and Ms. Howard about this matter to ask if this was the way they conduct investigations at the OPR. Further, it seemed quite odd at the time considering I do not work for the DOJ, and I could not fathom the connection of my sex life and adoption of my four-year-old daughter having anything to do with the investigation of Leura Canary and Alice Martin. An OPR attorney, Judith Wish, contacted my attorney and asked her to provide the name of the individuals that their employees had contacted. They did ask me what their investigators learned and whom they had spoken with. We communicated back that they should ask them because Mr. Sullivan had already admitted to me that he had done it and could not tell me why. I had no desire to put into writing their ridiculous claims. Those are the only two contacts I have had with the DOJ. Neither involved me refusing to testify from being subpoenaed or interviewed on whether Mr. Siegelman had been persecuted or not, as Karl Rove so claimed in the news article. I did, however, refuse to give them the names of the people they had contacted but gave them their employee’s names as they knew very well who they had contacted.
It has long been my belief that Karl Rove put the OPR up to asking these questions, and I am still to this date waiting for an apology from the OPR and have never heard anything else from the DOJ since they got caught snooping around in my personal life. It is completely ridiculous for Rove to claim I refused to cooperate with them when I am still waiting for them to let me know why they were snooping in my personal life (for information) that had nothing to do with their investigations of Leura Canary and Alice Martin. Plus, the allegations were ridiculous, as I had not “bought” my daughter. I would have thought they could have gotten to the bottom of this very quickly. Never during any of that awful deal with DOJ did they ask me to testify and give a sworn statement. Further, how my sex life was involved in their investigation is beyond me, but they had questions about it. I suspect this was done in an attempt to embarrass me. I suspect Karl Rove was behind those attempts to discredit me and again the stuff was just so ridiculous. Apparently that matter is lost as well at the DOJ, as we never heard back from Ms. Judith Wish after she contacted Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Causey.
After reading Mr. Rove’s article today, it is unclear, but I believe he may be claiming he made a sworn statement to OPR. I shall be writing to see if this is about my sex life and adoption. I would love to know if he is the one behind those ridiculous tales.
Mr. Rove also stated in the article that committee staff considered me an unreliable witness, but he fails to identify any of those unnamed individuals. What I find most interesting is he fails to mention the report that found my evidence was credible enough to call him as a witness. He is truly a sad, pathetic individual trying to cover his behind from criminal prosecution.
It is clearly evident that Karl Rove completely distorted the truth in his article, and you printed it. I just want to thank you for showing that he is so delusional that he cannot even control himself from printing lies in the press. Clearly today, your paper has shown that he is a nut job, and although he may have called me a lunatic and eccentric at times, we now have hard evidence that he is a bold-faced liar. His lies can clearly be confirmed as lies.
Thank you, Mr. Murdoch, for printing his lies. Hopefully the American public will wake up and realize that Karl Rove is a liar. For too long he has been allowed to politically bully people and lie in the press. Today I socked him in the nose with the truth. As for his lies, please let him know lies do not hurt anyone except the person who tells them.
I am happy today to call Mr. Rove a liar, and you have provided the cold hard proof. You, Mr. Murdoch, gave me that opportunity. I am thankful that you run a paper that apparently does not check for the truth.
Sincerely,
DANA JILL SIMPSON