When Fox News Is More Trustworthy Than ABC News

Posted by on . 27 comments.

It’s really quite difficult to be more cynical about the mainstream media than I am, and even I am thoroughly taken aback at ABC‘s continued employment of Fred Thompson as a paid political commentator.

It has been abundantly clear for a very long time now to one and all that Fred Thompson is almost certainly running for President. For him to accept this position under the circumstances tells us all we need to know about his ethics as a politician: he doesn’t have any, which is to say he inhabits the same ethical-moral gutter as George Bush. For ABC to continue to employ him as a paid political commentator — to the point of providing commentary on Presidential debates — tells us all we need to know about their journalistic ethics. They don’t have any either, which is to say they inhabit the same ethical-moral gutter as Fox News.

I kept my mouth shut and went about my business while ABC pimped out Freddie in this way the past many weeks, and Freddie willingly prostituted himself. But this story finally got to me:

Since April 2007, ABC Radio Networks has featured a daily commentary from former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN), titled the “Fred Thompson Report.” ABC Radio launched the “Fred Thompson Report” amid growing speculation that Thompson would run for president in 2008. When asked if he would run on the March 11 broadcast of Fox News Sunday, Thompson told host Chris Wallace: “I’m just going to wait and see what happens, as I say. I’m going to have my own thoughts about what’s necessary to get the job done, be successful in doing it.” Thompson’s aides have since strongly indicated that he will, in fact, seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, claiming that Thompson has raised several million dollars and even suggesting the date of his official announcement. Thompson told the Associated Press on June 26: “You’re either running or not running. I think the steps we’re taking are pretty obvious.” Nevertheless, ABC Radio continues to host his daily commentaries.

He’s dropped every last pretense of coyness. That last flimsy veil has fluttered to the ground. And there’s Freddie in all his naked presidential candidate glory going: “Am I running? Are you serious? Is your IQ greater than your age?”

I could end up being pleasantly surprised any day now, even today or tomorrow. But I’m willing to bet good money that nothing short of an official announcement by Freddie will cause ABC News to end this arrangement. He could publish notarized affidavits in the national press saying “I’m not not running”, and that still wouldn’t be enough to prod ABC News into any kind of action.

The real funny part is that ABC News is diligently not carrying Freddie’s “either running or not running” statement.

The Media Matters post I quoted from above links to Fox News for the AP report containing that statement.

ABC News carried an earlier version of this AP report, without this statement, but they seem to have spurned updates. Searching for “either running or not running” on the ABC News site pulls up zilch.

That’s the trouble with compromising your journalistic integrity. It interferes with your reporting of the news. And not just in blatant ways like this. Being in bed with Freddie means that ABC News has a real credibility problem at this point in covering the race for the Republican nomination. But ABC News clearly doesn’t care about that kind of sh*t.

The funny thing is that there isn’t more consistent outrage being expressed over this comically unethical journalistic behavior. Imagine if it were Fox News instead of ABC News employing Freddie in this way. It’s really hard to imagine that we’d be seeing the same ho-hum level of muted criticism.

Maybe the fact that ABC News has a proud tradition as a real news organization has something to do with this unexpectedly mild public reaction. But, by the same token, shouldn’t that proud tradition itself drive ABC News to scuttle their cozy arrangement with Freddie? They have already put themselves in a position where people have to turn to Fox News rather than ABC News for the truth. That’s surely a really sad day for ABC News? It isn’t really possible to sink lower than that in the television news business, is it?

Maybe Charles Gibson can live with that, but surely Peter Jennings is spinning in his grave?

Comments

  1. sarabeth says:
    June 29, 2007 at 2:58 pm

    If this comment were a post, its headline would be “Worse Than Bush? Wow!”

    That’s the distinction Freddie seems all set to claim. At least Bush waited till after he was elected to start breaking the laws:

    Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) may be violating Federal Election Commission (FEC) laws by failing to report funds raised in the second quarter, which ends tomorrow — giving his probable presidential campaign a one-month fundraising advantage over his rivals in the third quarter.
    [...]
    Thompson is operating under the “testing the waters” clause of FEC laws, allowing him to raise money, travel and conduct polling to determine whether a bid is feasible. If he were to start campaigning, he officially would become a candidate, subject to filing requirements.

    The law, however, is vague when it comes to the difference between testing the waters and all-out campaigning.

    Those testing the waters are forbidden from referring to themselves as candidates, advertising or trying to get on a ballot.

    Perhaps more importantly, the laws forbid such a person from “rais[ing] more money than what is reasonably needed to test the waters or amass funds (seed money) to be used after candidacy is established.”

    Thompson attended at least one $2,300 fundraiser in Nashville this week, and as The Hill reported earlier this month, 100 of his supporters were asked to raise a total of about $4.7 million.

    $4.7 million is probably enough to test the water supply in every municipality in the continental U.S.

  2. JimC says:
    July 1, 2007 at 10:32 am

    Perhaps Mr. Thompson should have used non-profit and 527 organizations until he declared, to raise money…

  3. matt says:
    July 1, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    perhaps he just should have obeyed the law.

  4. JimC says:
    July 1, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    perhaps he just should have obeyed the law.

    Mr. Thompson may be flirting with stepping over the line of legallity but he’s in good company in doing so.

  5. matt says:
    July 1, 2007 at 1:41 pm

    maybe you don’t understand the difference between something that is politically embarrassing and something that is illegal. no big deal. not exactly breaking new ground.

    i did however think that after stepping in it to the extent you did last week, you’d pick your spots a bit better. how naive of me.

  6. sarabeth says:
    July 1, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    maybe JimC would also favor us with his unique perspective on Freddie’s alleged sleaziness in continuing to act as a paid political commentator for ABC?

  7. JimC says:
    July 1, 2007 at 3:00 pm

    maybe you don’t understand the difference between something that is politically embarrassing and something that is illegal. no big deal. not exactly breaking new ground

    Let’s explore this a bit, Mr. Thompson is being scrutinized for raising too much money and acting like a candidate instead of just testing the waters. Mr. Edwards created charity organizations which do not need to disclose their donors nor the size of the donations. He used this scheme between 2005 and 2006 to raise $2.7 million dollars, before declaring, to fund activities much like that of a candidate, hiring foreign policy experts, pay for and employ people from his past and present campaigns, much of this sounds like a campaign that Thompson is being accused of and furthermore funded by a less than honest means.

    So being embarrased by this is one thing but how does it differ from Mr. Thompson’s “pre-declaration” activities? Is $2.7 million too much of “seed” or testing the waters money?

    I see no real distinction between the two except Edwards used non-profits to fund his pre-declaration activities, and what’s more is that by funneling funds through a non-profit, donors were allowed to exceed the legal donation limit.

    If I’m wrong, please explain the difference. Sure Edwards disclosed the money to the IRS but did he disclose the money raised from these charity organizations to the FEC as Mr. Thompson apparently should be doing?

  8. JimC says:
    July 1, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    maybe JimC would also favor us with his unique perspective on Freddie’s alleged sleaziness in continuing to act as a paid political commentator for ABC?

    I’m sure he will sever that activity as soon as he declares just as Edwards severed his ties with the non-profits that he used up until then.

  9. sarabeth says:
    July 1, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    dodged the question, as usual.

    for the record, the question is: do you or do you not think it’s sleazy for him to be still doing this, at this stage of his all-but-declared candidacy?

    (so the question is not whether it is illegal, or whether he will stop before it becomes illegal.)

  10. sarabeth says:
    July 1, 2007 at 3:15 pm

    If I’m wrong, please explain the difference.

    you read the NYT hit-piece pretty closely, right?

    how many times did they use the word illegal?

    could that be the difference right there? Edwards did something that’s being criticized as a sharp practice. Freddie did something that’s being criticized as possibly illegal.

    or do you not see a difference, between the two, as your previous comments seem to suggest? (after all, Matt already said this when he went “maybe you don’t understand the difference between something that is politically embarrassing and something that is illegal”, and you barely broke your stride.)

  11. matt says:
    July 1, 2007 at 6:12 pm

    and you barely broke your stride

    exactly. and i’m getting really tired of this once again. stop arguing with what you think “some librul” would say and address what we are saying. you will answer direct questions, you will not assign other’s possible arguments to us, or you won’t be here anymore. this is non-negotiable.

  12. JimC says:
    July 1, 2007 at 9:34 pm

    you will not assign other’s possible arguments to us

    What does this even mean? When in the above comments did I do this? I am drawing a comparison to the criticism being brought against Mr.Thompson to the actions taken by Mr. Edwards.

    Mr. Thompson, from what I gather from the blockquote in comment # 1, is being singled out for alledgedly breaking the law and being accussed of acting as a candidate while still undeclared and by rasing money of which he hadn’t reported to the FEC, so what exactly are you accusing me of when you threaten me again? This is really bizarre.

    I know you like Mr. Edwards as a candidate but for heaven sake be rational.

    Her are the questions asked:

    sarabeth wrote:

    maybe JimC would also favor us with his unique perspective on Freddie’s alleged sleaziness in continuing to act as a paid political commentator for ABC?
    [...]
    do you or do you not think it’s sleazy for him to be still doing this, at this stage of his all-but-declared candidacy?

    No.

    you read the NYT hit-piece pretty closely, right?

    yes

    how many times did they use the word illegal?
    could that be the difference right there? Edwards did something that’s being criticized as a sharp practice. Freddie did something that’s being criticized as possibly illegal.

    Zero. How is the number of times the word “illegal” used significant?

    What is significant is whether or not Mr. Edwards is guilty breaking of any Fedral Elections laws by not reporting his pre-declaration funds. He may be guilty of defrauding those who gave to those charities thinking they were funding the poor but instead funded a seminar on Iraq foreign policy, etc etc…Does the number of times the article used the word “illegal” mean anything at all?

    or do you not see a difference, between the two, as your previous comments seem to suggest?

    I don’t see the difference because I’m digging beyond the hit piece to get at the root of the issue. Did Mr. Edwards in fact break any laws. If the criteria is merely the appearence of running a campaign before declaring and then not reporting that income to the FEC, then how is Mr. Edwards actions ANY different than Mr. Thompsons???

    I ask if Mr. Edwards reported his income through the non-profits to the FEC, if not, why? Shouldn’t he have to?

    stop arguing with what you think “some librul” would say and address what we are saying

    Where did I do this???? quote it from any of my comments above, please…I really do not understand how from any of my comments above you felt the need to threaten me with
    “you won’t be here anymore. this is non-negotiable.” If there is some misunderstanding then I apologize but I honestly have no clue as to why you think you needed to write comment #11 from any of the things I commented above….

  13. matt says:
    July 2, 2007 at 5:12 am

    What does this even mean?

    if you don’t know by now, after we have explained it to you multiple times, you’re simply too fucking stupid to be here.

    I am drawing a comparison to the criticism being brought against Mr.Thompson to the actions taken by Mr. Edwards.

    based apparently on argument you are parroting from other places.

    Zero. How is the number of times the word “illegal” used significant?

    because no one at all is suggesting what edwards did is illegal. people (including possibly the fec) are suggesting that what thompson did is illegal. need i draw you a fucking picture? this is what we mean when we accuse you of being an idiot or willfully ignoring the facts of the case. you simply aren’t entitled to your own facts, no matter what you think.

    I don’t see the difference because I’m digging beyond the hit piece to get at the root of the issue.

    you’ve proven time after time that you are singularly unqualified to do this.

    If the criteria is merely the appearence of running a campaign before declaring and then not reporting that income to the FEC, then how is Mr. Edwards actions ANY different than Mr. Thompsons???

    the fact that you even need to ask this means that you haven’t even read the related stories. reading the reporting is a prerequisite to discussing this here. otherwise all we’re getting from you is uninformed opinions. not going to work here.

    Where did I do this????

    all over the place. this was a general warning, reminding you of the rules under which you are accepted here. specifically i was addressing your ignoring direct questions that get to the point under discussion. generally you can’t answer these without gutting your position so you pretend they aren’t there in favor of answers to questions unasked here that are less damaging to whatever idiotic, unsupported argument you are making. honestly, i don’t think you are up to holding up your end here. you aren’t intellectually honest enough, and while i’d rather have someone to debate, debating with you is more an exercise in garbage pick up.

  14. JimC says:
    July 2, 2007 at 7:21 am

    What does this even mean?

    if you don’t know by now, after we have explained it to you multiple times, you’re simply too fucking stupid to be here.

    I meant what does this mean within my comments here under this topic. I know what you meant generally.

    We somehow got off into a tailspin here. I didn’t directly answer an indirect question, “maybe JimC would also favor us with his unique perspective”. This wasn’t a direct question, was it…sorry I dodged an indirect question.

    based apparently on argument you are parroting from other places.

    Parroting? I read this one NYT article about Edwards. So I am asking questions about it. If by asking questions based on this NYT article is parroting, then I’m guilty. But if you mean I went off and found someother blog or site, then no I didn’t do that. I read this article and drew a comparison followed with questions.

    you simply aren’t entitled to your own facts, no matter what you think
    [...]
    the fact that you even need to ask this means that you haven’t even read the related stories. reading the reporting is a prerequisite to discussing this here. otherwise all we’re getting from you is uninformed opinions. not going to work here
    .

    This is why I am asking YOU, because you may be informed. I have not found any of the related articles except variants of the same thing, and all of them mention that Edwards was close to crossing the line (as in if we looked at it closer he may have crossed the line but for now we’re not saying he did anything wrong) and Thompson may have crossed the line and if any body makes a complaint, they may find that he did, slight distinctions between the two.

    I’m not parroting some other website, I am not trying to answer some other websites arugments, I’m not doing any of those things. I’m asking of your opinion because as you so eloquently put it, I’m not qualified. I wasn’t attacking Edwards or your choice in candidates, I was asking a question of those who I thought might have an informed opinion.

    Clearly, I was wrong to consider that you may grace me with some of your insight into why the difference in reaction to these two men’s actions.

    Sorry I bothered you….

    BTW, the point may be moot as I read that a candidate has a short time period AFTER they formally declare they are a candidate to file past campaign funds with the FEC (and this was from an article about Edwards not Thompson).

  15. matt says:
    July 2, 2007 at 7:53 am

    I have not found any of the related articles except variants of the same thing, and all of them mention that Edwards was close to crossing the line (as in if we looked at it closer he may have crossed the line but for now we’re not saying he did anything wrong) and Thompson may have crossed the line and if any body makes a complaint, they may find that he did, slight distinctions between the two.

    this is as perfect an example as i could have imagined. whether edwards was “close to the line” is debatable. i’m not happy about the way he handled it, and have made that point here and elsewhere. but you take it to “may have crossed” absent any basis AT ALL. this is you wishing he did, not any kind of “digging” or analysis or even the bare minimum of searching for anyone credible or authoritative source asserting that he did. this is you alone, saying that he “may have crossed.” so clearly you’re fine with an attempted smear even after all available reporting has ended up in the same place: crafty, maybe politically toxic, but in no way illegal.

    meanwhile, thompson has been hiring people not needed for “testing the waters,” holding max-donor fundraisers, and directing supporters to raise four million dollars. all of this is, on its face, “crossing the line” of what the fec considers legal. do the fucking math, you got both ends of your argument wrong.

    Clearly, I was wrong to consider that you may grace me with some of your insight into why the difference in reaction to these two men’s actions.

    this was a post about lobbyist fred thompson. by my count, edwards was not mentioned in the original post nor sarabeth’s initial comment about campaign finance. YOU brought edwards into it, so why is it on me to point out the differences? simply because you chose to puke up a conflated, baseless argument? please.

    and seriously, your position that it’s not sleazy for thompson to be contributing to abc while breaking campaign finance laws (a big part of his empty time in the senate) and running for president is hilarious. a bit desperate for someone to save you from rudy/mitt/st mccain?

  16. JimC says:
    July 2, 2007 at 8:16 am

    thompson has been hiring people not needed for “testing the waters,” holding max-donor fundraisers, and directing supporters to raise four million dollars. all of this is, on its face, “crossing the line” of what the fec considers legal.

    Ok, so I found this…

    PACs must update the FEC on their finances every quarter, and an exploratory committee must document its fundraising and spending with federal regulators not long after a potential candidate formally enters the race.

    In the AP article about Edwards, the bolded part, I’m asking now, do you know if this is true and if so wouln’t this negate any allegation against Thompson *if* after he declares, he reports the things you mentioned?

    And you’re right, I brought in Edwards, but because I thought there were subtle differences about flirting with the rules. But if the above quote is accurate, then Thompson still can escape any allegations of wrong doing by simply reporting these things after he declares.

  17. matt says:
    July 2, 2007 at 8:31 am

    If or when Thompson decides to get into the race officially, rival campaigns or citizens can file a complaint with the FEC, which would investigate whether or not Thompson was spending this time campaigning instead of testing the waters.

    The complaint would have precedent. The FEC found evangelist Pat Robertson guilty of such an infraction in the 1988 race and required he pay a $25,000 fine. But the decision was made after the election was over.

    Because of the lengthy process involved and the size of the fine, which is paltry compared to the lofty sums most campaigns are raising now, Thompson may not face much trouble if he were accused of skirting the law.

    “I think the deterrent, frankly, is him being called on it,” a Republican strategist said.

    from sarabeth’s link, which i’m sure you read because you’re interested in informed arguments.

    fred thompson doesn’t care much for election law, now does he:

    The Federal Election Commission reports today that Thompson’s now-defunct Fred D. Thompson PAC has been fined $450 for being late with some of its paperwork in 2006.

    but don’t worry. lobbyist fred thompson is here to save you! laws be damned.

  18. JimC says:
    July 2, 2007 at 9:52 am

    laws be damned.

    Matt, if this makes Fred a law breaker then what does a $9500 fine make Edwards (and yes I know this is for the 2004 campaign)?

    My point in mentioning this is that the FEC needs more bite because people calculate the ROI and take the risk because the consequences are not stiff enough. Stiffer fines or worse may make these infractions disappear….

  19. sac says:
    July 2, 2007 at 10:39 am

    Sounds like Edwards was shrewder than Thompson. This isn’t surprising.

  20. JimC says:
    July 2, 2007 at 11:03 am

    Sounds like Edwards was shrewder than Thompson

    If the quote about reporting to the FEC shortly after declaring your candidacy is accurate, then this whole argument is irrelevant, *if* like I said, Thompson discloses all fund raising activity and spending shortly after his declaration, correct? I’d still like to know if this is the law (about reporting after declaring), still looking for concrete fact on this…

  21. JimC says:
    July 2, 2007 at 11:37 am

    Here are the rules from the FEC website…

    seems like this exception is the issue in question:

    Raises funds in excess of amounts reasonably required for exploratory activity or amasses funds to be used after candidacy is established;

    It does say that after the individual becomes a candidate that the funds amassed during the testing of the waters phase must be reported. What is not clear is the distinction between an exploratory committee and a “campaign”.

    These rules do seem to be unnecessarily vague. In any case one thing looked interesting (one of the automatic triggers to become a candidate):

    Fails to Disavow Campaign Activity

    The individual fails to write the Commission a letter disavowing unauthorized campaign efforts on his or her behalf within 30 days after being notified by the FEC that another person has received contributions or made expenditures of more than $5,000 on the individual’s behalf.

    So does this mean that the FEC has to notify the person that someone is campaigning, which is to receive and spend money on their behalf, if so, wouldn’t this mean that someone would need to file a complaint with the FEC about Thompson and then Thompson would have 30 days to disavow.

    I predict that no fines will come of it. There, we’ll see if I get this one right…

  22. matt says:
    July 2, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    so your standard is now “whether there is a fine or not?”

    republicanism…

  23. JimC says:
    July 2, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    so your standard is now “whether there is a fine or not?”

    Ok, I inferred that if there was a fine then wrong doing was found. As of yet, no wrong doing has been found but is alledged. However, it is still very much possible that following the rules of the FEC, Thompson could be compliant after he declares and/or no one files a complaint. The FEC rules seem very “plaintiff” driven rather than inernally driven.

  24. matt says:
    July 2, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    Ok, I inferred that if there was a fine then wrong doing was found.

    that’s not what you typed. you asserted that it was all very vague and that no fine was in the offing.

    thompson isn’t a PAC. the PAC he was fined for is not operational. thompson is raising money even outside of the PAC system. therefore it isn’t important for him to file later because it would already be too late. someone will file, and if The Hill’s reporting is even close to the real story, then it’s going to be a problem for thompson. obviously not financial trouble, but since he was a campaign finance crusader in the senate, it’s certainly a hypocrisy problem, but what else is new?

  25. JimC says:
    July 2, 2007 at 12:32 pm

    From the FEC rules page, it seems that there are “triggers” that make an individual a candidate and the entity gathering money a “campaign”. The campaign and/or individual then has to report “testing the waters money”

    Furthermore, financial records of testing-the-waters activities should be kept because, if the individual later becomes a candidate, the funds received and spent to test the waters will be considered contributions and expenditures. They will be reportable when the campaign files its first report.

    So the issue is has Thompson triggered the “automatic candidate” rules AND if he has, will he report money received with his first filing? Also, there is a 15 day time limit after he has become a candidate. Now if he declares himself a candidate it is clear, 15 days later, he must file. But if he doesn’t it isn’t clear what timeframe is involved because it looks as if someone has to file a complaint, then he has 30 days to disavow the claim or become a candidate, then would have 15 days to file.

    So, if someone suspects him to be a candidate, then they need to make a complaint to the FEC to trigger the 30 days but he’s supposed to declare this week, so the point is moot.

    I searched the FEC site, I didn’t find any complaints filed against him….

    …like I said, these rules seem too vague and can be played to easily.

    Thompson would be breaking the law if the rules were that 15 days after receiving more than $5000 from a donation, you have to declare yourself as a candidate, but the rules are not setup that way…

  26. matt says:
    July 2, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    it’s not vague in the sense that he’s holding $2300 fundraisers, directing people to raise $4 million and hiring a finance director. these are on their face, not testing the waters. the law seems quite clear on this. i don’t care what you’re going on about, and as far as i’m concerned, we’ll be going with The Hill’s reporting until there is a good reason not to, your self-serving thompson-defending notwithstanding.

  27. JimC says:
    July 2, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    Fair enough.