Why What We Write Matters

I have been having an ongoing discussion with my liberal step-father over the Abramoff Scandal.  He is a big reader of the NYT and get much of his news from the internet, although mostly corporate sites.  I have been pushing the point that this is republican only scandal, and he insists that Dems are involved too.  I have been avoiding the minutiae detail and sticking too ONLY Republican took illegal money from Abramoff, and in fact no Dem has gotten a dime from Abramoff period.

He was skeptical and today sent me an email quoting from an article saying that Dems benefited from Abramoff as well.  This was my response:

ALL of this money comes from his associates (which are just people who work in a large lobbying firm and his Client, which are the Indian tribes that he has pled guilty to ripping off.)  In fact, overall, dems got comparatively less money AFTER these clients hired Abramoff than BEFORE he was advising them.

He accused me of "cutting it very fine"  and sent me two more articles:

Democrat on Panel Probing Abramoff to Return Tribal Donations
By Jonathan Weisman and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A04

Abramoff Coverage by The Post
The Post stands by its reporting that Jack Abramoff directed campaign money to some Democrats.

But before I could tear those down, and show why they were staw man articles, he sent me the following, which took the wind out of my sails and is why what we write matters and why we need to be careful about what we write :

January 23, 2006
Abramoff Clients Increased Donations to Democrats
by RonK, Seattle
In the howl over a flat-out false assertion (that Jack Abramoff donated to both parties), WaPo ombudsman Deborah Howell amended her position, granting that Abramoff was a GOP player, that his scandal is a GOP scandal, and that he contributed exclusively to Republicans.
She then asserts that donations were "were directed to lawmakers of both parties". The left blogosphere went beserk -- insisting that Abramoff directed his clients to reduce their established levels of donation to Democrats.
In this instance, Howell is correct....

Posted at the Next Hurrah, my own much valued and quoted blogeshpere being quoted against me.

Now the title and much of what Ron writes in that piece is technically correct.  Dems did get more money under Abramoff, but there are so many ways to read that data that say the opposite, why would we want to ever promote it in this way.

Much of what he uses to make his case, is spun such that it could have come right from Fox news.  Take this part for example, where he is breaking down the data.

Consider first the Coushatta of Louisiana -- who made NO contributions in the immediate pre-Abramoff (1999-2000) election cycle.
In the 2001-2002 cycle, they gave $10K to the New Democrat Network, $10K to DSCC (and related accounts), 2.5 to DCCC accounts, 4 to Mary Landrieu, 3 to Tim Johnson (and 3 to the SD Democratic Party), 1 to Harkin, 2 to Breaux, 5 to Harry Reid's Searchlight fund, 5 to Daschle's DashPAC, 5 to Dorgan's Great Plains Leadership fund, and 5 to the Blue Dog PAC .. all net increases in dollars to Democrats.

Sure looks like a increase to me.  Damn, guess he is right.  Now look at the numbers in context. (From an article in the American Prospect- Great info on this issue btw)

3) Tribe: Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 4/2001): $1,000
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 4/2001): $750
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (4/2001 - 6/2004): $40,500
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (4/2001 - 6/2004): $168,750

I am sorry, but using this data to make a point about Dems getting more money under Abramoff is like the media saying that recounts of the 2000 election in Florida would have elected Bush anyway.
In the case on this Abramoff scandal, I am not asking that we ever lie or cover-up Dem involvement. However, in fact that NO Dem has been indicted or even directly implicated, why would we want to help the right with there meme that this is a bipartisan scandal.  And this is by no means limited to this scandal (nor is it meant as a slam at RonK specifically) but just a plea that we give Dems the benefit of the Doubt around here, because no one else will.

Oh, and watch what you write, because it can come back and bite you in the ass.