Los Angeles Times Blows the Story of John O'Neill's Contributions to Democrats
Patterico
<font size=4>
Very interesting comment in the Los Angeles Times this morning regarding Swift Boat Vet John O'Neill:
<font color=blue>
"In a recent interview, O'Neill . . . said he had not voted for a Republican nominee for president since 1988. But campaign finance records show that between 1992 and 2004, he gave $10,250 to GOP congressional campaigns."
<font color=black>
I think it's poor journalism that the Times doesn't specifically tell us whether O'Neill's campaign finance records reveal contributions to Democrats.
The clear implication is that O'Neill has not donated any money to Democrats. After all, the use of the word "but" in that last sentence conveys clear skepticism regarding O'Neill's claim that he is not a partisan Republican -- and cites as allegedly contrary evidence O'Neill's donations to GOP candidates. This doesn't mean much if O'Neill has also made significant contributions to Democrats.
But the article says nothing directly speaking to the issue.
<font color=green>
If the L.A. Times review of campaign finance records revealed no donations by O'Neill to Democrats, the paper should have said so directly, rather than simply implying it.
If, on the other hand, O'Neill has has given money to Democrats -- especially significant sums -- <font color=red>then the L.A. Times has falsely implied that he has given money to Republicans only. At a minimum, the paper has left out an important part of the story. In that case, the Times owes O'Neill an apology.
<font color=green>
I have written the authors of the article (with a copy to the Readers' Representative) asking if they researched whether O'Neill gave money to Democrats. If he did, I have asked them to tell me how much he gave to Democrats, and over what period of time.
Again, as always, I'll let you know what I hear.
P.S. It's also interesting how the article words the statement that O'Neill <font color=blue>"had not voted for a Republican nominee for president since 1988."<font color=green> When you put it that way, the statement doesn't necessarily seem that convincing. After all, maybe he just hasn't voted in a presidential election since 1988.
Except that, in an interview I heard O'Neill give, he said that he voted for H. Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 -- and Al Gore in 2000! That would be the same Al Gore that ran against George W. Bush. In other words, O'Neill is willing to vote for an opponent of George W. -- just not John Kerry.
Including that level of detail -- even just the fact that O'Neill voted for Gore -- would have far been more persuasive than simply saying that O'Neill hadn't voted for a Republican for President since 1988. I wonder why the Times reporters put it the way they did.
Hmmmmmmmmm.<font color=black>
<font size=3>
Posted by Patterico
patterico.com |
