Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (92344)	12/26/2004 5:38:38 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

Bob Kohn's Media Watch - Shifting Campaign Tactics, Spitzer Backs Off By Bob Kohn My newspaper delivery man hadn't delivered my New York Times yesterday, so I missed this one: After nearly three years of high-profile prosecutions of investment banks, mutual funds and insurance companies, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer of New York said yesterday that he is ready to cede those investigations to federal regulators. . . . His decision comes just two weeks after he declared his candidacy for governor of New York in 2006, a campaign in which he will need to raise large sums to be competitive. Traditionally, many of those donations in a governor's race come from Wall Street, but Mr. Spitzer said his move away from big-business investigations was not related to his campaign. The article, by Patrick O'Gilfoil Healy, appeared on the front page and was remarkable for courageously making the connection between Spitzer's sudden change in prosecutorial strategy and his recently announced candidacy for governor. The article even quoted the Chairman of the New York State Republican Party, who suggested that the shift was a "bald political move timed so the newly declared candidate for governor could distance himself from any criticism that Wall Street investigations had hurt the state's economy." The politicization of Spitzer's move was typical of what the Times does to actions by the Bush administration, but it was remarkable to see the technique used against one of the Times's political favorites. Times managing editor Jill Abramson must have taken Christmas Eve off to let this one sneek by--but when she read it yesterday morning, she apparently sprung into action. After Spitzer issued an angry statement, the Times immediately issued both a correction and a rare corrective article. Here' the correction: A front-page article yesterday referred imprecisely to plans by Attorney General Eliot Spitzer of New York for further investigations of business practices. It left an incorrect impression that he had spoken of ceding existing investigations to federal regulators -- as opposed to recognizing a reinvigorated federal role in new investigations. A corrective article appears here . The corrective article, published under the byline "By THE NEW YORK TIMES" says, in part, the following: Criticizing a front-page article in The New York Times yesterday about his plans, Mr. Spitzer issued a statement saying that increased regulatory activity by the federal government, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission, made it more likely that Washington would take the lead or act alone in new nvestigations. But he said that his office would not withdraw from cases in which it is now actively involved, calling the notion "absurd." The article referred imprecisely to Mr. Spitzer's plans, saying he was "ready to cede those investigations" to the federal government and leaving the incorrect impression that he was referring to existing investigations. The headline also said that he would "yield inquiries" to federal regulators. The article "suggests that the attorney general has somehow altered his views on the role of his office in confronting corporate fraud," the statement said. "This is simply not true." Then, in an obvious attempt to undue the damage done by the original article, the Times added its editorial opinion this way: Mr. Spitzer, who recently announced his candidacy for governor of New York in the 2006 race, has become prominent in part because of his popular investigations into the securities and insurance industries. If the Times wants to praise Spitzer on the editorial page, fine. But this transparent attempt to undue the political damage done by the previous day's straight news article is precisely what's wrong with journalism as practiced at the New York Times. Do you recall ever seeing the Times do this for the Bush administration? I wonder if they'll be sending Patrick O'Gilfoil Healy to off to the Jayson Blair dungeon for awhile. That'll teach a reporter to write a harsh story about one of the Times's favorites.http://bobkohn.blogspot.com/