Lazy journalism

Yesterday, I observed that the NY Times chose to put a non-story about Obama's broker in charge of his not-yet-quite-blind trust having invested (and lost) a small amount of Obama's money in companies related to two of Obama's campaign contributors on the front page while relegating one of the really important stories of the day (the eight fired U.S. attorneys) to page 14. Digby has his comments on stories like this:

These are patented Whitewater-style "smell test" stories. They are based on complicated details that make the casual reader's eyes glaze over and about which the subject has to issue long confusing explanations in return. They feature colorful and unsavory political characters in some way. They often happened in the past and they tend to be written in such a way as to say that even if they aren't illegal they "look bad." The underlying theme is hypocrisy because the subjects are portrayed as making a dishonest buck while pretending to represent the average working man. Oh, and they always feature a Democrat. Republicans are not subject to such scrutiny because a craven, opportunistic Republican isn't "news." (Neat trick huh?)

No single story will bring down a candidate because they have no substance to them. It's the combined effect they are looking for to build a sense overall sleaziness. "Where there's smoke there's fire" right?

This is not unlike the Washington Post's story on the sale of John Edwards' house to a sleazy buyer. As someone pointed out, it would have been illegal for Edwards to refuse to sell to anyone just because he didn't like them. But, the Post nevertheless tried to smear Edwards with a fake "scandal." Also, remember the story of Harry Reid's land deals and the huge profit he made by selling land that was his to -- oh my God - himself.

This is the lazy man's form of "investigative journalism." Find a perfectly legitimate transaction. Find a political enemy who is willing to put a nastsy spin on it. Publish the thing on the front page to give it apparent legitimacy as a scandal. Then walk away and let the pot boil.

But, is Digby right about why the target is almost always a Democrat? I suspect the real reason is that the editors fear, almost more than anything else, being labeled liberal. Since they have no choice but to report (albeit on page 14) the real scandals involving Republicans, they feel forced to "balance" the scale by reporting on false scandals involving Democrats.

Sorry guys, but it doesn't work. The New York Times is still labeled "liberal" by the right. Wouldn't you think they'd learn?