"Raising Question"

Brendan Nyhan has a smart take on yesterday's bogus Times story about some of Barack Obama's investments that "raise questions" about this and that. In fact, once you read through the whole article then go back and read it again to try to make sense of it, you'll see that no questions are, in fact, raised. Instead, Barack Obama made some financial transactions that the Times has no evidence were improper and for which there does not appear to be any realistic motive for improper action (nobody, for example, profited financially from the transaction) and for which there are perfectly plausible explanations.

The Times reporter, in short, saw something that did arguably raise questions. He looked into it. He found nothing. Then rather than printing nothing -- since, after all, that's what he found -- he instead went to press with a story that "raises questions" -- a formulation that simply amounts to a presumption of guilt. It raises the question of when America's newspapers just threw in the towel and decided they had no real obligations to inform their readers rather than mislead them.

3/8/07 9:15AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

They did this to Dean too (and probably other candidates in 04). A story would appear on the front of the NYT "raising questions" about propriety, and then when you read the article the punchline was always that this was a non-story. The one I recall was something having to do with Medicare payments made while Dean was VT Governor, which turned out to be something he didn't control anyway.

Posted by: Heath Eddy on March 8, 2007 09:33 AM

I was impressed by the triple-whammy of non-scandalous behavior: Obama's actions were ethically permissible even if he had knowledge of what was going on (he was accused of investing in the same companies as supporters, not of investing in companies run by supporters). Obama rather obviously had no idea what was going on, because he had attempted to set up a blind trust. He had also fixed the problem prior to the article's publication. That's just layers and layers of non-scandal. It's a non-scandal wrapped inside ethical behavior inside of a commonly used and aboveboard business transaction...

Posted by: jfaberuiuc on March 8, 2007 10:07 AM

The problem is that there aren't any negative consequences for reporters who file such swill. Not even reputation effects.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on March 8, 2007 10:23 AM

So Obama is not only a lightweight with exactly zero credentials for being President, but he is corrupt too. Zzzz. Big deal. It's not like Obama can possibly be as corrupt as the Democrats' Senate leader, so I don't see this as an issue for the primary. Besides, we need to remember that the MSM will protect their liberal brethren at all costs. I remember when "questions were raised" about Bill Frist's blind trust - it was a months long story; Obama's corruption is now "old news". Frist was corrupt and Obama isn't, because IOKIYAD.

Posted by: Al on March 8, 2007 10:42 AM

It raises the question of when America's newspapers just threw in the towel and decided they had no real obligations to inform their readers rather than mislead them.

"Obligations?" The New York Times has fiduciary obligations to its shareholders to sell newspapers.

Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop on March 8, 2007 10:45 AM

For Pete’s sake. Whine, whine, whine. The man isn’t running for the county council in some small town in Alabama. He’s running for President. When you run for President you should expect reporters to go over your finances in detail. The coincidence of his investments through his supposedly blind trust winding up in companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors is at least interesting, and should be reported.

If I had a nickel for every time a politician claimed to have no idea that his money was being invested in some slimy way, I’d be rich. If Obama did nothing wrong, he’s got nothing to worry about. If his claims of innocence are a crock – e.g., if the blind trust was more like vaguely nearsighted – then it will come out.

The story was legit.

NB: I have no idea whether Obama is telling the truth.

Posted by: ostap on March 8, 2007 11:01 AM

ostap, you want to make to suggest that, as with the post's edwards real estate story, there's enough there to merit a brief article back on A17, where they used to dump stories that undercut the administration's case for war. there was nothing in this article to justify its length and placement, other than that they did the same thing for jeff gerth what, 15 years ago?

and, of course, you not only have no idea if obama is telling the truth, you have no idea if anyone (including the reporter) is telling the truth. how could you? what is the point of that remark?

Posted by: howard on March 8, 2007 11:07 AM

Al, the Frist case was rather significantly different than this Obama situation, unless some information far more damaging to Obama comes to light. For one thing, Frist's brother sits on the board of directors of HCA, which was the company in question, so it is thoroughly plausible that (Bill) Frist would have had access to inside information. Second, Frist made money on the HCA transaction, instructing his trustee to sell the stock shortly before the company announced that it would miss its quarterly earnings target, causing its stock to drop by 15%; Frist's stock sale saved him hundreds of thousands of dollars. The case was fishy enough that the SEC investigated Frist and other HCA insiders. AFAIK no charges were ever filed.

In this case Obama (a) had no inside information; (b) lost money; (c) was not investigated by the SEC. Yeah, pretty much the same...

Posted by: taliesin on March 8, 2007 11:17 AM

So Obama is not only a lightweight with exactly zero credentials for being President, but he is corrupt too.

What's amusing is that not only do low-information voters glance at stories like this and assume there must be substance behind them, supposedly "high-information" voters like Al do the same, as long as the result happens to be politically convenient for them. And then they're mystified as to why they constantly get accused of arguing in bad faith, etc.

Posted by: Steve on March 8, 2007 11:18 AM

Steve, I'm not sure why you think coming to a different conclusion about the accusations against Obama constitutes "bad faith". It's just coming to a different conclusion!

Nyhan and Matthew and you (I guess) look at Obama's statement that he didn't know about it and say to yourselves "OK, if he says he didn't know anything about, that's good enough for me."

I look at the fact that, out of the thousands and thousands of stocks out there to invest in, his supposedly "blind" trust just happened to invest in the same thing as his big political backers, maybe seems corrupt. You know, just because Obama says he didn't know about the investment doesn't make that true. And I'm not sure why you think it is "bad faith" to think that maybe it isn't.

Posted by: Al on March 8, 2007 11:39 AM

If Obama did nothing wrong, he’s got nothing to worry about

OK, so you've been a drunk for the last ten years. Jeebus.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on March 8, 2007 11:39 AM

Al's hackery has taken a real nosedive in quality recently. I suspect recent events have taken a toll on him, just as events took a toll on Stalin's hacks in the late 1950s.

Anyway, while he tries to execute the old hack moves, his heart just isn't in it. For instance, this "IOKIYAD"? Very, very sad.

Posted by: grh on March 8, 2007 11:43 AM

Howard, the point of my remark was simple - I'm not assuming that Obama is lying or telling the truth. Commenters on websites frequently assume a whole galaxy of views based on isolated comments, and I wanted to short circuit any blah blah blah that I'd presumed Obama guilty. I just haven't assumed he's telling the truth, and the investments do have an odd smell to them. Sometimes odd smells are perfectly innocent, but sometimes they're evidence of something fishy going on.

And please tell me you're not suggesting ("where they used to dump stories that undercut the administration's case for war")that the NYT is some sort of shill for the adminstration?

Posted by: ostap on March 8, 2007 11:57 AM

The problem with pundits is how incestuous they are. Here MY pimps Nyhan which gives Nyhan cred for the next time he goes off on his faux Dem bashing equivalency.

MY can't ignore Nyhan anymore than MY can ignore other fucktards that deserve to be ignored, because MY is a) addicted and b) relies on the circle jerk.

Who gives a fuck when Nyhan says?

Can a pundit say anything wrong?

IOKIYAP!

Posted by: jerry on March 8, 2007 11:58 AM

"Al's hackery has taken a real nosedive in quality recently. I suspect recent events have taken a toll on him, just as events took a toll on Stalin's hacks in the late 1950s."

I know, I kind of feel bad for him. Almost.

Posted by: Korha on March 8, 2007 12:06 PM

And please tell me you're not suggesting ("where they used to dump stories that undercut the administration's case for war")that the NYT is some sort of shill for the adminstration?

Judith Miller ring a bell?

Posted by: Col Bat Guano on March 8, 2007 12:06 PM

ostap:

And please tell me you're not suggesting ("where they used to dump stories that undercut the administration's case for war")that the NYT is some sort of shill for the adminstration?

Uh...is it okay if we suggest that the sky is blue?

Posted by: grh on March 8, 2007 12:06 PM

Korha:

I know, I kind of feel bad for him.

Yes. It's how you'd feel when passing by one of Stalin's old hacks on a park bench, as he swills out of a bottle of vodka while fingering his old Order of the Badge of Honor ribbon. You almost forget what monsters they were.

Posted by: grh on March 8, 2007 12:17 PM

What the hell is IOKIYAP?

And Al, I think people here give you credit for having an IQ greater than 80. That's why we also assume its bad faith when you reach different 'conclusions' based on this article.

Posted by: mpowell on March 8, 2007 12:17 PM

his supposedly "blind" trust just happened to invest in the same thing as his big political backers, maybe seems corrupt.

Why would this be corrupt? Would either Obama or the political backers stand to gain because of this arrangement? Obviously Obama's investment was much too small to move the market, so I have no idea what would be the corruption here.

1) Buy same stock as political backers
2) ??????
3) Profit!

As to the "just happened" aspect, it's clear that the broker running the trust was also running the accounts of the backers in question, so the idea that they would have invested in the same stocks is not mysterious.

Posted by: taliesin on March 8, 2007 12:34 PM

You know, just because Obama says he didn't know about the investment doesn't make that true. And I'm not sure why you think it is "bad faith" to think that maybe it isn't.

Unfortunately for your attempt to move the goalposts, you didn't say "maybe Obama isn't telling the truth." You said he's corrupt, full stop.

Posted by: Steve on March 8, 2007 01:02 PM

Apparently Matt believes in the first rule of punditry career protection, It's Okay If You're A Pundit.

So though there is plenty wrong with Nyhan such that there is no need to even respond to him, and though Matt will agree that Dems shouldn't have a Fox Debate, and that Pundits that got it wrong about Iraq shouldn't be listened to, nevertheless, Matt will greedily extend a link to anyone that can help Matt in Matt's career.

Five, ten years from now, Matt is going to have that brownstone near Broder and Cokie.

We've seen this before as Matt tried to become the Easterbrook chair sportswriter for TNR only to have that dashed and watch him call out Marty Peretz again.

Posted by: jerry on March 8, 2007 01:40 PM

How, exactly, can Brendan help my career? I should call in these favors he owes me. Maybe he can write a good letter of recommendation when the Israel lobby gets me blacklisted out of journalism and I need to apply to political science PhD programs.

Posted by: Matthew Yglesias on March 8, 2007 01:58 PM

Five, ten years from now, Matt is going to have that brownstone near Broder and Cokie.

I suppose we've now reached the point where mainstream bloggers are no better than the "MSM," and are attacked by true believers for their cronyism and insiderish outlooks.

The revolution eats its own young!

Posted by: Ben on March 8, 2007 02:13 PM

How, exactly, can Brendan help my career? I should call in these favors he owes me.

Dude, why do you even respond this crap? You're still going to be first against the wall, come the Revolution.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on March 8, 2007 02:18 PM

ostap, others have already responded, but yes, i am very clearly suggesting that the ny times has been perfectly willing to be a shill for the administration (hell, byron calame has suggested this, so it's not like this is some amazing new discovery on my part).

meanwhile, if you wanted to say "we've seen plenty of evidence over the years in matters like this that none of the parties comes completely clean, so i doubt that we've gotten what a truly omniscient observer would call the full story," you would have said it. instead, you made it a point to try and smack down obama: not the same.

al, fine, let's assume the worst: is it illegal to invest in the same stocks as your contributors? was there insider information available? did obama attempt to influence legislation that would have benefitted these stocks?

frankly, although obama made a joke about it, he would have been better off buying berkshire b shares with his $100K. Would that have been a problem just because buffett supports him?

Posted by: howard on March 8, 2007 03:38 PM

Follow the Money....

Finally, how about all of you CFAs/accountants take a look at the source material:
http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2007/03/the_obama_portf.html

Posted by: Jesse Livermore on March 8, 2007 03:48 PM

so, Jesse, i've now looked at his portfolio (as well as the mouth-watering advance and royalties on his book - matthew probably dreams of doing so well!), and here's what it looks like to me: he's got the bulk of his assets in a diversified mix of mutual funds and cash. He's got a small amount of his assets in a couple of flyers.

that's actually pretty much how i have my portfolio structured: i've got 3/4 of my money in 2 mutual funds and berkshire hathaway, and the remaining quarter in individual stock selections, where sometimes i take a flyer.

i don't see any problem with either the makeup of his portfolio or - short of insider information and influence on legislation - the specific stocks he bought.

Posted by: howard on March 8, 2007 03:57 PM

"you made it a point to try and smack down obama"

Wrong. I merely said the finances of anyone - R or D - running for President will be closely scrutinized and if there's anything that seems even remotely fishy it will hit the front page. Not a smack down.

Posted by: ostap on March 8, 2007 05:08 PM

Network effect. You link to Brendan and say nice things. He links to you. You link to Kaus, you link to Althouse, you link to Kristol and Broder and Cohen and all these guys that you yourself are telling us owe us an apology and should not be published.

Stop telling us some people have committed such sins that no one should listen to them, because you will be linking to them in the future.

Posted by: jerry on March 8, 2007 05:35 PM

Matt's safe, he won't be first up against the wall when the revolution comes. Long before then, he will be safely on the B-Ark.

Posted by: jerry on March 8, 2007 05:36 PM

Ostap, at risk of circularity, you made it a point to say this:

"NB: I have no idea whether Obama is telling the truth."

As both i and others have now noted, you could either have said "i have no idea what the basic truth or falsehood of any of this is," or you could have said nothing. you chose to question barack's veracity. where i come from, that's called a "smackdown."

Posted by: howard on March 8, 2007 05:44 PM

sohbet, chat, arkadaş

Posted by: sohbet on August 29, 2007 07:25 AM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet