Distorting or Ignoring Facts to Fit Preconceived Storylines Isn't Cool

I like the Washington Monthly - in fact, I have written a few fairly well-read articles for the magazine. But I don't like being roadkill in a highly questionable storyline that the facts seriously call into question. And I don't like it when writers figure out what they want to write, and then distort facts to fit their preconceived storylines - especially when they don't even take 10 seconds on Google or call sources to fact check.

This came up in Amy Sullivan's new piece on the Democratic leadership. She attacks me and some others for criticizing Democrats for removing a report by courageous Rep. Louise Slaughter (D) about GOP corruption from the House Democrats official website. She claims that despite reports at the time to the contrary, the Democrats did not remove the report because of GOP threats, but instead because it was just normally "rotated" off the House Democrats' site.

Beyond the fact that those that Sullivan attacks were actually doing their best to defend Slaughter (one of the best and most courageous Democrats), Sullivan offers no explanation for this story in the Hill Newspaper which essentially confirms the fact that the report was, in fact, removed from the Democrats website after GOP threats. If the report was already up on the official House Democrats site, as Sullivan claims, why else would Slaughter's staff be forced to ask 30 other Democrats to post the report on their own? Sullivan never answers - or even bothers to ask - that question. She also never took 10 seconds to contact for response the people she attacked. And perhaps worse, she never even entertains the fact that only now, after outside pressure from the people Sullivan attacks, the House Democratic leadership is thankfully telling other Members it is A.O.K. to post the report. Instead she did her best to simply suck up to Democratic leaders, regardless of the facts.

Let's be clear - I like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and I have defended them many times before when they have shown backbone and fought for the progressive cause. But I don't like when writers are so desperate to create their own fictional narratives that they run roughshod over the very easy-to-find facts that call into question their entire premise. The Washington Monthly is a good magazine - but it's reputation will be endangered if this kind of shoddy reporting becoming commonplace there. And that would be a real tragedy.

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry