The New York Times has accused Rep. Darrell Issa of improperly mixing his private business with his duties as a congressman, or at least appearing to have done so. And Issa’s supporters are crying foul, pointing to what they say are major factual errors in the article by Eric Lichtblau.
One major error is beyond dispute and has already been corrected by the NYT, which appended this note to the article:
“Correction: August 15, 2011
“An earlier version of this article incorrectly described value of businesses that resulted from splitting a holding company owned by Representative Darrell Issa. They are multimillion-dollar businesses, not multibillion-dollar businesses.”
On a less substantive but symbolic note, according to Rostrafarian Issa, the article also incorrectly described the congressman’s “gleaming” office as “overlooking a golf course.” The description is a common literary device intended to foreshadow the article. In this case, it’s intended to frame Issa as operating from a background of wealth, which of course he is. However, the description itself doesn’t look accurate.
A Heritage Foundation blog post stated:
“As for the first point, Issa’s office building is located about a half-mile from the Shadowridge Country Club, according to Google Maps. However, the office building is surrounded by three housing developments and a state highway. There’s no direct access from Issa’s building to the course and it would take approximately 20 minutes to walk there.”
Here’s a satellite image from Google Maps showing the intervening terrain between the office and the golf course. Issa’s office is marked with the red “A” (And no, not that kind of “A”.):
Issa's office, in upper right corner. Golf course begins in extreme lower left corner.
To be sure, the New York Times often demonstrates a shaky grasp of California geography, and this doesn’t contradict the story’s claims that Issa has at least acted in a way that looks improper.
However, there are more substantive claims from Issa, such as that the story falsely said that an investment by Issa’s foundation “earned $357,000 on an initial investment of less that $19,000 — a return of nearly 1,900 percent in just seven months.” Issa’s office says the foundation actually lost $125,000, and its initial investment was $500,000.
I also noticed a claim in the story that was not backed up with evidence:
“At a House hearing in 2008 on a much-debated proposal to merge the satellite radio companies Sirius and XM, despite objections on competitive grounds, Mr. Issa praised the “viable combined market” the deal would create as he questioned Sirius’s chief executive and talked of opportunities for expansion.
“What Mr. Issa did not mention was that his electronics firm was then in a lucrative partnership with Sirius to distribute its audio products.”
The story did not say what made the partnership “lucrative.” It gave no numbers or even an approximation.
So right now, it’s really hard for me to have confidence in the New York Times story. Certainly, the 1,000-fold milllions-to-billions error doesn’t inspire trust. A newspaper such as the New York Times, which prides itself on world-class journalism, should know better than to commit such an obvious blunder — especially in what was supposed to be a hard-hitting investigative piece.
Politico describes the story as providing “plenty of information — and lots of suggestion — but no smoking gun.” In other words, the kind of insinuation-filled story the NYT has become known for writing about Republican politicians.
The New York Times intended its investigation of Issa to suggest skullduggery. But the story’s sloppiness demonstrates anew that the Grey Lady — contrary to what new editor Jill Abramson was raised to believe — is far from knowing the absolute truth.
———————————————————-
(DISCLAIMER: This is the opinion of Bradley J. Fikes, and not that of his employer, the North County Times.)
Comments 6
Brad:
Allow me to offer Evidence of Just How Right your instincts are about this NY Times report.
Eric Lichtblau is the SAME GUY who wrote a NOTORIOUS attack on Darrell Issa in the closing weeks of the 1998
California U.S. Senate primary.
Lichtblau was then with the Los Angeles Times, and in a masterpiece of Innuendo hinted that Issa was partly responsible for a 1982 Ohio fire which damaged an old warehouse being used as an incubator site by several start-up firms (including Issa’s fledgling car alarm company).
In fact, no charges were EVER brought against Issa, nor anyone else, after a review by the Maple Heights, Ohio Fire Dept., which looked into it.
“Reporter” Lichtblau’s principal “source” was a convicted ex-con who went to jail for injuring an Ohio policeman.
Lichtblau went to the NY Times a few years later, and apparently took his vendetta against an Rep. Issa with him. I worked in the Issa for Senate campaign that year and the memory of this baseless attack is still fresh.
In all my dealings with Darrell and Kathy Issa, I found them to be principled, honest and genuine. Rep. Issa must be getting too close to some uncomfortable truths in Washington, DC …. again !
I agree!
Merely appearing to profit from your position in congress is not the same as actually profiting! Issa may have come closer to crossing the ethical line than anyone else in Congress, but I don’t think he’s crossed it yet! And nobody should mention it until he does!
Glad to see that you are giving Issa the benefit of the doubt here. I take comfort in knowing that you’ll rigorously and without bias fact check articles that question the purity of your congress member. I’ll be sure to check back here in the event that anyone should question the dealings of Dianne Feinstein or Susan Davis.
Nice to know you guys are here to defend congress from people like the Tea Party and their efforts to “throw the bums out” for even the slightest whiff of corruption.
Keep Darrell Issa! He doesn’t work as close to a golf course as you think!
Author
As is customary with democrab, s/he ignores the serious errors in the NYT article. Easier to make some lame jokes than give a substantive reply.
If you take the time to read this “article” is it just sad and irritating.
Just to take two example of shoddy journalism – – there is never a mention for the readers about what the family foundation DOES – and how any gains are to the benefit of a philanthropic focused entity.
Or, for example, that expansion of SR 76 has been long planned and prioritized (before Issa even went to Congress). The earmark is diminimus and since all funding is fungible there is an argument that actually Issa’s earmark HURTS his interests, since the money freed up can advance “competing” projects like I-5 widening or SR78 completion.
I mean, according to this standard the Vice President should be tarred and feathered because A) His wife is a school administrator and B) Then Senator Bidden opined about K-12 education.
Just to flesh-out Erik’s very valid point about Highway 76…
The House Transportation Committee first approved money
for the SR-76 project on March 24, 1998…. or almost 3 years
before Darrell Issa was seated in the Congress.
Issa’s much-respected predecessor. Rep. Ron Packard,
won that key 1998 vote, getting $10 million for the project.
From Lola Sherman’s story in the U-T on March 25, 1998:
.
——————————————————————————–
.
“Three major transportation projects originating here have
cleared an important congressional committee in Washington. Rep. Ron Packard, R-Carlsbad, announced yesterday that the House Transportation Committee has approved spending
$10 million for state Route 76, $5 million for the Rancho del
Oro Drive interchange with state Route 78 and a still-to-be determined amount for a proposed rail service. “Oceanside
did particularly well,” Packard aide Adam Schwartz said. “It
looks like we scored on all of them.” (U-T, March 25, 1998)
And now the Sac Bee jumps on with another piece that just boggles the mind in lack of basic logic and rhetoric.
“….congressmen with similar wealth have put their holdings into blind trusts to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Issa has not.”
Really? Show us the facts. There are none. Here is the standard of scholarship we use in my shop – you want to make a claim like that you better go count up the number of Congressmen with net worth on their disclosures of over some cut off (lets say 500,000 for fun) and then COUNT up the number in a blind trust. Might be a lot; might be a little but I am SO SICK of media that just “make s*** up.”