David Shuster, MSNBC correspondent, frequently seen on Hardball, put together this report regarding ties between Jack Abramoff and George Bush. Not only does this report essentially discount the ties between Harry Reid and Abramoff, it suggests that Bush lied about his own ties to the disgraced lobbyist.

In an early segment, Shuster says:

[George Bush]: You know, I frankly don’t even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don’t know him.
But according to Abramoff in an email to Kim Eisler of the “Washingtonian Magazine” and reported by “The Washington Post” Abramoff said that Bush, “has one of the best memories of any politician I have ever met. The guy [met] me in almost a dozen settings and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids.”

Although it’s surprising that Abramoff’s word is now being trusted unequivocally, what’s really worth noting here is the trend that reporters like Shuster employ to subtly influence viewers’ and readers’ opinions. An example of the same strategy used to the opposite effect later on:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid acknowledges writing letters to help Indian tribes, and Reid’s staff discussed gambling legislation with Abramoff’s lobbying firm during a three year period when the firm gave Reid $68,000 in donations.
But Reid’s office says the actions were to protect the interest of Nevada, and a spokesman said, quote, “Senator Reid never met Jack Abramoff and never has taken contributions from him.”

Instead of more investigative reporting David Shuster loves doing when it involves the Bush administration, Shuster leaves this be and moves on to Scott McClellan’s press conference.

The strategy is simple. Begin with a quote, a piece of information, or accusation. Immediately follow it up with something like this:

“But according to [some experts, some critics, Joe American], such-and-such is actually the case.”

Then move on, leaving what the expert, critic, or Joe American said as the final word on the issue.