In its report on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s questionable earmark in the water redevelopment bill, the AP throws in this caveat near the end:
Since Pelosi became speaker in January, Republicans have sought to stir controversy over the size of the plane she uses to fly to California, wages paid by a tuna cannery owned by a company headquartered in her district, and her use of C-SPAN footage on her blog.
MB reader Don T. writes: “Note the word choice in [the above] paragraph. Would the AP use such language to describe ethics questions raised by Democrats?”
The controversy over Pelosi’s earmark closely resembles the one over Dennis Hastert’s support of various highway projects that improved the value of his land. In its report on the Hastert deals last June, the AP saw no need to throw in a paragraph or two on how, for instance, the Democratic Party was using “Culture of Corruption” as a campaign slogan at the time, or how Democrats were feeding reporters and watchdog groups any evidence of GOP corruption they could get their hands on.
Hastert’s deals were indeed suspicious and deserved the highest possible media scrutiny. But Pelosi’s sketchy water earmark is just as deserving of serious treatment. Reporters should jump at the chance to investigate such high-level conflicts of interest and self-dealing. Why is the AP just trying to brush this off?