Media cover-up could change outcome of election

Does that headline sound familiar? Do you remember when it was revealed that the NY Times withheld the story that Bu$h wore “an electronic cueing device in his ear” during the debate? That story would have exposed Bu$h’s lack of integrity and would likely have changed the outcome of the 2006 election. Just consider how our world might be different today if the NY Times had just done its job.

Well, they’re doing it again!

Your ideas for ways to expose this cover-up would be appreciated.

This time it’s not the NY Times like it was in 2006.

The Emperor’s New Hump
The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the election–because it could have changed the election

By Dave Lindorff
In the weeks leading up to the November 2 election, the New York Times was abuzz with excitement. Besides the election itself, the paper’s reporters were hard at work on two hot investigative projects, each of which could have a major impact on the outcome of the tight presidential race.

One week before Election Day, the Times (10/25/04) ran a hard-hitting and controversial exposé of the Al-Qaqaa ammunition dump–identified by U.N. inspectors before the war as containing 400 tons of special high-density explosives useful for aircraft bombings and as triggers for nuclear devices, but left unguarded and available to insurgents by U.S. forces after the invasion.

On Thursday, just three days after that first exposé, the paper was set to run a second, perhaps more explosive piece, exposing how George W. Bush had worn an electronic cueing device in his ear and probably cheated during the presidential debates.

The NY Times decided to hold the story, a story that would likely have influenced the outcome of the election, even though they put a great deal of effort and research into the story.

This time it’s Belo Corp. who owns WFAA and, like that last time, much work and research has gone into this story.

WFAA reported initially on the story about Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott and his recent scandals but the media just yawned and ignored it. Therefore, last Saturday, I put out a plea for help and a bunch of working people sitting at home in their pajamas brought the Associated Press to its knees and forced them to report the news about Greg Abbott‘s abuse of his powers.

REMEMBER who Greg Abbott is:

John Colyandro who worked for Karl Rove was laundering Tom Delay’s TRMPAC money while on Greg Abbott‘s campaign payroll during 2002.

Colyandro has been indicted for money laundering and also faces 13 charges of unlawful acceptance of corporate political contributions.

Bob Perry, tycoon homebuilder, has given Greg Abbott $1.1Million.

Perry is also financier of Karl Rove’s smear campaign tactics.

Greg Abbott won’t investigate the 86% of Texas homeowners whose home defects were not addressed by TRCC process.

Greg Abbott gave prompt legal clearance to Tom DeLay’s flagrant power-grabbing redistricting scheme.

Greg Abbott has aggressively prosecuted individuals who help minority senior citizens vote by mail.

But, that’s not all. As you can see from the above, Greg Abbott is the darling of Bob Perrywho has just reached a new status.

Man Behind “Swift Boat Vets” Replaces George Soros As Biggest Political Donor…

The GOP has big plans for Greg Abbott. Could that be the reason WFAA decided not to air their follow-up story, a story that would cast Greg Abbott in a very bad light indeed and would make the outcome of this election even more certain?

The cover-up: (The story Belo won’t let you see.)

Abbott video ‘shows change at press office’

Last week, we revealed Attorney General Greg Abbott is using video shot at taxpayers’ expense in his commercials.

Tonight we report that the video is evidence of a sweeping change in the way his communications office is run.

Wearing jackets labeled ‘Texas Attorney General,’ armed law enforcement officers sweep into an apartment house.

The video, shot by an attorney general videographer at taxpayers’ expense, now shows up in Greg Abbott‘s television commercial.

The videographer’s salary is $70,000 per year and his camera costs $66,000. WFAA did have a picture of the snazzy new room Greg Abbott had furnished with equipment to make his commercials but that picture is no longer up.

Reporter Byron Harris flew to Austin to interview one of Greg Abbott‘s former employees for this follow-up that got covered-up.

“It’s disgusting. And that’s why I took early retirement. It’s just blatant misuse of state funds to promote Greg Abbott‘s name recognition,” said Bill Barnes, who worked for 18 years in the video departments of four Texas attorney generals, both Republican and Democrat.

He retired after Greg Abbott took office. He says he saw the video department change from supporting the attorney general to promoting him.

“To increase general Greg Abbott‘s name recognition, there was nothing more important to the press office than that. That was what they were going to do,” Barnes said.

Salaries of press office staff increased to what amounts to more than $380,000 a year. A videographer was hired at $70,000 a year, just $22,000 less than the attorney general himself made at the time. Videos, such as one depicting busts being made by the attorney general’s staff, were produced.

Burns says he recognizes the videotape now being used in the attorney general’s commercials.

The attorney general also built himself a TV studio. He says the world has changed with the internet and his beefed up operation is just trying to keep up.

Press secretary, Jerry Strickland, showed us the studio known as “the bat cave,” which used to be a storage room. He says the attorney general did spend money for equipment here, but he doesn’t know exactly how much.

Greg Abbott‘s press secretary calls the videos “open government.” Since the videos are edited for content, he should call them “propaganda.”

I don’t know why this story was never aired but I have some guesses.

Greg Abbott and the GOP have given WFAA a lot of money to show their commercials.

Someone in the GOP who has money and influence called after the first report and pressured Belo to provide a cover-up of Abbott’s crimes.

Michael Valentine is WFAA’s News Director but he won’t talk to me. I did speak with his assistant who was surprised and puzzled that the follow-up got covered-up.

Sharon,
This has been such a mess. You were right…it didn’t air at all yesterday even though my rundown said that it did. From what I hear, it will air today. When I find out what time, I’ll let you know.

There were several emails between us but finally on Friday evening I learned that the follow-up was definitely covered-up.

Ok, I talked to Byron. His story on this aired on last Friday night….the follow up I[is] what was killed. Why, I don’t know.

The issue now is Belo‘s/WFAA’s cover-up AND Greg Abbott‘s abuse of his official powers. Belo/WFAA uses infrastructure that is paid for with our tax dollars. Belo/WFAA has a duty to report the news to educate the public.

Michael Valentine’s phone number is 214-748-9631. Maybe we should all call him Monday morning.

Please provide any ideas you have for ways we can expose this cover-up.

David Van Os, investigative journalism 101:

November 3, 2006
David Van Os

OPEN LETTER TO THE NEWS MEDIA

David Van Os urges the news media to pursue common sense questions about Greg Abbott’s use of state property in his political campaign.

Statement of David Van Os

The attorney general of Texas, the state’s top lawyer, has publicly admitted through a spokesman that he is using, in his political campaign, videos that he produced with state property and state employees in his capacity as attorney general. All state employees know they cannot convert state property to private purposes and that they cannot use state time or resources for personal business, and most state employees would question Greg Abbott‘s political use of state videos that were produced with state equipment under his own direction as a state employee. Is Abbott privileged to give himself special rules with special exceptions?

I urge the news media to pursue these questions they have not pursued thus far:

1.    At the time the videos were being produced, did Greg Abbott know that he was going to be running for office in 2006? A simple review of his political fundraising reports discloses that he has been raising money for a 2006 race since at least 2003.

2.    At the time Candidate Abbott’s campaign submitted the open records request to Attorney General Abbott for the videos, how did the campaign know about the videos?

3.    Does Greg Abbott exercise authority over his campaign’s actions? Does Candidate Abbott approve of the contents of his television commercials and campaign website? Was Candidate Abbott unaware of the use of the state produced videos in his campaign ads and website before the ads and website were published?

4.    When did Candidate Abbott first know that his campaign was submitting open records requests for the videos? Did Candidate Abbott approve of his campaign making the requests? When did Attorney General Abbott first know that Candidate Abbott’s campaign was submitting the requests?

5.    Is Greg Abbott familiar with Texas Penal Code Section 39.02? Does the fact that Candidate Abbott submitted an open records request to Attorney General Abbott mean we should act as if Candidate Abbott did not know he had produced the videos as Attorney General? Does it mean we should act as if Attorney General Abbott did not know he was asking himself for the videos?

6.    Does Greg Abbott hold himself as Attorney General to ethical standards that include avoidance of conflicts of interest?

7.    Does Greg Abbott perceive no conflict of interest in using an open records request from himself to himself to obtain the personal use of state-produced videos?

8.    Did Greg Abbott consider the possibility that the transaction reflected a conflict of interest?

9.    If Greg Abbott the person was ignorant of the transaction, does that absolve him of responsibility for either or both sides of the transaction that was conducted in his name from himself to himself?

10.    If Greg Abbott the person was ignorant of the transaction, what kinds of ethical standards does he require in the Attorney General’s office, and in the Abbott campaign?

11.    Do the ethical standards in either organization include recognition of conflicts of interest?

12.    Why didn’t Greg Abbott ask a lawyer not connected with his public office or his campaign to render an independent opinion about his use of the videos in his political campaign?

13.    When Greg Abbott‘s spokesman publicly claims that the transaction is legal, is he speaking on behalf of Candidate Abbott or Attorney General Abbott, or both?

14.    Is there a conflict of interest in Greg Abbott publicly pronouncing the transaction to be legal when Candidate Greg Abbott is receiving a benefit from the transaction?

15.    Since Candidate Abbott is the same person as Attorney General Abbott, who can the public count on to independently monitor the legality of the transaction?