The New York Times reported Democratic NY state assemblyman Brian McLaughlin pleaded guilty to federal racketeering charges on Friday. As usual, no party identification in the headline, picture, caption or article, but there's a twist in this March 8 piece. The NYT also didn't report that he was in office at the time the crimes were committed.
In the lede, the Times described McLaughlin as the “former head of the nation’s biggest municipal labor council,” without noting his political office.
Continuing the whitewash, the NYT buried and downplayed the story's juicy details. While in office, McLaughlin stole a total of $2.2 million from little leaguers, labor unions, his political club and the state of New York. He used the funds to buy cars for his wife and mistress and, bizarrely, forced union members to kill rats in his basement, dog sit and hang Christmas lights without pay. The only mention of the Dem's political career was an unclear second paragraph (all bold mine):
Standing and facing the judge as he spoke, the defendant, Brian M. McLaughlin, once a seven-term assemblyman from Queens and the leader of a million workers as president of the New York City Central Labor Council, delivered his 45-minute catalog of wrongs in a tone that at times seemed blasé and at other times abjectly cooperative.
The NYT made it seem that the Dem's time in politics was in the past. The paper didn't report McLaughlin used his office for personal gain or connect it to a string of crimes committed by several members of the Democratic majority in the NY state assembly. There must not be a Democratic “culture of corruption.”
This doesn't have to do with the article, but how can a NY state assemblyman, especially one on the influential Ways and Means Committee, which allocates funds for state projects, also be the president of NYC's Central Labor Council, the largest municipal labor union in America? Isn't that asking for corruption?
What should have been the meat of the article was sketchily buried at the bottom of the 22 paragraph article:
He said he had siphoned money for personal purposes from the William Jefferson Clinton Democratic Club in Queens; solicited the use of automobiles from companies that employed union members; and asked members to perform “favors, errands” and household chores for him, like hanging Christmas lights.
And he had lied on a mortgage application, saying that he was renting his house to a union officer, he said.
The assistant United States attorney on the case, Daniel A. Braun, told the judge that Mr. McLaughlin, who remained free Friday on $250,000 bail, could have to forfeit up to $2.2 million in illicit proceeds, as well as his Long Island home and a car that was paid for with $60,000 in kickbacks from a company that used union members as unpaid labor.
The amazingly bland article whitewashed the corrupt actions of a powerful man who exploited children, non-profits and his own union members for personal gain (and to have a rat-free home with awesome Christmas decorations).
I look forward to similar coverage of the next Republican who gets in trouble.
Lynn contributes to NewsBusters and can be reached at tvisgoodforyou2-a t—y a h o o—d o t—c o m
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I am not sure why you are
March 8, 2008 - 18:03 ET by jdhawkI am not sure why you are upset. Labor unions across the United States regularly exploit their workers, without their permission or consent, to contribute to dimocrats. Often come election time, they use union labor to get out the vote, man phone banks, march in rallies, etc. Millions of labor union man hours are "contributed" to the dimocrts during an election year and have been for decades.
The above exploitation, which is a regular occurrence across our country, must have made the now disgraced and hopefully soon to be incarcerated McLaughlin think that additional corruption and exploitation was business as usual - and so does the NYT.
By the way, the kind of behavior that forces union members to walk the dog, change lighbulbs, etc of labor leaders was going on during the clintoon administration. There, members of the armed services were used as butlers and maids at White House functions. Obviously, they were looked upon by the clintoons as just part of the servant class there to serve them.
It's in the details--or more accurately NOT in the details.
March 8, 2008 - 20:20 ET by Lynn DavidsonIn case my headline wasn't clear, I changed it from "No Party for NY Dem..." to "No Party ID for NY Dem..." I hope that clarifies that my post addresses the NYT's lack of party identification. This was yet another article about a corrupt politician who should have had a "D" by his name but didn't.
The other issue is that while the Times stated McLaughlin was a union leader when he committed the crimes, the paper did not state that he was also in the state assembly. He was simply "once a seven-term assemblyman from Queens." At the very least, that implied that McLaughlin wasn't in office when he was charged and can be interpreted to mean that he also wasn't in office when the crimes occurred.
Very true; this behavior is typical of unions, although I found it amusing that some of those union members were forced to clean a barn, take McLaughlin's mutt to the vet, shovel his snow, string up his Christmas lights and make sure that his basement was rat free.
I think I'd rather wrangle a vomiting poodle than deal with one of these.
Here's another -
March 8, 2008 - 18:19 ET by YahooWatcherhttp://wcbstv.com/local/adam.clayton.powell.2.671098.html
Dem or not?
Of course he is: http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=068&submit=Go
Aiding and Abetting
March 8, 2008 - 19:57 ET by BacchusStealing pertinent details from their reporting involving robbed Little Leaguers is a cover up. Isn't it?
--
New York Times: The Ex-Paper of Record
Delicious irony
March 8, 2008 - 20:41 ET by nkviking75"He said he had siphoned money for personal purposes from the William Jefferson Clinton Democratic Club in Queens;"
Oh, the sweet taste of irony.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I choose to regard this differently...
March 8, 2008 - 21:28 ET by m4ster chiefAny time a politician ("politician" reflects a state of mind, a basic character flaw, an essential eithical and moral deficiency, so it matters little whether in office or out, left or right, etc....) is caught breaking the law, I simply assume he or she is a Democrat and/or a Liberal...unless noted differently in the story.
It's like the writer is saying to himself, "Hey, wait a minute here...this _____________ (fill in the blank: axe murderer, pimp, pedophile, thief, traitor, airport restroom perv, smuggler, congressional intern molester, Chinese spy/apologist, friend of Bill, closet Communist, drug dealer, lobbyist suckup, or jaywalker...) is a REPUBLICAN...wow, we'd better include that or our readers will automatically think it's a Democrat!" (And it usually is...) Heh-heh...
[Edit: I forgot a couple of labels...assaulter of Capitol Police, race hustler, global warming con artist, forger, and cigarette smoker.]
Sunrise at sea; a breeze across the deck, salty spray tickles the face, the aroma of fresh coffee, stack gas, and haze-gray paint is in the air. Another Navy day aboard ship as a Navy Chief...the perfect life!
If there were really a
March 9, 2008 - 05:34 ET by JerIf there were really a conspiracy by the NYT to conceal the party identity of Mr. McLaughlin, a Democrat charged with serious crimes, why then does the Times prominently display his affiliation in a number of earlier articles concerning these same corruption charges?
Frankly, I find this is often the case. One article which happens not to refer to the party of a politician is cherry-picked and posted here as evidence of bias, while other related articles published by the same news source, which do disclose party affiliation, are conveniently ignored.
I keep waiting for persuasive evidence that the media are deliberately engaging in some sort of nefarious plot to protect scandal-tainted Democrats while exposing Republicans. So far, I haven't seen it.
Jer
And I keep saying it's pro-duopoly bias...
March 9, 2008 - 05:49 ET by sarcasmoAs well as crappy "journalism" (and I'm using the term loosely) to ever omit party affiliation for ANY Democrat or Republican in cases where we all know we'd see a label every time if the crook were an elected Green or Libertarian, etc. Nobody here has come close to refuting this, no matter how many times I say it.
Even if you're right about a lack of media bias (and I don't think you are, but I DO still think this kind of label-bias an area where Media Matters and NB might want to enslave interns & cooperate to produce an actually-valid study) it remains crappy "journalism." And even if MM & NB cooperated to try to measure this phenomenon, IMO they'd need outside watchdog-types like me and some others looking over their shoulders to keep 'em honest, because I strongly suspect both groups' leadership have a bit of pro-duopoly bias.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
sarc...I think I have
March 9, 2008 - 06:08 ET by Jersarc...I think I have posted before that I essentially agree with your premise--which you appropriately label a pro-duopoly bias.
However, you say you don't think I'm right about "media bias". Are you referring to the entire spectrum of media bias, or just the issue of Democrat/Republican party identification? I concede the former [albeit not to the extent NB contends], but not the latter.
If you reply, I'll try to answer tomorrow. It's extremely late.
Jer
Sorry, I should have been more-clear...
March 9, 2008 - 06:24 ET by sarcasmoI think that IF NB and MM actually cooperated by enslaving some interns and studying the label-issue together, the ultimate result would be a slight but statistically valid showing of pro-Democrat/anti-Republican bias amid the background-noise of the massive pro-duopoly media-bias everyone's already admitting/ignoring. But the only way to get to that point is for MM & NB to cooperate (probably a first) by doing what sarcasmo wants 'em both to do (definitely a first). :) The good news for both MM and NB, if they ever did the job, is that the study is likely to be taken more seriously just because of their unprecedented cooperation. That still would not obviate the need for Libertarian/Green watchdogs like me looking at the intern-slaves' work, IMO, but it would be a giant step forward in credibility for both groups. And it would be especially nice if they did the job right. The only potential downside I can see is a probable Carville/Matalin romance or 3 among the interns. ;)
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
-
March 9, 2008 - 12:19 ET by dahliatraversIf there were really a conspiracy by the NYT to conceal the party identity of Mr. McLaughlin, a Democrat charged with serious crimes, why then does the Times prominently display his affiliation in a number of earlier articles concerning these same corruption charges?
Yet they omit it at the crucial moment he admits guilt? Because until then, he was innocent until proven guilty. And what about obscuring the fact that his crimes were committed while in office?
See, we can't have all this nasty activity affiliated with the Democrat Party. They're doing the lord's work. So whenever possible (no, we can't do it all the time), we have to shield it from those who have gone astray and might besmirch those who are doing good works.
-
March 9, 2008 - 12:09 ET by dahliatraversExcellent point. One of the biggest malfeasances that the press can and does commit is omission. Simply not putting the information out there.
As for the "once a seven-term assemblyman from Queens", boy, does that sound like Bill Clinton and his deposition:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
No, Mr. President, they were not asking if you were receiving an intimate favor at the moment you were giving a deposition. You know full well what they were asking you.
And no, technically, Mr. McLaughlin was probably no longer an Assemblyman the moment he entered a guilty plea. But as Lynn points out, that nicely obscures the fact that his crimes were committed while in office, yet another courtesy that would not have been extended to a corrupt Republican.