by Deb Cupples | Today, the Associated Press ran a story with this headline: Obama Fundraiser, convicted of Fraud, Spills Beans.
At first glance, the headline seems to put a dark cloud around Sen. Barack Obama. Some readers, especially those who skim read, might interpret those words as a hint that a fraud convict (whom we all know is businessman-turned-inmate Antoin Rezko) is going to sing to prosecutors about Obama.
The article text, however, seems to emphasize that Obama has no dark cloud around him with respect to the Rezko.
The article's third paragraph states that Rezko had offered Obama a job years ago but that Obama turned it down and also states this:
"But based on the known facts, charges so far and testimony at Rezko's trial, there's no indication there'll be a so-called 'October surprise' that could hurt the Democratic presidential nominee â even though Rezko says prosecutors are pressing him for dirt about Obama." (AP)
From there, the article moves onto the Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich -- who may or may not end up implicated in the Rezko scandal.
From there, the article talks about why Obama came under suspicion (e.g., a real estate deal involving Obama and Rezko that the press covered months ago).
The AP article doesn't tell us anything we don't already know -- and it seems to imply that Gov. Blagojevich is more likely to get implicated than Sen. Obama.
This makes me wonder: why didn't the headline include the name "Blagojevich" instead of "Obama"?
The fact is that we won't know what tunes Mr. Rezko will sing to prosecutors until after he has sung them and after the Justice Department decides to make them public knowledge.
In short, today's AP article basically just re-hashes stuff that was fully covered months ago -- without adding truly significant, new information. Scratch that. The AP article does reveal this:
"[C]ourthouse personnel requesting anonymity because grand jury probes are secret said Rezko has been repeatedly brought from his cell to the U.S. attorney's office to talk to prosecutors."
Perhaps some people do consider it startling "news" that an imprisoned felon is talking with prosecutors (and trying to get a lighter sentence) -- though it seems an old-as-dirt story to me.
And don't you just love the media's reliance on government employees who anonymously leak info to the press that is supposed to be secret?
If such employees leak to the press on their own, then their credibility is in question precisely because they are blabbing tidbits that they are duty-bound to keep secret.
If such employees are being directed by higher-ups to leak secrets, then the higher-ups' credibility and motives come into question. The higher-ups should know better and should try to keep secrets that the law requires them to keep.
Back to my point: it seems irresponsible for our media to create headlines that don't truly give readers an idea of what the articles below the headlines actually say.
Many people have such busy schedules that they don't fully read news articles, instead preferring to scan headlines. What sort of erroneous impressions might those people get from a headline like the one on today's AP article?
Memeorandum has commentary.
Comments