Blackwater Reporting

Milbank's skewed donor concerns

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank seems more concerned with Republicans who take defense industry funds than with Democrats who rely on the trial lawyers.

This bias matters in his October 3 column on Rep. Henry Waxman's hearing about Blackwater, with Milbank implying that GOP congressmen were kind to Blackwater CEO Erik Prince because they receive significant defense industry campaign contributions.

But Milbank (pictured) says nothing about how much Waxman and his Democratic colleagues receive from the trial lawyers. This is important, because a prominent California trial lawyer prompted current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Waxman last December to hold hearings on Blackwater on behalf of his clients. (Click here for the trial lawyer's letter to Pelosi and Waxman.)

Writes Milbank: "'Blackwater will be held accountable today!' vowed Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who has received only $6,300 from defense contractors over the past 17 years.

"'Blackwater appears to have fostered a culture of shoot first . . . and then ask the question,' trumpeted Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), whose career contributions from defense interests tally a mere $1,200."

Well and good. But what about Waxman's trial lawyer money?

Washington Post obscures partisan nature of allegations

In covering the report issued by Rep. Henry Waxman's oversight committee, Washington Post reporters Glenn Kessler and Karen DeYoung (pictured) obscure the partisanship of the authors.

Their September 28 story fails to make clear to the reader that the opposition Democrats running Waxman's committee were the sole official authors. Kessler and DeYoung do report in passing that the report is "by the majority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform." However that reference, well-located in the second paragraph, is not explicit about the partisanship involved.

The journalists quote a Blackwater spokeswoman as calling the report "one-sided," but do not cite any Republican staffer or member of the committee. By contrast, the Associated Press did quote the Republican chief of staff, David Marin.

Finally, the Post article completely omits the fact that the authors based their report heavily on material provided by a trial lawyer who stands to gain financially from a lawsuit against Blackwater. (A copy of the trial lawyer's letter asking for initiation of a hearing is here: Download callahan_pelosi_letter.pdf)

Click here to send an email to Glenn Kessler and Karen DeYoung. Keep it concise and polite.

Washington Post headline not supported by facts

The Washington Post ran Matthew Lee's September 21 AP story on page A10 of its September 22 edition, attaching a headline and sub-head indicating that Blackwater as a firm is the subject of a smuggling probe, and that the company might be charged.

The version appearing on the WashingtonPost.com contained the full AP text. But Post editors cut down the story to 9 paragraphs in the print edition - none of which said that Blackwater USA was the subject of investigation or might be charged.

Nevertheless the headline and sub-head stated as fact, "Security Firm Is in Smuggling Probe; Blackwater May Be Charged for Bringing Weapons Into Iraq."