RSS Feed MenuDavid Frum seems to find nothing wrong with the fact that a blogger falsely charged Fox News’ Sean Hannity with financial malfeasance and mismanagement of a charity. Instead, Frum finds fault with conservatives for not paying proper attention to these charges.
“Where were you guys?” he asks.
As we investigated the charges this morning, it became evident that almost nobody except us and [The] American Spectator’s John Tabin was working this beat. Granted: it’s a busy day, with the great battle raging over healthcare reform.
Yet Schlussel’s charges were important, they were facially credible, and they got wide pickup on the left-hand side of the blogosphere. You’d think the conservative world would want them investigated, if only to be debunked.
With all due respect to David, whom I genuinely like, admire and respect, he’s being disingenuous. Schlussel’s allegations against Hannity were levied only last night.
Excuse conservatives for not immediately assuming the worst about someone (Sean Hannity) whom they consider a friend and an ally. Excuse conservatives for wanting to hear from Hannity and his Freedom Alliance charity before rushing to print with Schlussel’s nasty allegations and attempt at character assassination.
To David’s credit, he and FrumForum reporter, Tim K. Mak, investigated Schlussel’s allegations and found them to be baseless and without merit. And, when they realized this, they immediately repudiated Schlussel’s allegations in print. Good for them. They are men of honor and integrity.
But before David even had a clue as to whether these allegations were true or false, he rushed to republish them on his website. And David did this not because he was trying to debunk Schlussel’s allegations, but because, as he later admitted, he found her charges to be “credible.”
And the question is whether it is fair and responsible journalism to repeat and regurgitate nasty allegations against someone before you have bothered first to consider whether those charges are even true. I think not — and I am disappointed that David doesn’t seem to realize this.
In reality, David latched onto Schlussel’s post about Hannity because he believed the story speaks to a larger truth about the conservative movement.
David believes the conservative movement has grown corrupt and dogmatic, and unwilling to repudiate its own when they act in a reprehensible or irresponsible fashion. That’s why, in the past year, he’s gone after talk radio hosts Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh.
Thus, on Twitter, David had referenced the Right’s alleged silence last year over charges of corruption against conservative eminence David Keene. (Keene is chairman of the American Conservative Union and also a registered lobbyist. The allegations against Keene were that he wrongly conflated these two positions.)
But as I pointed out to David in my Twitter feed earlier today, the charges against Keene really weren’t “ignored” by conservatives. They were, in fact, seriously analyzed and discussed by a bevy of right-leaning journalists and bloggers at the American Spectator, RedState, the Washington Times, Right-Wing News, and elsewhere.
I think the allegations against Keene were unfair and wrong, though David, I know, disagrees. But regardless of whether the allegations against Keene were fair or not, they certainly, I think, colored David’s perceptions and made him more inclined to see wrongdoing by Hannity.
Thus, David asked why conservatives were “ignoring” Schlussel’s charges; and he suggested that perhaps conservatives were wrongly covering up for Hannity.
“It’s not possible — is it? — that the conservative world will just pass by the affair in embarrassed silence?” he asked incredulously…
True, Schlussel’s piece went up yesterday evening, and as of 9 am I can find no mention or reference in the conservative blogosphere. But its early.
So here’s my personal query. I’m going to set my google alert and twitter feed to find Hannity items. If anybody who can plausibly be considered a conservative discusses – [or] even mentions — the Schlussel allegations, I’ll let you know. And if nobody does … well that’s not possible. Is it?
Unfortunately, thanks to John Tabin of the American Spectator, David is right: It’s not possible. Indeed, Tabin eagerly jumped at the chance to prove David right. Thus, before doing any reporting of his own, Tabin attacked Hannity via his Twitter feed and at the Spectator’s blog, AmSpec:
Support-the-troops charity concerts with 80-96% overhead, including private jets. Heckuva job, Hannity. http://is.gd/aOEAK
@davidfrum I’ll post about it on AmSpecBlog later this morning.
As promised, @davidfrum RT @AmSpec: Hannity’s Big Rip-Off http://bit.ly/a5n3xt
To Tabin’s credit, later this morning he posted new Tweets which cast doubt on Schlussel’s allegations against Hannity:
UPDATE: I’m hearing that an important part of Schlussel’s report on Hannity is wrong: http://bit.ly/a5n3xt @davidfrum
@daveweigel Let’s not jump to any conclusions…
Tabin subsequently published two new blogposts at AmSpec. The first was tentative: “Did Schlussel Smear Hannity?” Tabin asked. The second was definitive: “Schlussel’s Hannity Smear Debunked.”
Tabin and the Spectator had no choice. Ditto Frum, Mak and FrumForum. Facts, after all, are stubborn things. The simple truth is that the facts don’t support Schlussel.
You can see why by reading Tim Mak’s excellent piece of reporting. Oliver North’s Freedom Alliance statement also is a model of clarity and integrity.
To his credit, John Tabin fessed up and did a mea culpa.
Schlussel has been unreliable in the past, and in retrospect I should have approached her report with more skepticism (the lede sentence on my post this morning – ‘This is disgusting’ — should have been something more like “If this is true, it’s disgusting”). I apologize to Hannity, and (much more importantly) to our readers.
I salute John for owning up to his mistake; but with all due respect, I think he still misunderstands what he did wrong. To my way of thinking, no reporter should have touched this story without first verifying whether it was true. Yet, John seems to think that it’s OK for reporters and bloggers to traffic in gossip and innuendo without first doing corroborating reporting.
I’m sorry, but that’s not OK. It’s wrong. You don’t trash someone’s reputation and character upon the basis of gossip and innuendo. And couching unfounded allegations with weasel word qualifiers like “If true,” won’t cut it. The damage is still done; and it’s still wrong.
Yet, David seems not to see this. Instead, he has gone to pains to try and justify why he published this story before he even knew whether it was true or false.
Moreover, on his Twitter feed, David takes a gratuitous swipe at the Freedom Alliance’s noble and high-minded charitable efforts on behalf of our military veterans and their families.
“Hannity didn’t rip off the charity,” David grudgingly concedes. However,
concerts are not a very efficient way to raise money — if you care about giving max $ to wounded soldiers, give to Fisher House.
So first try and trash a man’s character and reputation without knowing all the facts. Then when the facts prove you wrong, admit this, but claim that it somehow proves your journalistic virtue. And then proceed to gratuitously dump on the charitable efforts of your target — despite his manifest innocence!
Needless to say, this is neither gracious nor classy; and it doesn’t correspond with the David Frum that I know, like and admire.
To be sure, there is nothing wrong with hard-hitting criticism of your political friends and allies. I myself, in fact, am often quite critical of many conservatives, including John McCain, Robert Spencer, and Ralph Peters.
What’s more, I have defended David, publicly and in print, for his criticism of Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh.
But you attack a person’s ideas and policies, not the man himself. And you limit your criticism to what is known and truthful, not what is unknown and possibly false.
That’s why Dan Rather’s stories about Bush’s alleged National Guard failures were enough to drive Rather from journalism. Rather, you will recall, had made allegations on air that his reporting simply couldn’t support or back up. Rather charged Bush with being AWOL for much of his required National Guard service.
It would have been a great and legitimate story had Rather been able to prove it, but he could not. Rather’s reporting was flawed and inadequate. But rather than admit error, Rather forced the issue and thus committed an act of journalistic malpractice.
David Frum has not committed journalistic malpractice. In fact, quite the opposite: he committed today an important and civic-minded act of journalism; and for that he and Tim Mak are to be commended. Both gentlemen, after all, devoted themselves to ascertaining the truth or falsehood of Schlussel’s serious allegations against Sean Hannity.
But David never should have published these allegations in the first place unless and until he knew they were true or false and could say so with a reasonable degree of certainty!
David failed that test today; and, in so doing, he failed himself, journalism, and the conservative movement. Even worse, David initially helped smear a man who, so far as we can tell, has done absolutely nothing wrong other than try and raise money for killed and wounded veterans and their families.
David, fess’ up. You made a mistake. And you owe Sean Hannity an apology.
nwahs // Mar 20, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Why do these concerts have a 90% overhead? No one- no promoter, no act, no technician – is givng there services for less since its for a charitable cause? Why in the world would only $4 of a $40 ticket actually go the cause people assume their money is going to?
TerryF98 // Mar 20, 2010 at 5:04 pm
So a “charity” that gets only $4 from a $75 ticket then proceeds to spend like heck so the final take from the ticket is about 75 cents. Sounds upfront and honest to me!
Where are the accounts for what happens to the rest of the ticket money?
Was TerryF99 lost password with PC Crash, just so Independent does not have a hissy fit
KFS444 // Mar 20, 2010 at 9:34 pm
A few years ago a friend told me about something she was doing to send sort-of care packages to soldiers in Iraq with items like tooth brushes, gum, whatever and she wanted me to do the same. I thought about it and, no, its not a good idea. Give money. Find a reputable charity and make a gift. I donate to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society and to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and a few other charities. I feel confident of those charities.
I would never buy a ticket to a benefit concert like the Hannity charity concerts knowing that only $4 goes to charity and neither would anyone else. I think that is the crux of the matter: This is a very poor choice for a charitable contribution. I doubt that you can legally deduct more than the $4 from your income taxes (though people probably do because they do not know that the charity is actually getting so little).
Better than giving money, give blood and platelets. I would bet that Walter Reed Hospital needs a lot of blood and platelets and so does your local hospital. One of the most moving ads I’ve ever heard was a firefighter talking about how he had needed over 60 units of blood when he was injured on the job. Hospitals need blood all the time; a lot of cancer patients need transfusions.
lowandslow // Mar 20, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Why does anyone owe Hannity an apology? Only one being disingenuous here is Guardinao and the people that have rushed to Hannity’s defense. As of right now more questions have been raised then answered.
When did conservatives turn into everything we despise? The commenters here that dismiss Schlussel’s claims do so based solely on their “feelings” and the conservative pundits try to sweep under the rug the possible corruption as quietly as possible (the irony being Malkin just wrote a book on liberal corruption).
The fact of the matter is , nobody right now knows anything other then what’s in Freedom Alliance federal reports and we don’t know squat on where the money raised by them and Freedom Concerts went. Schlussel maybe dead wrong but right now the return from donations received by these outfits stinks to high heaven. If they’re dirty they should go down with conservatives leading the fight or else they corrupt the whole conservative brand.
I’m just sick of the double standard and lack of ideology by so called conservatives and I’m not talking about the people some like to call RINOs. I’m talking about those that claim to be hardcore conservatives, yet worship people like Rove, Palin, Cheney, Beck, Bush, etc. etc. We get a few more conservatives like that we don’t have to worry about RINOs.
I think our brains have rotted to the point we can only think in American Idol terms.
John Guardiano // Mar 20, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Lowandslow,
The problem with your approach is that it assumes people are guilty until proven innocent. But that’s not the way America works! Let me remind you that in America, people are innocent until proven guilty.
This is an issue of basic fairness and human decency. If Ms. Schlussel has real and credible evidence that Hannity is guilty of financial malfeasance and mismanagement, then she should present such evidence.
Ms. Schlussel hasn’t done that. Nonetheless, David published the her uncorroborated charges anyway. That’s why, I think, he erred and should apologize.
Why would you disagree? Why would you presume someone is guilty? Why would you not demand corroborating evidence first before, in effect, trying someone publicly in the court of public opinion?
Regards,
John
KFS444 // Mar 20, 2010 at 10:00 pm
JohnGuardiano,
The Acorn “Investigation” was, apparently, a real cooked up soup and Sean Hannity probably went to town on it. (I’m guessing as I don’t watch/listen to his shows.) The videos that were shown on Fox News were doctored with a guy showing himself dressed outlandishly but, in reality, he was dressed very conservatively when he went into the Acorn offices. I think the investigating agencies have dismissed the whole thing.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Something is amiss when you demand an apology even though you clearly do not have the facts. By your standards, do you need a conviction before anything is reported???? Or only for certain people?
Do you think the people who bought these concert tickets knew that only $4 was going to charity?
nwahs // Mar 20, 2010 at 10:01 pm
John, why does only $4 of a $40 ticket to a “charity ” event go the the actual charity? That doesn’t puzzle you any, John? Do you think that is a usual percentage for charity events?
lowandslow // Mar 20, 2010 at 11:25 pm
John Guardiano,
This isn’t a criminal trial and I’m not sitting on a jury, hell I doubt anyone did anything illegal but I can read a tax report and it says something’s not right with the way Freedom Alliance runs it’s charity. I’m also smart enough and honest enough to recognize Freedom Alliance and Freedom Concerts are two seperate organizations and we haven’t heard jack from Freedom Concerts or Hannity.
This is what I’m talking about, you think the main problem is Hannity’s honor or something. I don’t give a crap about Hannity’s reputation or credibility. He could disappear tomorrow for all I care, nobody owes him anything. I care about the people that donated their hard earned money just to see it go to waste. I care about the soldiers and their families going without because people will be reluctant to give to any charity because of mismanagement and or corruption of Freedom Alliance and Freedom Concerts.
Right or wrong the accusation is out there and it can’t be wished away or ignored. They have to open thier books up now (they should anyways) and defend their expenses. They owe that to the people that trusted them, if they can’t, screw them. Come down on them with everything we got.
Norwegian Shooter // Mar 20, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Lost in all the she said he said is the fact that Freedom America was given a grade of F in 2007 by the American Institute of Philanthropy. ” ‘They know how to work the system, and they seem pretty good at not going over the line*, although it is pretty outrageous that so little money is actually winding up benefiting charities,’ said Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of the Chicago-based institute.”
* “There are no laws regulating the amount of money charities spend on overhead, fundraising or giving.”
Case closed. Why would anyone get involved in a charity that is failure?
Independent // Mar 21, 2010 at 9:00 am
JohnG, well said. Especially this money shot quote: “To David’s credit, he and FrumForum reporter, Tim K. Mak, investigated Schlussel’s allegations and found them to be baseless and without merit. And, when they realized this, they immediately repudiated Schlussel’s allegations in print.”
The problem with webzines is that running with a hot story to keep the appearance the webzine is relevant will always mean that fact checking the hot story comes second.
I think this is a case of the Whacky-David and the Bad-Tim getting ahead of themselves and relishing in their collective glee at bringing down a real, big name talent in the conservative movement… not just a forgotten former speech writer who once worked, for a little bit, in the White House.
It’s happened more than a few times in this modern age –like when the farLeft was contending that Beck had been fired by Fox News.
If a website and community finds glee in spreading rumors about pundits in the conservative movement (like Palin’s supposed membership in a separatist party or Trig being Palin’s grandson, not son, etc) they’re going to move on some stories that are simply not true.
It use to be the job of the MSM to do this kind of rumor-mongering. It’s now falling to the webzines and those communities on Al Gore’s Internets who find comfort and pleasure in spreading any rumor –with or without merit– in the game of Politics of Personal Destruction.
Yephora // Mar 21, 2010 at 9:52 am
#25 wrote: “What’s really tipped me into the anti-Schlussel camp, though is her response above @ 1. It accuses Frum of doing a 180 . . . in order to preserve his access to the Fox airwaves, because of a direct threat from Hannity. . . That rings false to me and indeed is so obviously unlikely . . .”
Whether true with Frum or not I do not know. But it isn’t so unlikely: Hannity gave the same ultimatum to Ann Coulter, telling her that he would bar her from his TV and radio should she ever appear on the Steve Malzberg show again (Conservative talker Malzberg is Sean’s head-to-head radio competitor in NY). How do I know it’s true? Because Malzberg revealed on the air that Coulter had just called him explaining Hannity’s threat to her as the reason she was canceling his interview today and why she would no longer be appearing on his show. I heard this myself btw.
wwwDOTfreerepublicDOTcom/focus/f-news/2159856/posts
Yephora // Mar 21, 2010 at 9:54 am
Sorry, wrong place.
John Tabin // Mar 21, 2010 at 12:08 pm
John Guardiano thinks my apology didn’t go far enough. I disagree.
This was a blog post. If it had been for a print publication, or even an article for the front page of a website, I would certainly have double-checked the story before running. But on a blog it’s possible to instantly issue corrections that are just as prominent as the original stories, so I think it’s perfectly acceptable to operate with somewhat looser standards. Indeed, if bloggers were expected to double-check every single thing they linked to, their medium would look very different, and indeed would shed much of the immediacy that distinguishes it.
As I’ve said, I think my link should have been presented with more prominent caveats. And unlike David Frum (if I understand his position correctly), I don’t begrudge any other outlet for not jumping to cover this story. But I’m quite hesitant to grant Guardiano’s premise that I erred in linking to it at all. I just don’t think it’s reasonable to expect bloggers to verify every story they link to before posting.
nwahs // Mar 21, 2010 at 2:52 pm
I don’t see how a 90% overhead, (i.e., it takes Freedom Concerts $9 to raise $1 for FA) doesn’t stop any fiscal conservative in their tracks. Isn’t it possible to raise that same dollar for maybe $5 or even $4? Isn’t it worth looking at? How does a 90% overhead compare with the overhead of other charity concerts? I think that’s a reasonable question and it isn’t touched in any of the articles.
Independent // Mar 21, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Whatever troll-under-the-bridge FF editor wrote the headline, they got it wrong.
“Frum Owes Hannity an Apology ”
Frum also owes all thinking people an apology for trying to masquerade as a journalist. And FF owes the world an apology for misleading us all into thinking it was interested in restoring the GOP to majority party status and reinvigorating the conservative movement.
John Guardiano // Mar 21, 2010 at 8:25 pm
John (Tabin),
Thanks for your note and response, which I very much appreciate. I must say you have addressed my criticism in a very mature, candid and level-headed way, without being angry or defensive; and for that I salute you.
However, your argument that blogs must operate with looser standards lest they lose their sense of immediacy doesn’t hold up, I think.
No one is saying that a blogger — or a reporter for that matter — must double-check every single fact and assertion. That, indeed, would be impractical.
But when the assertions involve something as fundamental and as important as a man’s honor, character and integrity, then, I think, you have an obligation to first verify the accuracy of the charges before repeating them in print. And this is true whether you are blogging or writing a more conventional journalistic piece.
What, after all, is the difference? To the reader of the public prints, they are one and the same: sources of news and information available via the Web or mobile phone.
It is true, as you say, that because of the Internet, publication time has been radically compressed and really non-existent. After all, you can – and we do — publish something really anytime, ’round-the-clock.
Thus, within a span of less than six to eight hours, you and David had both publicized and refuted (or at least repudiated) Schlussel’s allegations.
This is good. However, with all due respect, John, there’s no indication, I think, that you were preparing to investigate Schlussel’s allegations. You simply put them out there as damning facts.
In fact, it wasn’t until Tim Mak investigated the matter that we knew Schlussel’s allegations were bogus.
It’s also not a question of whether the corrections are “just as prominent as the original stories.” The prominence of any correction is, I think, irrelevant. What matters is that unless and until a correction is published, the false allegations are out there unfairly maligning a good man’s honor, character and reputation.
Your defense is that the record can be corrected quickly and prominently. I agree; this is true. But it is my contention that the record should not have to be corrected in the first place if you simply practice good journalism and do some hard-nosed reporting first.
It is also my contention that there is never a rationale or reason for trafficking in gossip and innuendo.
Might this mean that you miss or avoid “immediacy” on a story or two? Yes, it might. But it also will mean that you’ll retain your personal and professional honor and credibility.
And besides, if enough bloggers and journalists practice this basic rule – which is to verify the accuracy of key information before publishing – then immediacy on these select few stories will cease to be an issue.
That said, I look forward to your next blog and your next article. You do great work.
V/R
John
LFC // Mar 22, 2010 at 12:34 pm
I don’t quite understand the defense of Hannity here. Did he strongly promote concerts benefiting a charitable organization that spent most of the money is raised, rather than giving it to the people it said would receive them? Their own filings show that the answer is an undeniable “yes”.
Did Hannity publicly apologize for helping take people’s charitable contributions for our soldiers and funnel them into a dysfunctional organization? I haven’t seen that myself. Maybe somebody can send me a link.
Did Hannity personally benefit from this relationship? I don’t think anybody can say, but if we assume that he didn’t, it still doesn’t relieve him of his responsibility to apologize for helping waste charitable donations.
Personal responsibility for one’s actions. Sean should try it some time.
WillyP // Mar 22, 2010 at 2:30 pm
“What’s more, I have defended David, publicly and in print, for his criticism of Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh.”
Well, that’s where you went wrong.
John Guardiano // Mar 22, 2010 at 4:08 pm
WillyP,
You should see the longer and more spirited defense of David that I wrote last summer. It was too hot for any pub to handle, so it was never published. But I stand by what I wrote and will post it to my own (professional-biographical) website once that site is up and running.
Regards,
John
DFL // Mar 22, 2010 at 4:16 pm
If David Frum isn’t going to apologize to Pat Buchanan for his National Review rant of seven years ago, he won’t to Sean Hannity. As Colonel Brittles said in “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon”,- “don’t apologize, it’s a sign of weakness.”
WillyP // Mar 22, 2010 at 5:39 pm
John,
I have no doubt that you defended him vociferously. I’d be curious to read the piece. But… why? is my question. Mr. Frum is a terribly confused conservative who seems oddly at ease with nearly everything Obama is doing, with the exception of Obama’s chilly treatment of Israel.
Case in point: Almost from the beginning of the healthcare debate, Mr. Frum has been suggesting creative ways to compromise with Democrats. He never seemed to get it that once you pass national healthcare, there is no going back. I’m not actually sure why he moved from Canada. He strikes me as a Canadian-style conservative, which is to say rather “progressive” in the Teddy Roosevelt.
Limbaugh and Levin, regardless of what you may think of their tactics, are very clear that they do not accept the premise of a national healthcare system, and believe that liberty, free markets, and charity will provide the best care available to the largest number of people. You know, wait times are a sign of scarcity, and Canada, Great Britain, and all other socialist countries experience life-threatening, pain extending wait times. Mr. Frum has no such scruples, and somehow, despite being at the AEI, cannot fathom that what is needed is not MORE government control, but LESS. I’ve said this before, but I think he should take a cue from his colleague Michael Novak and learn how a free commercial society functions.
nwahs // Mar 22, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Here’s the problem. ALL – EVERY SINGLE THREAD on this subject is about who is stroking who. I don’t care if this blogger or that blogger is offended.
How many people that go to Freedom concerts know that only $4 of their ticket price goes to the charity for service men and women? You are more bothered that some blogger isn’t being schmoozed properly than the inefficiency in managing these charity concerts ( i.e., dollars intended for Freedom Alliance. Well shame on you. You’re in a bubble. Its not ABOUT YOU. Its about people think maybe 14 or 15 dollars are going to the charity when only $4 is going to the charity. Quit schmoozing each other and look into that.
nwahs // Mar 25, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Well Debbie Schlussel did look into it. Congratulate yourselves in deciding who was or wasn’t offended.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/19630/big-business-who-owns-the-freedom-concerts-how-sean-hannitys-private-jets-luxe-suvs-suites-were-paid/#more-19630
I don’t care who you are or who you claim to be, if you turn a blind eye to people being scammed, when its placed at your doorstep, it doesn’t bode well. Not one answer to my question. How does 90% overhead stack up to other charity concerts? Not one answer but much schmoozing.
Right On Right Violence To A Soundtrack Of Lee Greenwood « Around The Sphere // Mar 29, 2010 at 5:43 pm
[...] John Guardiano at FrumForum on Frum: So first try and trash a man’s character and reputation without knowing all the facts. Then when the facts prove you wrong, admit this, but claim that it somehow proves your journalistic virtue. And then proceed to gratuitously dump on the charitable efforts of your target — despite his manifest innocence! [...]
skibum49 // Mar 30, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Look this isnt that complicated. If Freedom Alliance wants to legitimately defend the organization they need to stop lumping massive amounts of money under the vague term “program services”. The amounts given for Scholarships and Grants to wounded soldiers is in fact itemized on the organizations tax returns and IS in fact a very small amount of its revenues. The defense offered by Freedom Alliance is that they provide “other” services and programs besides the grants and scholarships. The problem is that none of costs for those services and programs is itemized. It all gets lumped into this “program services” catagory. Be straight up guys and tell us how much, where and when you spent money for programs like support our troops, leadership academies etc etc. If you dont itemize where you spend the money you end of leaving a cloud of suspicion suggesting that you are playing accounting games.