Spitzer Spin?

I know I'm late to the party, as so many J-bloggers are already on this story. Check out Krum's posts (I, II, III), SIW's (I, II, III), and TTC's both at his place (I, II), and at Jewschool (I). But I do have a few little points of my own to add on the topic of the closing of the OAG's investigation of the World Jewish Congress.

OK. So I read the blogs last night, immediately after the AG's office releases the report, and I see that everyone feels that the WJC was completely exonerated of any real wrongdoing. Interesting. Then I read the mainstream media reports this morning, and see a completely different spin on the report. How exactly is that? The answer lies right here. If one reads solely the press release issued by the AG's office, one would get a completely different picture of the actual findings than if one would actually peruse the report (which I did - it can be downloaded here, and it isn't long). As a matter of fact, as Krum points out, the numbers in the press release do not even compute with the numbers in the body of the report!

There are two issues at play here. First, the complete irresponsibilty of the OAG in publishing a press release that does not reflect the findings of this year-long inquiry. The press release mischaracterizes the report - which finds (and stresses throughout its body) that there is no intentional wrongdoing on the part of anyone at the WJC. Then can someone please tell me where the press office gets its facts from? Is this willful? Did someone in the press office neglect to read the report, as Krum jokes? Unclear. But unfair, for certain.

The bigger point here is the complete laziness of the press in reporting this story. Again, Can someone please explain to me how every single news agency that picked this story up quoted directly from the press release, without delving deeper into the text of the report? Somehow, these guys, who do this for a living, can't find the time to do a little more research, while the bloggers, who usually do this as a pasttime, all managed to at least skim the report, and conclude that, as the report states more than once, the investigation uncovered no basis to conclude that the organization was harmed by the inadequate financial controls it practiced. I guess who would expect J-journalists to actually tax their brain by reading 38 double-spaced pages?

The picture the report paints is that of an organization that was not financially modern, but not of one that was attempting to defraud any of its donors or members. But the press seems to get that wrong, somehow. I guess sensationalism sells, but at what price? Of course, I can't resist the fun of taking a few potshots at the doyen of bad Jewish reporting, my friend Gary Rosenblatt. The guy can't actually admit that the report found nothing sexy in terms of wrongdoing, as he's been doing such a shoddy and biased job of reportage on this topic sice the outset (my previous posts on the subject here and here). So, in a classic Rosenblatt move, he puts up a piece chock-full of the same innuendo and anonymous quotes as usual, and of course, the same "facts" from the press release figure prominently into his story. He also mentions very casually that the "slush fund" that he wrote about so sensationally (and unethically - see here), was not found to exist by the OAG.

The London Jewish Chronicle published a story in November saying that Herbits was “considering legal action” against The Jewish Week for publishing an article about the Spitzer investigation dealing with allegations of a “slush fund” of about $2 million provided for Singer by Bronfman.

The attorney general’s report found no evidence of such a fund.

Is anyone besides me just loving the way Rosenblatt quotes the Chronicle's allegations of the "slush fund" - as if he had never published his own stories in the Jewish Week that treated the unfounded allegations of such a fund as fact?

But even Gary can't get around publishing the most important conclusion that the AG's office reached:

The attorney general’s report focused on “deficiencies” in governance and fiscal controls, though it found no criminal conduct and said the “shortcomings did not compromise the core mission” of the group or result in “other identifiable losses of charitable assets.”

Well, I can say this: I, for one, am glad to see a case involving Jewish and Orthodox Jewish subjects ending with no finding of any intentional wrongdoing. It's about time.