NPR leaves out crucial information in wiretapping story

This morning David Welna did a story on NPR's Morning Edition about Tash Hepting, the lead plaintiff in a class-action suit against AT&T over warrantless wiretapping. The segment ended with this response from Jay Rockefeller, who has been championing retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

David Welna: But the Democratic chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Jay Rockefeller, agrees with President Bush. The phone companies need immunity if they're to be counted on for future cooperation. He predicts that a plaintiff like Hepting will not have his day in court.

Jay Rockefeller: There's no way they can do it because of the state secrets act. The plaintiff will never get to find out anything.

DW, to JR: Even if there's not immunity?

JR: Oh, if there's not immunity it may be different.

DW: But Rockefeller is confident that ultimately there will be immunity.

Rockefeller is exactly right: if there's immunity then neither the plaintiff, nor anybody else, will get to find out anything. All we know now is that Attorney General John Ashcroft, his deputy, and the Director of the FBI were all ready to resign if the program continued. Notice that Rockefeller doesn't give any reason why immunity is a good thing, and this is where NPR really drops the ball.

AT&T is Jay Rockefeller's number-one campaign contributor.

Not only that. Jay Rockefeller is the #3 recipient in the Senate of donations from telecom services & equipment, excluding Presidential candidates. Rockefeller got more money from telephone utilities than any other senator excluding Presidential candidates.

This is just sloppy journalism on NPR's part. I don't expect a campaign financing report every time a politician speaks, but we need to know when the politician in question is defending his top contributor. If the media did perform due diligence and report these conflicts of interest, maybe our so-called representatives wouldn't be so blatant about who they're really serving.

Good news for Clinton, Slate-style

Whoever gets the Democratic nomination, there's no argument that Clinton has gotten a raw deal. We'll have to wait until after the election for the Columbia Journalism Review to do a study like this one, showing that the MSM skewered Gore in 2000, and by then it will be too late.

Luckily for lazy bloggers such as myself, sometimes you don't need exhaustive analysis to prove media bias. Today's Slate frontpage, following Clinton victories in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island:

She Lives!
(Now What?)

John Dickerson on whether
Clinton's comeback is
too little, too late.

Mickey Kaus on how
momentum hurts her.

For more examples of Slate's pro-Obama, anti-Clinton bias, see every other Slate article on the subject.