Total hit piece launched on Marco Rubio by Reuters
David Adams at Reuters probably thought his attack piece full of half-truths and a few outright lies about the finances of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) would be read by only a few since all of the attention these days is on the GOP candidates. Boy, was he wrong.
The Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis called out Adams and Reuters for all of the mistakes in the article suggesting Rubio’s financial problems would make him a bad choice for the GOP’s vice president slot and within 24 hours, Reuters had to issue five corrections. If the media is allowed to write this garbage, have it reviewed by editors and published with little or no care about accuracy, we have a big problem.
Of course, we’ve known this for a long time, but it’s getting worse. Adams and his editors – if there are any left at Reuters – should be severely disciplined if not fired for this hit piece on Rubio. This was a news article, it was not labeled an opinion piece.
Rush Limbaugh coined the phrase drive-by media and the phrase suites this piece to perfection. Write a bunch of bull about a politician, let it sit out there for a few hours to stir up the pot and then disappear. But the new media was able to call out the errors quickly and Reuters goes to quietly make five corrections to outright factual error for one article.
David Adams, are you at all embarrassed about what your wrote yesterday? Do you think it will hurt your credibility? The Adams/Reuters/editors unknown article is posted here.
Matt Lewis points out the seven – or possibly eight – errors Adams made here. Here are just two of the errors.
“In 2008, despite earning a declared $400,000 – including his $300,000 salary from the Miami law firm Broad and Cassel – Rubio failed to make a payment on his home for several months”
Lewis finds Rubio never missed a mortgage payment on his Miami home, but because of a clerical error was late making one payment on a house he co-owned in Tallahassee. Oh the horror. I’m not sure of the details, but the reporting seems to indicate he did make payments, but they were interest-only payments. The arrangement between Rubio and his bank is their arrangement, and to state Rubio “failed to make a payment” on his home for several months – implying default – and then changing the story to “Rubio failed to pay down the principal on his home for several months” without noting the difference is a big deal.
Second glaring error (of many)…
“He frequently had used his party credit card for personal use, and later reimbursed the party for about $16,000.”
This line was changed to “He frequently had used his party credit card for personal use, and later reimbursed the card company for about $16,000.” Well I’ll be damned. Guess what Adams’ definition of “later reimbursed the card company” is? Rubio used the card, and when he got the bill from American Expressed, he paid – prior to the due date – his personal expenses directly to American Express. Oh the horror.
As you muddle through all of the bull written by Adams, maybe you’ll wonder as I do, where the heck is the non-partisan Media Matters for America media watchdogs?
Philip Klien at the Washington Examiner has a good perspective on making journalism mistakes, and notes the following.
… the whole premise of the story is odd to begin with, even if it were true. Rubio is a suspect vice presidential pick because he’s struggled to pay his mortgage? Seriously? In an era where candidates are fighting to prove they’re “in touch” with the problems facing the rest of the country and when Mitt Romney is under fire for his wealth, this is an attack line now? The author [Adams] also writes that, “He has not endeared himself to Hispanic voters on several fronts, analysts say.” Yet the only “analyst” (singular) he quotes to back up that claim is “Fernand Amandi with Bendixen & Amandi, a political consulting firm in Miami that has been retained by the Obama campaign.”
Reuters is a J-O-K-E.? If a link navigates me to Reuters, I leave it immediately.? They just have nothing credible to say.
Since they are so well-versed in? pushing through the bull-s**t, I believe their name should be Roto-Reuters.
Jim, Good one. I love it
Ahhh- a perfect moniker- since their “journalism” merits a different libel- err… I mean label.
I love it!? What about the NYTimes?? 😉
And one wonders why it’s so hard to find good candidates to run for office.
To Reuters (and much of the lefty media), the only good candidate is a liberal one, regardless if his/her past is completely unexamined, or excused if it is.
“Rubio owes far more on his $384,000 Miami home than it is worth. He bought the home in 2005 for $550,000 with a $495,000 mortgage. He soon had it appraised for $735,000 and took out a home equity line of credit for $135,000.”
(Yeah, I want him lecturing me on gov. spending on SS and Medicare)
And, where’s Dimsdale who pronounced:
“Too many people buying houses they could not afford and should not have been allowed to buy. ”
2nd thought..I guess I can use my company’s Amex now and go to the mall..I will pay the bill when it comes.
Has he filed for bankruptcy or has the bank foreclosed on his home?? How do you define “afford”.? The quote of mine that you take out of context was referring to people that get foreclosed on, walk away from mortgages, or ask the government to force the lenders to remortgage their home.? Has Rubio done any of that?
I wouldn’t suggest going to Reuters to find out.? Is that where your quote is from?? You did not cite a source.? That is always a good idea.
The bank did a workout for him so he would not lose the home…something that you are dead set against and I am for! Forgot the discussion?
Perfect example….now you’re back pedaling..love it!
You mean the gov’t forced the bank to refi him?? You never stated whether he was forclosed on.
?Rubio owes far more on his $384,000 Miami home than it is worth. He bought the home in 2005 for $550,000 with a $495,000 mortgage. He soon had it appraised for $735,000 and took out a home equity line of credit for $135,000.?
I see a reappraisal, a down payment of $55K and a home eq loan of $135K.? Is he asking the government to force the bank to remortgage him?? Did I miss something here?? It may not be my idea of a good idea, but if he can pay for it, then so what?
When I worked in the Fortune 50 world, I was the one that got the AMEX bill and I was?responsible?for paying any personal charges, and submitting receipts to the staff who paid the rest of the bill.
So he’s paying his?mortgage?as agreed with the bank right? The article first said he flat out missed multiple payments to the bank which is a total and complete lie.
Your argument falls totally flat, and since the story was a non-story, Reuters and the “journalist” had to tweak the wording and change things up to MAKE it a story.
Total bull s*&t?
@crystal4 – BULL. IF the bank worked with Rubio to change payments or get a line of credit, thta’s totally between the PRIVATE bank and the PRIVATE individual. The federal government did not step in and bail Rubio out. Again, you’re argument here is BS.
Steve, the debate I had w/ Dims was about the feds requiring lenders TOTRY to workout loans for people …lower payments by “interest only” or a lower rate or reducing principle for those who qualify…people who have good credit. I was for, Dims against. This is exactly what this is…a workout
And if? I used my co, card for personal use..it would be stealing.. (your arrangement is different, it is by co. agreement).Rubio was breaching the trust of his campaign donors by using the funds for personal use. It is against all campaign finance laws!
I don’t see where one dime of campaign cash was used to pay the AMEX bill. After the fact, someone looking at the bill said “hey, there are personal charges here.” Then they found out that instead of the campaign paying the personal charges when due to AMEX, Rubio paid them from personal funds, on time, to AMEX. That said, no campaign cash was used to pay the bill and then “reimbursed.” No “breach of trust” as far as I read. You’re grasping for something here that does not exist.
I’m not going to look for previous discussions, but I’ll say the federal government does not “require” anyone to “try” to do something. They mandate it or they just threaten additional regulation or charges from the DOJ if the bank or whomever does not comply. Think Community Reinvestment Act.?
Key phrase: “the feds REQUIRING it”.? You know that will lead to all sorts of special exemptions, community activism, etc.
Reuters turned this into something it was not, and you fell for it.? Would you like a fish hook extractor?? 😉
By the way folks … wasn’t this post about the Reuters screw up? Ignoring the journalistic malpractice by Reuters that was a pure attack job, and immediately going after Rubio in the comments proves something to me.
It illustrates how the press can get away with such shenanigans and how it can be used influence the perception of what’s factual.
That was so weak it made me laugh out loud, crystal!
Dimsdale, Requiring they make an attempt at a “workout” not requiring they give one…when I said to “good” borrowers you mocked…now it’s Ok that they didn’t just foreclose on Rubio…which would obviously have happened without the interest only revamp. (By the way he has been stiffing his student loan payments).
Re: Reuters revision..did anyone ever see Fox revise it’s news (and I use that term lightly) to be accurate???? When countless times they have been proven to be absolutely wrong.
My comments on other pages were about the government forcing the banks to refi loans people found they could not afford.? An attempt is no guarantee of success, and likely, for a “bad” borrower, a refi would not happen.? A “good” borrower or not, if Rubio can make it work, *on his own*, then he can “afford” it.? Nothing would have “obviously” happened if it didn’t actually happen.? He did what anyone would do versus having “big brother” come in and make it all better.? At our expense.
Reuters on the student loan (after corrections): “During the same period he did not pay down the balance of a $100,000-plus student loan from his days at the University of Miami, the disclosures said.”? That was 2008.? What about now?? Is he paying off the loan or not?? Where is that information?? Did he default?? I see nothing about that.? Others find no evidence that he did not make payments on his loan.
This is yet another smear piece by Democrats that are deathly afraid of Rubio.? It reminds me of the defamatory attacks on Miguel Estrada, Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court.? Democrats never fail to attack a conservative minority, do they?
I remember a looonnnggg rant on the senate floor about Obama’a spending habits. Sigh…
The R’s are so desperate to get some color on their ticket they are not vetting their candidates. (Hey, they embrace all races and colors…ummm…they don’t like “blah” people, tho).
What they don’t understand is hispanics that are not Cuban dislike Cuban-Americans. …especially Marco who voted against the Dream Act. Hispanics resent the “wet foot/dry foot” policy we have towards the Cubans.
Marco? even lost the support of many Cubans in the Miami area with his “my parents fled Castro” lie. My family in FL /Miami area tell me all this is all old news about Marco, they knew about it a while ago.
I’m getting pretty sick of you taking racist shots at Republicans. “Desperate to get some color…” Are you f’in kidding me? You’ve mentioned that comment by Santorum twice now, I believe him when he says that’s not what he said. Sorry his diction is not perfect. Why they HELL you keep bringing up black/white, Cuban/Hispanic, and other race issues … I’ve never even thought that way, but I notice that liberals and people like you are the ones always bringing it up. Projection? When you meet someone, you see black/white/hispanic. I don’t, but you’re stuck on it. I never brought up Rubio’s ancestry or race in this post, but you feel the need to interject the concept – since that’s what you see. Admit it, you’ve got a big problem there as does almost all of the left.
?bama is spending OUR money; Rubio is spending his (or the bank’s, to be repaid with interest).
The my parents fled Cuba “lie” story perpetuated by liberals has been debunked.? No point trying to bring it up again, is there?
I fully support Steve’s comments about racial issues. Liberal people do see color of people. Even Liberal Black people see color in other black people ( I am a product of the 60’s and I was taught to use BLACK instead of any other name) . If a black man proclaims conservative values, they are somehow “whiter” or “Uncle Toms” . Many Conservative Black Congressmen were banned from the Black Caucus in the HOR. How sad. It’s a Liberal way of keeping blacks in poverty. Rainbow Coalition just kept Jesse Jackson rich. It did nothing to help blacks rise above their “station”.?
I don’t recall this level of scrutiny, real or contrived, about ?bama’s land deal with convicted felon Tony Rezko.
There was a time when you could trust Reuters to be honest in their reporting, but that time seems to have passed. ?Too bad… objective reportage has been one-upped by the need to fill an agenda.
Hey, cut it out! This is a friendly blog. Steve put a lot of time into writing this.
So, let’s get back to the post. The aim of the Reuters piece was to discredit Rubio and to encourage a false direction for the commentary. Guys and gals, there is no story. None. Not a scintilla of truth to the whole thing. The story was planted to make some people go off on a tangent. I guess it worked.
The upshot of the story is that Reuters is practicing YELLOW JOURNALISM and masquerading it as news reporting. It is a hit piece and everyone who didn’t know before now knows that Reuters is acting as a LIBERAL demagogue of the same ilk as CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, ETC.
H.L.Mencken, defined a demagogue as “one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to . . . “. I think that Reuters planted a red-herring and the (false) trail was followed.
Conspiratorial Theory 101: everybody fabricates stories against Republican politicians, except for Fox, Rush and Jim V.
Sammy, I don’t always agree with you 100%, but you always seem to make your point with brevity and wit. Others (myself included) go on and on.
It’s truly a talent and you always make me laugh..
Well, let’s leave the conspiracy theories for the story on Media Matters.? What do you think about this story?? Crystal has made her point(s), but you haven’t, sammy.? Do you think the story is a smear, just bad reporting or what?
Reuters made errors, corrected them. This post shredded even the corrections and comments went even beyond, hence my comment about Conspiracy Theory 101.
Well, see, now that is the problem: errors and mistakes are one thing, i.e. spelling errors, a factual mistake, bad sources.? The kind of thing that could possibly slip by a copy editor and proofreader.? When you get to the level of this article, with multiple “errors” and outright fabrications, you have to consider that something more sinister is at work.? Reuters isn’t some operation working out of a garage; it is supposed to be a professional news service.
Sadly, the NYTimes etc. have been guilty of this for years.? You see it more in a two paper town, which is becoming a rarity nowadays.
Thanks for giving us your views. I sincerely appreciate your take. I just wonder, if you appreciate how sad we are.? How can Reuters,? a large news agency write such unfounded stories in the first place? Journalists used to stake their reputations on their stories and went to incredible lengths to make sure their facts were, well facts. I am truly an old fogy, I miss Walter Cronkite, Mike Wallace and Bob Woodward (who broke Watergate with Carl Bernstein, for you youngsters). I know Mike, Bob and Carl are still alive, but they don’t write as much anymore.
Sad as it might be, the stories do not seem to be unfounded, otherwise there would not be such vehement a defense. People jumped all over Dodd (including me) for the sweet deal he had with Countrywide. Rubio may have had a sweet deal also w/ his bank. Where is the diff?
The diff is that there is no evidence of any sort of Dodd-like favors from Rubio’s bank.? Even Reuters didn’t say that.? Nor is he on the Senate Banking Committee, where such influence would attract “favors” from banks.? But who knows?? You can be sure that someone will be digging to find out.
Hey Dimsdale, call your lender today and tell them from now on you want to pay part of your mortgage. Get back to us and let us know what they said! Thank you.
People work out deals with banks every day.? They don’t want foreclosed properties on their books.? It costs them money.? Better interest payments than nothing.? A “minimum payment” if you will.? A smart bank would go for that, unless the person was perpetually unemployed and paid nothing.? As Steve pointed out, it is the business of the bank and the borrower, no one else.? Now if the bank were getting special favors, a la Dodd, then you have a case.
Besides, you and the Dems want the government (you) to “pay” part of people’s mortgage (by forgiving part of it, apparently), probably regardless of ability to pay yet again.
Holy cow…why do you think Obama wants the banks to modify loans when they DO NOT WANT TO!?? Between mortgage insurance ( which has been on most loans), tax breaks…the banks are doing quite well!!! Do you think there would be that many foreclosures if loans were being modified left and right???
Private deal? hmmm how many people with a $300,000 income were able to buy a 1/2 million dollar house with $5,000 down, take out cash and get their 3/4 million dollar mortgage modified? Noooo… no private deal there..lol
P.S. does this mean you are not calling your lender….no fun, Dimsdale 🙁
The loans are contracts.? Signed in front of a lawyer.? The only reason there are so many foreclosures is because the Dems, with the Comm.? Reinvestment Act, forced banks to mortgages they had no economic reason to take.? If F&F backed them,? then they had no reason not to submit to the Dems.? Far too many people were able to buy homes they couldn’t afford because the scrutiny was removed by said Act.?? The banks are doing well because the revelation of the F&F debacle means that they have returned to scrutinizing mortgage applicants.? I am wondering what happened to PMI, which I had to pay, and indemnified the bank on a foreclosure in lieu of a 20% down payment.?
You make a lot of insinuations (accusations, really) about Rubio’s loan.? How about some proof?
P.S.? Why would I have to call my lender?? I was heavily scrutinized when I got a mortgage, had to pay PMI, and have been doubling down on my principle payments for years to get out from under the loan.? I did call twice: to refinance my mortgage, and paid for the privilege of doing so.? And I really don’t want my tax money used to bail out people that made bad choices.? I would rather put it towards my principle!
OK, you’re forcing my hand,. Don’t know if you didn’t know this or you are spinning.
“President Bush and his administration turned a blind eye to regulating predatory lenders, even fought to protect their dangerous practices. Without common-sense oversight, these lenders misrepresented terms of loans and ignored homeowners? ability to repay, leading to today?s national crisis. And when states wanted to protect homebuyers from predatory lenders, President Bush?s administration protected the lenders and stopped the states from providing needed oversight.”
Hmmm.?? According to the NYTimes, this started well before Bush got into office (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html).? In fact, the NYTimes later noted, Bush tried to create a new agency to oversee F&F, which they say “The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates” (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html).? You’ll recall that the Dems, Barney Frank in particular, fought this.? I will not deny the role of bankers in this, nor some Republicans, but I will not allow the Democrats to absolved of the bulk of the blame.
I note that your article is derived from a “Media Matters Project”, and never mentions a Democrat as having any responsibility for this whatsoever (surprise!), and, given the post on the accidentally disclosed relationship…
… between MM and the Democrats, hardly ranks as an unbiased source at minimum.?
It seems your hand is full of jokers.
Now howsabout we get back to Rubio……?
I’d just about bet this hit piece was fed to the reporter by Democrat political operatives who did the research and pitched the angle to him. It’s typical of Democrat and new media collusion and racism.
All they do is put out the trough of talking points in front of their media stooges, which are consumed, and the stories come out the other end.