Been wondering why John Solomon of AP just keeps writing articles about Harry Reid. None of his stuff sticks. He tries very hard to make controversy where there really is none. And, Harry Reid is two-steps ahead of Solomon every time. Josh Marshall offers an explanation for Solomon's obsession:
Here's what one former colleague of Solomon's said last week: "I worked [X] years in the same office as Solomon, sometimes with him. The consensus: he's lazy, and takes hit jobs handed him on a platter by opps research teams (and anyone will do.) And doesn't do much to clean it up. I also know one of his fave and frequent sources is Barbara Comstock, former DOJ spxwoman and GOP attack dog."Now correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't it the job of editors to make sure the work of their reporters is to report, not to have vendettas against public officials? Solomon's reporting on Reid is bordering on the absurd....actually, it has become absurd. Reporters are used to dealing with unethical Republicans who hide their behavior and blame others. On the other hand, Harry Reid goes beyond the ethical requirements. So Solomon is foiled again.
I've heard the same from numerous oppo researchers and journalists. (Here are some thoughts on legitimate and illegitimate ways journalists use material from oppo researchers.)
If you're interested in finding out more about this, you might also look at this 2004 article in The Atlantic Monthly about how oppo researchers get their goods into articles. Look at the articles referenced and then go back and see the bylines.
On Reid, I think it's a combination of two things. One, as I said, he's an easy mark for oppo researchers peddling stuff that other journos didn't think met the laugh test. And two, he hasn't really landed a punch yet and Reid's fought back. So now it's a bit personal.
