I’ve been seeing quite a bit lately about some “questionable” real estate deal involving Barack Obama. The AP ran a story, as did the Washington Post, on top of plenty of coverage in the Chicago media. Howard Kurtz said his “sense of political dynamics” tells him the story “is about to break out of the Chicago media and go national.” Slate, earlier this week, was touting an article on “Obama’s Shady Real Estate Deal.”
So, what’s the big scoop? Does Obama have a legitimate controversy on his hands? As Conor Clarke explained, there is no story here. If anything, the coverage of the non-scandal reflects poorly on the media, not the senator.
Clarke described the “controversy” quite well. It’s a little complicated, but nothing that the typical political reporter would struggle to understand. The whole thing stems from Obama’s business dealings with Antoin “Tony” Rezko.
In June of 2005, Obama used money from a book advance to purchase a house (“Georgian revival,” “four fireplaces”) in a ritzy neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side for $1.65 million — $300,000 below the asking price. The same day, Tony Rezko’s wife, Rita, purchased the neighboring plot for $625,000 dollars — the asking price. Rezko, who has been friendly with Obama since the latter was in law school, was under criminal investigation, a fact that was known, but not widely.
Seven months after the purchase, the Obamas approached the Rezkos about buying a piece of Rita’s plot to preserve what the Tribune called the “aesthetic balance” of the land — since once upon a time the house and neighboring property were a single package — and the Rezkos agreed. Land was sold (Obama paid well above the appraised value), a fence was built (Rezko supposedly paid), and lawns were mowed (Obama paid). Things were neighborly as punch until October 2006, when Rezko was indicted and pleaded not guilty to unrelated charges of influence-peddling.
That’s basically it. An indicted real-estate developer sold Obama part of his yard. Why did Obama get the house at below-market value? Because the house had been on the market for four months and the seller was anxious to make a deal. Did Obama and Rezko have some kind of influence-peddling deal? No, Obama opposed gambling interests that stood to help Rezko make money.
In fact, for all the media-generated buzz about Obama’s “shady” real estate deal, no one, anywhere, has actually accused the senator of doing anything wrong.
So, why on earth would major media outlets give this “story” attention? Because, reporters say, Obama has created the appearance of doing something wrong.
[S]ure, appearances can actually be useful, insofar as the appearance of impropriety is sometimes evidence of a real-live, slam-dunk, actual impropriety (if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, et cetera). And, of course, presidential candidates should be held to a higher level of scrutiny. But a higher level of scrutiny does not mean a different standard of guilt: In this case, journalists have followed the smoke and haven’t found the fire. At that point, accusing someone of something that looks wrong stops making sense.
So when Obama apologizes for having created the appearance of wrongdoing, he isn’t apologizing for anything meaningful — and rightly so. He’s apologizing for a public misperception. The same holds true for the way in which the events “raise questions” about Obama’s judgment: Without pundits there to misinterpret them, Obama’s actions are trivial. By itself, the Rezko deal couldn’t have been a “boneheaded” lapse (Obama’s word), because the wrongdoing depends on circularity: The Rezko deal was stupid only to the extent that observers arrive at the mistaken conclusion that Obama was doing something wrong. As Michel Kinsley once pointed out, that makes the appearance-of-impropriety charge self-fulfilling — the accusation helps create the perception it complains about.
The role of the press in all this should be to put perceptions in line with the facts as they stand, not inflate the perceptions and raise the distant possibility that the facts might line up behind them. Instead, the story, like the universe, has been expanding slowly outward ever since the Chicago Tribune reported the sale last month.
In a functioning political environment, the media would debunk misperceptions. If people are asking questions about a lawmaker and a potential controversy, the media should find the facts and answer the questions. Instead, as Clarke explained, reporters seem to enjoy asking more questions and create a sense of controversy, even when they know there’s nothing there.
It’s a meaningless real estate deal, being made out by the media to be far more than it is. Where have I heard this description before?