This story has been updated

Bill Allison over at the Sunlight Foundation makes the case that California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is guilty only of the "appearance of" conflict of interest in her dealings on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies sub-committee. (via Instapundit)

The most charitable thing one can say about Byrne is that he has confused what may be an appearance of a conflict of interest with actual wrongdoing. It's a shame that so many bloggers have taken it at face value.

Allison makes a persuasive case in defense of Feinstein and I encourage you to read his entire piece.

However, I'm still troubled (to say the least) that no major newspaper has done any in-depth reporting on the issue. There is still, at the very least, an appearance of a conflict of interest in Feinstein's actions. If the delay (if not outright disinterest in the story) that we are seeing from the mainstream media was because reporters were diligently checking all the facts, dotting their i's and crossing their t's, before getting something into print or on the air I would applaud.

However, this is not how things usually work. If you doubt me, you can ask former Sen. Bill Frist.

UPDATE

Allison responds to this post in the comments. I want to respond to one statement he makes.

But if, let’s say, the San Diego Union Tribune investigated a politician, and thought they had serious wrongdoing, and ended up realizing that their hunch was wrong, would they publish a story saying, “After a two month investigation, the San Diego Union Tribune has uncovered no serious ethical improprieties by Rep. John Smith”? Probably not.

Allison is probably correct if, and this is a key if, news of the possible wrongdoing was contained to the newsroom. If the suspected wrongdoing never made an appearance in a local weekly newspaper, or on a well-read Web site, then there would be no reason to report it the fact that the politician had been cleared, because there was no allegation out in the public.

The difference here is that the allegation is out in the public sphere. In this sort of situation (and I'm not saying this is the way it should be, merely the way it is) the standard media modus operandi is to report the allegation. For example:

An investigation funded by the liberal The Nation Institute alleges that California Sen. Dianne Feinstein used her position on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies sub-committee to funnel millions of dollars to companies controlled by her husband.

[Insert details of the initial report here.]

[Insert Feinstein's denial of wrongdoing here.]

[Insert information on whether the Senate Ethics Committee is investigating here.]

That's the kind of report I'm talking about the media failing to make. This is pretty much the standard when allegations of wrongdoing surface. Now, the newspapers and television stations should spend however long they need to to confirm or debunk the charges, but the charge is out in the public so that would usually mean the article I describe would've been written.

A couple weeks or months later, you would then write a story either clearing the politician of wrongdoing or confirming their corruption.

This is the way things work nowadays. The media reporting on the case of Bill Frist and his HCA stock sale follows this template, as have the cases of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.), Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W. Va.) and Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.).

All of which makes the silence surrounding Feinstein all the more odd.