Update: FactCheck.org Wasn't Just Lazy; They Misrepresented Facts As Well

(Here's my original post about FactCheck.org)

A Helpful Reader posted this comment in response to one of my posts:

"As I recall from research I did at the time the 'friends' whose recollections were cited by Bush spokespeople narrowed down to one of his then-girlfriends, who recalled that Bush had said he was going to go do some Guard duties on a particular weekend."

That sounded familiar, so I poked around a bit.

Here's what the Associated Press reported back on July 4, 2000:

"'He told us that he was having to do his Guard duty in Alabama while he worked on the campaign,' said Martin, [sic; details later] a former Alabama resident. She said she dated Bush during the time he spent in Alabama.

"'I remember he actually came back to Alabama for about a week to 10 days several weeks after the campaign was over to complete his Guard duty in the state,' Martin [sic] said in a telephone interview with the Decatur Daily from her Florida home.

"'We both were single at the time he was in Alabama, and we went out a lot,' she said. 'I have fond memories of those times. Although I never actually drove him to Guard duty, he told me that he went and there is no reason for me to believe that he did not go.'"

So Bush's former girlfriend, offered as a corroborating witness by both Slate and Annenberg, doesn't actually know Bush showed up for duty. The closest she can come to backing up his story is to say "there is no reason for" her "to believe he did not go." That's a character witness, not an actual witness.

So how does Annenberg frame Martin's [sic] comments? Would you be surprised to know that, in this case, they didn't merely exhibit shoddy research and general laziness, but actually misrepresented the facts?

"The Associated Press quoted two friends who worked with Bush in the Blount campaign as saying they recall him attending Air National Guard drills in Alabama. ... Emily Martin, [sic] who said she had dated Bush during the campaign, was quoted saying, 'He told us that he was having to do his Guard duty in Alabama while he worked on the campaign.'"

Now, a few things about that paragraph are worth noting:

1) Annenberg factually misrepresented the AP's reporting and Martin's [sic] comments:

The Associated Press absolutely did not quote Martin as saying she recalled "him attending Air National Guard drills." The AP article says nothing of the kind, and quotes Martin [sic] saying nothing of the kind. The AP quotes Martin [sic] as saying Bush told her he was doing Guard duty. The AP was careful to note the difference, characterizing Martin's [sic] comments this way "But Holcombe and Emily Martin [sic] of Key Biscayne, Fla., said they remember Bush talking about being in the Guard. "

A small distinction? Perhaps, but one that the AP considered important enough to make. And one that the great Annenberg Public Policy Center had damn well better understand if they're going to set themselves up as the ultimate arbitrators of fact and fiction.

2) Annenberg selectively quoted Martin [sic]:

Annenberg obviously had the AP article, as they referenced it and used Martin's [sic] quote. So why didn't they include, for the sake of completeness, the portion of the quote where she acknowledged not actually knowing if Bush showed up for duty?

3) Finally (and this is the fun one) Annenberg got the girlfriend's name wrong.

By now you're probably wondering "what's with all the '[sic]s' above?" Good question.

On July 7, 2000 -- three days after the original Associated Press story -- the AP ran a correction:

"In a July 4 story about Texas Gov. George W. Bush's service in the Alabama Air National Guard, The Associated Press gave an incorrect last name for a woman quoted in the story. It was Emily Marks, not Emily Martin, who said she remembered Bush talking about serving in the Alabama unit while both worked for a Senate campaign in 1972."

Again, this is a small detail, but it speaks to Annenberg's shoddy research. The fact that FactCheck.org missed this correction is astonishing. There simply aren't that many published articles that reference Bush's ex-girlfriend talking about his guard duty. In addition, the New York Times and Newsweek got her name right in 2000 articles about this matter; it's almost unimaginable that Annenberg didn't see either of those articles.

Of course, we know by now that they weren't trying very hard.

So, FactCheck.org, what say you?

UPDATE: A couple of things I just noticed and should include in fairness to FactCheck.org:

I now notice that, earlier in the July 4, 2000 AP story, the wire service wrote:

"Two friends who worked with Texas Gov. George W. Bush in a U.S. Senate campaign in Alabama more than 28 years ago say they remember him serving in the Alabama Air National Guard."

That may explain FactCheck's characterization of the AP article -- though it's still wrong. The AP line immediately leading into Marks' quotes is more relevant, more precise, and is what FactCheck should have focused on. Well, they should have focused on Marks' actual comments. If you do that, FactCheck's characterization certainly doesn't hold up.

Also, it seems FactCheck was relying on the version of the AP story that ran in the Houston Chronicle. I have no idea why they would do that, as local editors may have screwed things up while editing the article for space. I don't have access to the Chronicle version, so I can only speculate that that may be the reason for FactCheck's mischarectorization. If that's what happened, let it be a lesson: when possible, use the actual article, not the reprints!

I don't think either of these things are at all significant, and they don't in any way justify FactCheck.org's shoddy work. But I believe in clarifying the record. Does FactCheck.org?

Comments

[js]

GREAT PIECE! Wish I had read it before writing to Annenberg, but I think I still scored a few points: 1. The issue is not whether Bush was prosecuted for his behavior in the Guard. Of course he wasn't. Richard Nixon was never prosecuted for ordering the Brookings Institute burned down, but everyone knows he did so.

2. The story elides key details of Bush's move from Texas to Alabama. He requested permission to go to one unit and left without having received permission. He was later granted permission to attend a different unit. This point, on disregarding regulations, is critical to assessing whether he did or did not desert.

3. The article elides a fact that is crucial to differentiating between whether Bush "missed a few drills" or whether he committed an infraction against military law: the fact that he was suspended for failing to obtain a physical examination. Failing to take a physical amounts to failure to obey an order.

[js]

...

4. The article further fails to note the consequence of that: since Bush was suspended from flying, he could not have lawfully attended drill.

5. The article fails to mention that George Magazine author Peter Keating was caught in a bit of documentary fiddling. He presented a document that had been altered as proof of Bush's completion of drills…

6. Astonishingly, the article fails to mention that the documents themselves… are available online. …

7. The article fails to examine (a) what constitutes desertion according to the Air Guard and (b) how it is punished. …

It is here that serious consideration is required: … Bush didn't do all the drill he was supposed to. Bush left his post without having received permission and that he refused to obtain a physical. Does this constitute the state of mind (intending not to return) fulfilling the statutory definition of desertion? This is the question that readers need to answer, not whether Bush was prosecuted or not.

[Susie Dow]

A quick google search using:

"george w bush" Texas national guard

brings up:

http;://www.awolbush.com/

as the first link.

gif's of the actual docs related to George W. Bush's service record are available on that site. Granted traffic may have increased to awolbush.com but I find it hard to believe they didn't google around for more information. Shoddy work at Factcheck.org