Few-to-no posts for a few days, as I'm travelling. In the meantime, if anyone comes across anything good on the Bush Guard issue, pls email me (link is avail in upper left corner of page) or post as a comment.
Thanks.
« December 2003 | Main | February 2004 »
Few-to-no posts for a few days, as I'm travelling. In the meantime, if anyone comes across anything good on the Bush Guard issue, pls email me (link is avail in upper left corner of page) or post as a comment.
Thanks.
January 29, 2004 at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
(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?
January 29, 2004 at 09:00 AM in Bush/National Guard | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (2)
Washington Post, 1/29/04:
"Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday that 'this White House is committed to making sure the commission has all the information that they need to do their job,' but that 'it's important that they move forward as quickly as they can to complete their work.' Link.
Well, that's good news. I mean, it's fantastic to hear that the White House is supportive of the September 11th Commission's efforts, and committed to making sure the Commission has the information it needs. Right?
[Pause]
Ok, now here's the sentance immediately before McClellen's quote in the WaPo:
"The administration has also not agreed to the panel's requests for direct testimony from President Bush and Vice President Cheney."
I guess what McClellen meant was "this White House certainly won't mind if the commission has the information they need, but we're not actually going to, you know, help them in any way. Hey, good luck, though. We're pulling for you." I guess he just misspoke.
January 29, 2004 at 02:30 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Brooks Jackson, co-Head Honcho of Annenberg's FactCheck.org, wrote about the group's mandate in December:
"Our goal here can’t be to find truth – that’s a job for philosophers and theologians. What we can do here is sort through the factual claims being made between now and election day, using the best techniques of journalism and scholarship." Link.
Well, as I've discussed, FactCheck.org missed the mark pretty badly on the "best techniques" end of things.
But at least they lived up to part of their mandate: they sure didn't "find truth."
Contact FactCheck.org. Tell them what you think of their "best techniques."
January 28, 2004 at 06:16 PM in Bush/National Guard | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Arizona Republic has an article up -- no doubt you've seen the link on Drudge -- headlined "House Democrats claim prayer is 'disrespectful.'"
Those evil Democrats! They don't like prayer!
Wait. Maybe they're talking about a specific prayer?
Sure enough, read the article and you find the "prayer" the AZ House Dems are objecting to states, in part:
"We confess that: ... We have worshiped other gods and called it multiculturalism. ... We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice." Link.
That's not "prayer," that's a partisan screed. And it is "disrespectful." The Arizona Republic's headline creates the impression that AZ House Dems are against "prayer" in general, or against the generic prayers typically offered before legislative bodies. That's not the case at all.
January 28, 2004 at 04:33 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
WaPo Media Guru Howie Kurtz, on why "some media sources not given their consumers more background information":
"I don't know -- it's not all that difficult to explain that Moore was referring to Bush's apparent disappearance for about a year from the National Guard. He wasn't a 'deserter' in the sense that the word implies leaving the front during wartime, but there are questions there that have never been answered." Link.
More Kurtz:
"The Boston Globe did conclude that Bush had not reported for National Guard duty for about a year, but he was never charged with being AWOL and some of the details still aren't clear." Link.
Joe Conason (who objects to use of the word "deserter," but rightly focuses on the larger issue: did Bush show up for duty?):
"But to suggest that the Bush record is beyond criticism, as Mr. Jennings did, is both misleading and biased. That bias reflects an enduring double standard on this topic that has protected Mr. Bush ever since he first declared his Presidential candidacy." Link.
More Conason:
"Compare his soft treatment with the media scourging of Bill Clinton, who was held accountable during the 1992 campaign for every word he uttered about his draft record. What the Jennings episode validates is not Mr. Bush’s strange military career, but the Bush method of press management. Treat journalists like vassals, with nicknames, cheek-pinching and—whenever they forget their place momentarily—sneering disdain. It works brilliantly." Link.
Finally: Welcome, Annenberg! I see from my referers list you've been by. Hope you found it helpful. Try to include some facts in your next FactCheck, 'k?
January 28, 2004 at 04:09 PM in Bush/National Guard | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Is the Republican crime wave beginning to unravel? Manuel Miranda, an aide to Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist, has been put on leave in connection with the investigation into how Republican Senate staff got access to Democratic memos. Miranda's defense?
"There was no stealing. ... No systematic surveillance. I never forwarded these memos — period."
True or not, anytime someone begins a quote by saying "there was no stealing," things aren't going so well.
Note that it isn't just Democrats who are angry about the apparently purloined files. Here's Republican Senator Orrin Hatch:
"I'd be the first to admit that it shouldn't have happened, and I'm upset that it did."
January 28, 2004 at 03:45 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Daily Howler takes the NYT to task for dropping the ball -- and contradicting its own coverage -- on the Bush/Guard flap.
And David Neiwert -- the 'must read' source on Bush's Guard duty -- has a transcript of George McGovern blasting Bush.
January 28, 2004 at 03:33 PM in Bush/National Guard | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I don't want to sh*t in anybody's sandbox, but a little context is in order for those looking for meaning in the fact that somewhere around 4,100 Republican primary voters seem to have voted for Democratic candidates.
In 1996, if I'm reading this chart correctly*, somewhere around 9,000 votes cast in the 1996 Democratic primary went to the major Republican candidates.
It doesn't mean a thing. You can get 4,100 people to vote for anything.
________________
* Which, lord knows, I might not be.
January 28, 2004 at 12:27 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
The Financial Times reports "Cheney backs away from Iraq WMD claim":
"Dick Cheney, US vice-president, on Tuesday defended the US decision to invade Iraq but, in a notable shift of emphasis, he left open the question of whether Saddam Hussein had possessed weapons of mass destruction - a claim he made repeatedly before the war."In his first public response to David Kay, who resigned last Friday as the chief US arms inspector saying pre-war intelligence was wrong, Mr Cheney said: 'There's still work to be done to ascertain exactly what's there, and I am not prepared to make a final judgment until they have completed their work.'"
It's about time. I've long been surprised the Bush adminsitration doesn't just say "Look, we thought, based on best available evidence, that Iraq had WMD. Maybe they didn't. But Hussein was a bad guy; the world is better off with him gone. And it's better to take out an enemy you wrongly think has WMD than leave in place an enemy you wrongly think does NOT have WMD."
I mean, if they said that four months ago ... who would complain? Some hard-core anti-war folks, sure. But most Americans, I think, would have given them the benefit of the doubt.
January 27, 2004 at 11:47 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)