Dishonest Blogging

On Saturday, I took InstaPundit and Captain’s Quarters to task for how they portrayed this Boston Globe article.

Based on the Captain’s response, I’m not sure I explained my complaint clearly.

So I’ll try again, in greater detail, because I think this is an important topic.

Captain Ed wrote in response to my earlier item:

“While I may have worded it a little strongly, if Burkett's only witness to the alleged events say they never happened, then it seems to me that Burkett is being dishonest -- in other words, lying.”

But he’s missed the point entirely, presumably because I didn’t make it well. I take no issue with the Captain’s conclusion that Burkett lied. I take issue with his claim that the Globe drew that conclusion. I'll start from the beginning:

Captain Ed headlined his post on the Globe story like this:

"Globe: Bush AWOL Accusers Lied."

InstaPundit wrote this:

“THE BOSTON GLOBE REPORTS that the Bush AWOL story is collapsing”

Now, both could be valid interpretations of what the Globe article means. But they are NOT valid or accurate characterizations of what the Globe said.

That’s a huge – and hugely important – distinction.

Captain Ed read the Globe article, and concluded that Burkett lied. Fine; that, to me, is perfectly fair. I don’t believe (as of this writing) Burkett’s allegations, either. But the Globe absolutely, unequivicably did not report or conclude that anyone lied. That’s Captain Ed’s (valid) interpretation, and he’s wrong to ascribe it to the Globe. It’s misleading and untruthful.

Likewise, the Globe in no way, shape or form reported that the “Bush AWOL story is collapsing.” InstaPundit read the Globe article and concluded that the story is collapsing. Fine; that’s a reasonable (though, I think, incorrect) interpretation. But, again, InstaPundit is just plain wrong to portray the Globe as reaching that interpretation. It’s misleading and untruthful.

Look at it this way: say the Boston Globe scored an exclusive interview with … I don’t know; David Kay. And say Kay told the Globe that some of the statements in Bush’s 2003 SOTU about Iraq were inaccurate. And say the Globe headlined its article “KAY: Bush Lied.” Would that be a fair or accurate characterization of Kay’s comments? Hell, no.

But that’s what InstaPundit and Captain Ed have done: they’ve unfairly and inaccurately characterized the Globe’s reporting by ascribing their own interpretations to the Globe.

Now: why do I care?

Well, to me, one of the great qualities of the Blogosphere is that there are a great many people out there, banging away, offering a level of detail and information and fact and smart, insightful analysis that the major media is unable or unwilling to provide for various reasons. That helps illuminate a wide variety of issues, and fills in many of the gaps in coverage in the major media.

Good bloggers offer a level of both information and intelligent analysis that is, in many cases, much greater than we can get from any other news source.

Unfortunately, too many of us too often pick up the bad habits so troubling in the major media. Most obvious is the habit of conflating fact and opinion. To be clear: I’m not saying InstaPundit or Captain Ed or Atrios or anyone else shouldn’t offer their opinions; reading the well-reasoned opinions of smart bloggers is a large part of why I read blogs in the first place.

But "Globe: Bush AWOL Accusers Lied” and “THE BOSTON GLOBE REPORTS that the Bush AWOL story is collapsing” aren’t matters of opinion or analysis. They are factual inaccuracies. The Globe reported nothing of the kind.

If InstaPundit had written “This Boston Globe article provides evidence that the Bush AWOL story is collapsing,” that would have been fine. If Captain Ed had written “Globe Article Provides Evidence Bush AWOL Accuser Lied,” that too would have been fine. In both cases, they would have been making clear that these were their interpretations. Hell, if Captain Ed had written “This Boston Globe article means the moon is made of green cheese,” I’d be fine with that (I wouldn't agree, but, for the purposes of this discussion, I'd be fine with it.) It would be clear that he’s offering his conclusions, not describing the Globe’s.

Instead, Captain Ed and InstaPundit offered their opinions as facts.

And, worse, they presented their conclusions as though they were the Globe’s conclusions. That’s misleading and untruthful. It doesn’t serve their readers well. And it doesn’t reflect well on their credibility.

NOTE: Going back to Captain Ed’s post for a moment, there’s another way his headline ("Globe: Bush AWOL Accusers Lied") is inaccurate: the Globe story only provides evidence (if you interpret it as such) that Burkett lied. Captain Ed portrays it as providing evidence that the people who accuse Bush of being AWOL lied. The reality is that, at most, the article provides evidence that Burkett, who made the allegation not that Bush was AWOL, but that his records were tampered with, lied. In other words, Captain Ed’s characterization of the Globe article bears no resemblance to reality.

NOTE 2: I should state, as clearly as possible, that I have no reason to believe that either InstaPundit or Captain Ed was being malicious, or intentionally misleading. They may well have simply been sloppy. And I’m less concerned by these specific examples than I am by the fact that this sort of sloppiness (and, probably in some cases, deliberately misleading behavior) is quite common.

NOTE 3: I hasten to add that it's highly likely I will make (or, possibly, have allready made) the sort of mistake I've criticized InstaPundit & Captain Ed for making. Most of us will (and/or have.) When I do, please point it out. You'll be doing your fellow readers, and me, a service.

Comments

[pseudolus]

Well, for what it's worth I understand your point. It's typical of many right wing pundits to jump to such conclusions and mis-state the news hoping no one will analyze it.

Hugh Hewitt did a similar thing Sat. on Fox Heartland. He claimed to have read all 400+ pages of newly released Bush TANG docs. And just stated flat out that there was nothing there to support the AWOL allegations.

I'm sure the typical Heartland audience just nodded and accepted that as truth, when a little thought would have made a more skeptical audience doubt he could have read all those docs and drawn any conclusion without being familiar with those forms in the first place. Oh well...

[js]

You might want to read Calpundit's extraordinary work on the Burkett story before concluding that Lt. Col. Burkett lied.

1) In 2002, Conn went on the record with USAToday to confirm Burkett's story.

2) Conn did not really contradict Burkett to the Globe. He simply refused to confirm.

3) To Calpundit, Conn made it clear he is in fear of losing his job. Although he's far from direct, one senses that he is still confirming Burkett now.

4) If Burkett is not telling the truth, we have to otherwise account for the fact that the files seem to be missing documents.

I believe Bill Burkett, simply because it's easier than explaining away the above.

[Verities]

Well, I haven't concluded that Burkett lied. (And I have read Calpundit's stuff; it's excellent.)

Numbers 1-3 in your post don't really substantiate Burkett's allegations. Number 4 provides some reason to believe them, but certainly isn't proof.

As the situation stands now, I don't believe Burkett's allegations, primarily because I'm not ready to believe Bush & Co. are guilty of something based solely on one man's allegations. But that's a far cry from having concluded that "Burkett lied."

We just don't know enough facts yet to reach a conclusion one way or another.