This is the kind of garbage I'm talking about.
"Captain's Quarters" headlines its observaations on the Globe article thusly: "Globe: Bush AWOL Accusers Lied." Well, that's not true. The Cap'n indicates that the BOSTON GLOBE says Burkett lied; the Globe says no such thing. That's the confused Cap'n's conclusion. The Globe article doesn't really offer any evidence that Burkett lied, either: it just says that three people say it isn't true. That isn't proof, especially when those three people are not exactly disinterested parties.
And Instapundit takes the same approach:
THE BOSTON GLOBE REPORTS that the Bush AWOL story is collapsing
Again, that's not true. The Globe reported nothing of the kind. The Globe reported some facts, which led Glenn Reynolds to conclude that "the AWOL story is collapsing." That may or may not be a fair interpretation, but it's Reynolds' interpretation, not the Globe's.
And that's not the only way Reynolds misrepresented the Globe article: the article dealt solely with Burkett's allegations of tampering with Bush's file, not the whole "AWOL story," yet Reynolds spins this into the Globe reporting that the entire story is collapsing. Reynolds' charectorization of the Globe article manages to be a perfect distortion in only 11 words.
It's real simple, guys: reading an article, drawing conclusions based on it, then claiming the article reported your conclusions in the first place is dishonest. You're misleading your readers. Knock it off. Please.
(Tomorrow, I hope to update this with a couple examples from the other side: people taking Burkett's allegations as "proof," which they are not. Anyone who has an example handy, please, let me know.)
UPDATE: Calpundit points out that Conn doesn't actually contradict Burkett.
UPDATE 2: I cleaned up some of the language above ... I'm still working through the tone of this blog; bear with me.
Hmmm ... well, the story said that Burkett based his story on the recollections of his friend George Conn, who when finally contacted by the Globe said that Burkett's story was, in your words, bullshit. 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. This, in turn, led me to make the statement that not only was Burkett lying, but the entire national media that aired this story violated the principles they invoke while suppressing the Kerry infidelity story: they ran with a single, second-hand source for a story. Moore, who's releasing a book on the allegations next week and who's appearing on TV talk shows this month to flack it, never even bothered to attempt interviews with the principals in Burkett's story. They also failed to include the context of Burkett's ongoing complaints with the TANG, which indicates some strong personal motivation to embarrass its leadership.
Sorry, but I stand by my characterization. Prof. Reynolds passed on to his readers the gist of my opinion. I write my opinion on articles when I blog, which I don't think is terribly different than what you do. That's why I include links back to the original articles when I blog, so that readers can review the source material and decide whether they agree with me or not. If they do, great, and if not, that's fine too.
Posted by: Captain Ed | February 15, 2004 at 09:39 AM
Captain Ed, I have no problem with your interpretation of the Globe article. As I've said, I'm quite skeptical of Burkett's claims myself.
My problem is that you (and Reynolds) made it appear that your interpretation is what the Globe reported.
When you write: "Globe: Bush AWOL Accusers Lied," that looks like the Globe is saying that Burkett lied. The Globe didn't say that. It's your (reasonable) interpretation that Burkett lied. But that's not something the Globe said.
Posted by: Verities | February 15, 2004 at 01:29 PM