New "Kerryism" falsifies Senator's statement (6/17)

By Brendan Nyhan

As we recently demonstrated, Slate's “Kerryisms" column, which is dedicated to removing "caveats and pointless embellishments" from statements by the Democratic presidential candidate, often distorts or truncates his meaning in the process. However, a new edition published yesterday goes even further, taking an accurate Kerry statement and editing it into a form that is completely false.

Kerry's original statement, from a February 9 broadcast of National Public Radio's "All Things Considered," was the following:

I am the only United States Senator who has been elected four times, currently serving in the Senate, who has voluntarily refused to ever take, in any of my races for the Senate, one dime of political action committee special interest money. The only checks I took were from individual Americans. Now did some individual lobbyists contribute? The answer is, yes, they did.

Will Saletan, the author of "Kerryisms," edited it into the following form (footnotes representing excised text appear in brackets):

I am the only United States Senator[1][2] who has voluntarily refused to ever take in any of my races[3] one dime of[4] special interest money. The only checks I took were from individual Americans.[5]

By removing "political action committee" with footnote 4 and the clarification about accepting donations from individual lobbyists in footnote 5, Saletan makes Kerry's precise claim much less clear. But, more importantly, the removal of the text in footnotes 1-3 actually makes the statement untrue.

Kerry is apparently the only senator to be elected in all four of his races without accepting funds from political action committees (a claim he has made numerous times). But he is not the only senator "who has voluntarily refused to ever take in any of my races one dime of special interest money," as the edited version suggests, even if "special interest money" is read to refer specifically to PAC funds (a clarification Saletan excised).

There are two possible interpretations, both of which render the statement incorrect. First, if "any of my races" refers to any campaign for elected office, it is untrue because Kerry accepted donations from PACs during races for the House of Representatives and Massachusetts lieutenant governor (he also accepted so-called "soft money" donations from corporations to his leadership political action committee in 2001-2002, which were used to promote his presidential campaign). This is why Kerry said "any of my races for the Senate," another detail Saletan removed. And even if "any of my races" refers only to races for the Senate itself, the edited version is still wrong -- Senator Mark Dayton, D-MN, for instance, was elected to his first term in 2000 without accepting any money from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Kerry's claim turns on the fact that he did it "four times" beginning with his first race. But this caveat is, again, relegated to a footnote.

Boring as it may sometimes be, accurate political claims often require specifics. By actually falsifying a claim from a presidential candidate, "Kerryisms" has gone from bad to worse.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Stereotypes run amok: Slate's misleading "Bushisms" and "Kerryisms" (Ben Fritz, 6/15/04)

6/17/2004 10:53:16 AM EST |

Stereotypes run amok: Slate's misleading "Bushisms" and "Kerryisms" (6/15)

By Ben Fritz

Slate's "Bushisms" has highlighted a number of humurous verbal stumbles by the President, while "Kerryisms" has noted plenty of excessively long statements by the Democratic presidential candidate. But both series have a disturbing habit of taking quotes so far out of context as to engage in outright dishonesty. In their search for evidence that fits the assumptions of their respective columns, Slate editor Jacob Weisberg and writer Will Saletan have used quotes that don't really mean what they imply. (Read the whole column.)

Update: A shorter version of this column appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on June 17.

6/15/2004 12:07:35 AM EST |

Quotations out of context / Slurs a new toxic low (6/10)

By Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer, and Brendan Nyhan

A June 2 Washington Times story showed how easily journalists can twist politicians' words by simply taking quotes out of context.

One of the nastiest accusations in post-Sept. 11 political debate has come from Democrats and liberals who denounce the so-called "Taliban wing of the Republican Party."

(Read the whole column.)

6/10/2004 06:56:52 AM EST |

The slippery Standard (6/8)

By Brendan Nyhan

In this week's issue of the Weekly Standard (subscription required), the magazine engages in a thoroughly dishonest attack on a recent Washington Post story about the 2004 presidential race. The Post article, which has drawn wide attention, claimed that President Bush's attacks on Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, have been particularly negative and deceptive.

Writing in the Scrapbook section, the Standard suggests that it is debunking all of the allegations of deception made by Post reporters Dana Milbank and Jim Vandehei, saying they "[purport] to identify four such Bush campaign claims: (1) that Kerry has, in Dick Cheney's words, 'questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all'; (2) that Kerry would 'repeal most of the Bush tax cuts'; (3) that Kerry would scrap anti-terrorist wiretaps authorized by the USA Patriot Act; and (4) that 'Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.' All of these claims, Milbank and VandeHei report, are false. No, they aren't."

However, the Post article actually criticizes at least ten suspect claims. In addition, the magazine's attacks on Post's reporting are highly misleading for the three of the four claims in question.

The first, as the Standard describes it, is that "Kerry has, in Dick Cheney's words, 'questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all.'" Not so, the magazine claims, writing that "On more than one occasion, Kerry has described the war on terror as 'fundamentally an intelligence operation and law enforcement operation and a diplomatic operation.'"

However, this completely mischaracterizes the point made in Milbank and VandeHei's article, which goes on to explain the justification Cheney cites for his assertion:

"Senator Kerry," Cheney said, "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. He said, quote, 'I don't want to use that terminology.' In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and more of a law enforcement operation."

But Kerry did not say what Cheney attributes to him. The quote Cheney used came from a March interview with the New York Times, in which Kerry used the phrase "war on terror." When he said "I don't want to use that terminology," he was discussing the "economic transformation" of the Middle East -- not the war on terrorism.

This distortion of Kerry's words, which Bush and Cheney have repeated for several months, is completely ignored in the Standard's supposed refutation.

Similarly, the Standard says Bush's claim that Kerry would "scrap" wiretap provisions of the Patriot Act is correct, citing a recent statement in which he said "there are several provisions in the Patriot Act--the sneak-and-peek searches, the roving wiretap, the library pieces, a couple of those--that ought to be changed," and "if I'm president, I will not allow [the Patriot Act] to go through with those provisions."

In fact, as even the quote in question makes clear, Kerry said the policies "ought to be changed," not scrapped. As Milbank and VandeHei point out, "Kerry has proposed modifying those provisions by mandating tougher judicial controls over wiretaps and subpoenas, but not repealing them." By ignoring the Democrat's support for such measures with tougher controls, the magazine again misleads its readers.

The Standard also attacks Milbank and VandeHei's claim that Bush falsely stated that "Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents":

Milbank and VandeHei say Bush is claiming that "Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents." But the relevant Bush ad says merely that Kerry once supported a 50-cent tax on gasoline, a vote Kerry has publicly acknowledged. Milbank and VandeHei report that the ad "implies that the proposal is current," but they're wrong; the ad "implies" nothing at all. According to its script, Kerry "supported a 50-cent increase in gas prices," period. Note the past tense.

Actually, Kerry never voted for a 50-cent gasoline tax increase as the Standard claims - Bush's campaign has not made this charge (in the television ad in question, it is referring to a ten-year-old statement the Senator made to a newspaper that he has since retracted), nor has Kerry "publicly acknowledged" it. The reality is that the Bush campaign's phrasing has usually not been as blatant as Milbank and VandeHei's wording suggests, but it has insinuated that Kerry supports such a policy today (as we have previously written). The next line of the ad in question, for instance, refers to "Kerry's tax increase" as if it were a current proposal, saying "If Kerry's tax increase were law, the average family would pay $657 more a year." And Tucker Eskew, a Bush campaign advisor, said on the April 2 edition of MSNBC's "Hardball" that "John Kerry doesn't have a plan [to deal with high gas prices]. He has a 50 cent a gallon tax increase."

Finally, the magazine distorts the views of two scholars quoted in the article:

Note, too, how feebly the Milbank-VandeHei report manages to support the promise of its headline ["From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity: Scholars Say Campaign Is Making History With Often-Misleading Attacks"]. Do "scholars say," in fact, that George W. Bush is running a reelection campaign of "unprecedented negativity" and "misleading attacks"? Maybe, but Milbank and VandeHei haven't found them. One political scientist they interview says he "anticipates" that "it's going to be the most negative campaign ever." Note the future tense. Another political scientist, however, says that Bush's "distortions" are no worse than those presidential candidates have been making since "the beginning of time."

Actually, Milbank and VandeHei quote a scholar saying precisely what they deny. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania communications professor, told them that "There is more attack now on the Bush side than you've historically had in the general-election period against either candidate," adding that "This is a very high level of attack, particularly for an incumbent." Jamieson's statement is somehow omitted. In addition, the first political scientist the Standard mentions, Darrell West of Brown University, also supported the thesis of the article more directly than the magazine acknowledges (it even misquotes him as saying "anticipates" rather than "anticipating"):

Brown University professor Darrell West, author of a book on political advertising, said Bush's level of negative advertising is already higher than the levels reached in the 2000, 1996 and 1992 campaigns. And because campaigns typically become more negative as the election nears, "I'm anticipating it's going to be the most negative campaign ever," eclipsing 1988, West said. "If you compare the early stage of campaigns, virtually none of the early ads were negative, even in '88."

Of course, the magazine may find these statements unconvincing or insufficient justification for the headline of the article (the Post ombudsman argued that it was overstated). But by distorting the facts so heavily, it misinforms its readers and does a disservice to Milbank and VandeHei. Rather than demanding a retraction from the Post, the Standard should take a closer look at its own work.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-One of these things is not like the other (Brendan Nyhan, 5/13/04)
-Both sides are using the power of words artfully misquoted (Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan, 3/25/04)
-Pundits won't stop spinning Clark's phone call (Ben Fritz, 9/3/03)

6/8/2004 03:10:35 PM EST |

Return of vile Taliban analogies (6/4)

By Brendan Nyhan

Post-Sept. 11 political debate has been marred by frequent comparisons of political opponents to hated figures such as Saddam Hussein, terrorists or the Taliban.

One such accusation comes from Democrats and liberals who denounce the so-called "Taliban wing of the Republican Party," an attack that smears a wide swath of conservatives as analogous to the barbarous regime that previously ruled Afghanistan. This catchphrase has come into wide use since the terrorist attacks.

On May 23, Senator Tim Johnson, D-SD, deployed the term during a rally for Democratic Congressional candidate Stephanie Herseth (who won a special election Tuesday). "When Stephanie Herseth fills this seat, we are going to have a rising star in the House of Representatives," he said. "And how sweet it's going to be on June 2 when the Taliban wing of the Republican Party finds out what's happened in South Dakota." Johnson eventually issued a partial apology, claiming he was referring to Republican leaders who attacked him during his 2002 campaign.

Then, NAACP chairman Julian Bond denounced conservatives Wednesday using the same slur in a speech to the Take Back America conference, which is hosted by the liberal Campaign for America's Future. According to CAF's tape of the speech, Bond said that the right draws its "most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics." Sadly, this is only the latest example from Bond's long history of using this phrase to attack Republicans.

In an election season, the nastiness apparently knows no bounds.

Update 6/9 4:13 PM EST: A transcript of Bond's remarks is now available from CAF (Microsoft Word document).

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Spinsanity on terrorist labels and Taliban/Iraq comparison
-Spinsanity on Julian Bond

6/4/2004 07:38:02 AM EST |

Washington Times quote-butchering continues (6/4)

By Brendan Nyhan

The Washington Times distorted a series of quotes in a news story published Wednesday on Democratic criticism of President Bush. This practice echoes its highly deceptive usage of quotations in reporting about a speech former President Bill Clinton gave at Georgetown in 2001 and coverage of a supposed National Education Association lesson plan for teaching about Sept. 11, both of which spawned media myths.

James G. Lakely's story, "Bush foes extend bounds of rhetoric," claims that "many observers say the level of invective lobbed at President Bush has escalated to a new and dangerous level." But many of these "dangerous" quotations have been ripped out of context by Lakely and portrayed in incredibly misleading ways.

For instance, he claims Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, attacked "Mr. Bush as a man who 'didn't learn the lessons of our generation in Vietnam' and is 'putting our troops at greater risk.'" The second quote, however, was far more innocuous. Kerry actually said, "I believe I can lead us out of Iraq effectively by accomplishing goals we need to accomplish but without putting our troops at greater risk." This phrasing is hardly the direct attack on Bush that Lakely purports to describe.

The reporter later claims that former Vice President Al Gore accused Bush "of having 'betrayed' his country, of being guilty of 'war crimes,' and setting up an 'American gulag' in Iraq" during a speech sponsored by MoveOn.org PAC last week. But Gore's first statement was far more indirect - he said "I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust." Betraying people's trust is very different from betraying "his country," phrasing which comes close to an accusation of treason.

Gore's discussion of war crimes was also far more carefully phrased:

The abhorrent acts in the prison were a direct consequence of the culture of impunity encouraged, authorized and instituted by Bush and Rumsfeld in their statements that the Geneva Conventions did not apply. The apparent war crimes that took place were the logical, inevitable outcome of policies and statements from the administration.

The former Vice President clearly held the administration responsible for the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison outside Baghdad, but he did not say Bush himself was "guilty" of "war crimes" in a legal sense. Gore called them "apparent war crimes" and later reserved judgment as to the guilt of the prison guards who have been charged.

Finally, Lakely quotes House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as having "called the war in Iraq 'unwinnable'" in the past month. Pelosi actually said "There is a consensus that under the present plan the war is unwinnable ... and that it will not be possible to prevail until there are more troops on the ground.'' (ellipsis in original) Pelosi said the war is "unwinnable" in the absence of policy changes -- she did not say that it cannot be won under any circumstances. Indeed, when asked during a May 20 press conference about earlier comments along the same lines by Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, she said "It's not unwinnable with a better plan. And it certainly could have been won sooner with a better plan." (Murtha's comments were taken out of context in the same way as Pelosi's by conservative critics.)

The Washington Times staff should start acting more like reporters and less like quote doctors.

Update 6/5 8:56 AM EST: Several readers have pointed out that Gore did say that Bush "betrayed this country" in a February 2004 speech to Tennessee Democrats. However, Lakely was referring specifically to Gore's MoveOn.org PAC speech:

Former Vice President Al Gore, in a speech last week before the liberal activist group MoveOn.org, went further, accusing Mr. Bush of having "betrayed" his country, of being guilty of "war crimes," and setting up an "American gulag" in Iraq.

The post above has been updated to make this point clear.

Correction 6/9 4:04 PM EST: This post has been edited to specify the correct date of Lakely's article - June 2. We regret the error.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-GOP intimidation of war criticism / Democrats' empty gas assertions (Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan, 5/27/04)
-The big NEA-Sept. 11 lie, cont'd. (Brendan Nyhan, 9/18/02)
-The big NEA-Sept. 11 lie (Brendan Nyhan, 9/5/02)
-Clinton Speaks, Pundits Spin: The Washington Times and the Spread of a Media Myth (Bryan Keefer, 11/19/01)

6/4/2004 07:27:28 AM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2004 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS