What Did You Expect?

David Broder in the Washington Post:
"Friday morning's announcement of much better job statistics did what Bush himself could not do."

Los Angeles Times:
"slightly below expectations"

Elsewhere in the same editon of the Los Angeles Times:
"below expectations"

CIO Today:
Compare the headline, "U.S. Job Growth Falls Short of Expectations," with the text: "The report was roughly in line with Wall Street forecasts of 150,000 new jobs."

The Australian:
"August figure almost met expectations"

TheStreet.com
"The week ended with the Labor Department's monthly payrolls report coming in right about as predicted, the first time that's happened in four months."

Bloomberg:
"The Labor Department's report last week on jobs suggested growth has perked"

Taipei Times:
"The figures, showing an increase of 144,000 jobs last month, roughly in line with market expectations, helped send the London FTSE 100 index to its best daily ... "

Reuters:
"The jobs report that nearly matched analyst expectations helped stem losses on the index. ... "

Associated Press:
"Technology stocks led Wall Street lower Friday after an uninspiring employment report failed to mitigate investors' concerns over Intel Corp.'s profit outlook."

[Cross-Posted on Discriminations]

WaPo Headlines Slammed

BeldarBlog is and has been one of the best places to follow the Swift Boat controversy. Two posts there today (here and here) take the Washington Post to task for its misleading headlines.

Andrew Sullivan, the new Kevin Phillips

Andrew Sullivan is a British national, former speechwriter to Margaret Thatcher and former editor of the New Republic. More recently, he has assumed the mantle previously held by Kevin Phillips – that of “the anointed conservative Republican” frequently quoted criticizing other conservatives.

Today, Baltimore Sun Public Editor Paul Moore trots out “conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan, who is not a fan of John Kerry,” to denounce the Republican convention keynote speaker, Democratic Senator Zell Miller. As quoted by Moore, Sullivan opined “this speech was gob-smackingly vile.”

“Not a fan of John Kerry” Sullivan’s July 25, 2004 column in the Sunday Times was entitled, Kerry: the right choice for conservatives. And Sullivan has written far more venomous criticism than Moore quotes, going so far as to call Miller “a proud supporter of racial segregation” and a Dixiecrat, terms Sullivan didn’t use twelve years earlier when Miller was keynote speaker at the Democratic convention.

But Miller, like the “conservative” Sullivan, supported that convention’s nominee -- Bill Clinton.

Cross-posted to The OmbudsGod!

Austrian Media No Better Than Ours

Two days ago, a Vienna newspaper called the Kurier reported that California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger claimed in his speech last Tuesday that Austria was a "socialist" country, and that he had seen Russian tanks as a child growing up in the Austrian province of Styria. Both reports are incorrect. The first was the result of an understandable error in translation. The second was, simply put, a lie.

Continue reading "Austrian Media No Better Than Ours"

In German, it would be incorrect to describe Austria as a "socialist" country; it certainly wasn't one in the sense that Hungary, the Czech Republic (then Czechoslovakia) or former East Germany. The phrase works in English, however. In the U.S., it is not unusual to use the word "socialist" when describing the politics of social democrats, a concept which, by American standards, includes all of Europe. If we Americans are talking about a truly socialist state, we're more likely to use the word "communist" than "socialist." Arnold's speech did not cause a single American to believe that Austria was on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain. Only the Austrian Minister of the Interior, Ernst Strasser, confused the American concept of "socialism" with the Austrian one, which Mr. strasser then described as an understandable mistake on the part of Mr. Schwarzenegger. It was an understandable mistake indeed, but the mistake was his own, not Mr. Schwarzenegger's.

Let's now focus on Arnold's second "mistake," namely his alleged claim he had seen Russian tanks in Styria. On this topic, Graz historian Stefan Karner had this to say:

"Fact is, as a child, he never could have seen a Russian tank in Styria.

Neat-o. Fact is, he also never claimed to have seen a Russian tank in Styria as a child. Quite the contrary, he said this in Tuesday's speech:

When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria. I saw their tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes. I remember the fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector.

It should be obvious that you can't cross "into the Soviet sector" from Styria if Styria itself were part of the Soviet sector. Despite that (or perhaps because of that?) the Kurier left this quote out.

Mr. Karner later acknowledged the possibility that Schwarzenegger had crossed from one sector to another as a child:

Everyone had to produce an I.D. at the checkpoints. Those were pretty menacing.

Which is exactly the way Arnold described his experiences there. It would have been best if the article had ended here. Instead, they screwed things up once again:

But most likely, Schwarzenegger succomed to a "group memory." "Most Austrians never saw a single Russian, but were very scared of them anyway." Ultimately, about 100 people were abducted from the Soviet sector. "The source of his fear was the general attitude toward the Soviets, which had been handed down from generation to generation."

That too jibes with Schwarzenegger's speech. On this topic, Mr. Schwarzenegger had this to say:

It was a common belief that Soviet soldiers could take a man out of his own car and ship him off to the Soviet Union as slave labor.

Simply put, a Kurier article purporting to debunk Schwarzenegger's comments about Austria really just beat up a strawman. It didn't refute any of Schwarzenegger's real arguments; in fact, it actually confirmed some of them.

Now, the same newspaper is reporting that Mr. Schwarzenegger has rejected his criticism from Europe. This is what he had to say in response to the allegations of the Austrian press:

That's total and complete nonsense. I never claimed to have encountered Russian occupiers in Styria. I remember very clearly: we crossed the Semmering Pass in my uncle's VW Bug into the Russian sector. There, as a little boy, I saw the Soviet tanks.

Unfortunately, he did not further elaborate and point out that he had clearly stated this in his speech on Tuesday (although admittedly, he did not mention Styria, the Semmering Pass, or any other specific part of Austria by name). Or maybe he did; they have to cut everything, right? I'm sure no one meant to fool the readers; it's just that there wasn't enough space in the newspaper to print the entire interview. Right?

UPDATE: Die Zeit, a respected German newspaper, makes the same error on the "socialism" bit, but does not imply that Arnold saw Russian tanks in Styria.

[Crossposted in English and in German at damnum absque injuria]

Hide extended entry

Posted by Xrlq at 02:45 AM | Comments (6)
Categories:

L.A. Times Coverage of Bush Bounce vs. Kerry Non-Bounce

It's just fascinating to compare the Los Angeles Times's coverage of John Kerry's non-bounce after the Democratic convention, compared to President Bush's sizable bounce after the Republican convention.

Continue reading "L.A. Times Coverage of Bush Bounce vs. Kerry Non-Bounce"

After Kerry received no real bounce from his convention, the L.A. Times explained that there simply aren't enough undecided voters to make a difference in this race. In an August 3, 2004 story on page A22, titled In Tight Race, 'Bounce' Wobbles, the paper said Kerry had no cause for concern:

Sen. John F. Kerry enjoyed at best a modest uptick in a batch of opinion polls taken after last week's Democratic National Convention, findings consistent with the forecast of most analysts heading into the event.

One survey showed President Bush actually gaining slightly on his Democratic challenger. And the samplings all indicate the presidential contest remains close.

Strategists for the two candidates worked to put their own best spin on the latest surveys, but neutral analysts said the results were in line with a political climate in which a great number of voters had already dug in behind their candidate.

Although the "bounce" Kerry received in some of the polls was small, "that's not surprising, given the swing vote is small," said Andy Kohut, director of Pew Research Center, an independent polling organization. "It's not a sea change in public attitudes toward John Kerry, but a step in the right direction."

Now, two polls are showing President Bush ahead by 11 points. How is the Times covering this stunning revelation?

You probably won't believe me when I tell you that they are covering it appropriately, with a front-page story titled "Two Polls Show Bush Significantly Ahead," which opens with these lines:

Two polls showed that President George W. Bush gained a significant bounce from last week's Republican National Convention -- findings that surprised analysts who had previously believed that there were not enough swing voters to create any noticeable uptick in the polls.

Analysts were quick to note that a post-convention "bounce" often dissipates after about three weeks. However, they contrasted Bush's large bounce with the virtual lack of a post-convention bounce for Kerry, saying that the difference between the two could spell trouble for Kerry.

"Bush goes into the general election campaign with a little bit of wind behind him," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, an independent opinion research group. "That doesn't guarantee that it will take him all the way" to winning the election, Kohut said. But Kohut conceded that he was surprised by the size of the Bush bounce. "One month ago, I though the swing vote was too small for either side to get a measurable post-convention bounce. So these findings surprise me."

Well, you were right not to believe me, because I just made that up.

In fact, the paper's editors could not be less impressed with Bush's 11-point lead. Today's story on the Bush bounce is titled, in a headline that I am making up (but only barely): "Bush Gets a Bounce -- But So What?"

The actual title of the story -- and this time I promise I am not joking -- is: In the Home Stretch, It's Bush by a Neck.

By a neck? Eleven points is by a neck??

I guess if it's a race between giraffes!

The sub-head reads: "The president takes a rare lead in a new poll, but neither side reads much into it. Kerry's move to aggression could change the race."

How very hopeful for Kerry!

The opening paragraphs of this page A20 story show great skepticism about the significance of the Bush bounce:

President Bush appears to have won at least a modest surge from the Republican National Convention this week. But as the campaign shifts into high gear at its traditional Labor Day starting line, Bush also faces a new challenge: an angry, energized Kerry who said he was taking off the gloves and punching back.

The result, according to party strategists and independent political analysts, is a contest that remains fundamentally close, increasingly bitter and, ultimately, still unpredictable.

Got that? Despite Bush's 11-point lead, it's too close to call.

Interestingly, the story quotes the same independent pollster who, just one month ago, said that Kerry couldn't expect to get a big bounce because there were no undecided voters:

"Bush goes into the general election campaign with a little bit of wind behind him," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, an independent opinion research group. "That doesn't guarantee that it will take him all the way" to winning the election.

Well, of course it doesn't. But: didn't Mr. Kohut say that the bounce was surprising to him, given that just one month ago he said that "the swing vote is small"? The article does not say whether the question was even asked, or whether Mr. Kohut expressed any sentiment to that effect.

Indeed, not one word about Kerry's non-bounce appears in the entire story.

This is truly amazing.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Bush is going to keep an 11-point lead. But I'd like the Times's reporting to put things in context -- especially when, just one month ago, they told us that there aren't enough swing voters to create a bounce from either convention.

As Mickey Kaus recently observed:

Obviously there are plenty of swing voters because Bush just swung 'em!

I'm not asking for the L.A. Times to be a right-wing organ. I'm just asking for some honesty.

Is that too much to ask??

Don't answer that.

(Cross-posted at Patterico's Pontifications.)

Hide extended entry

Posted by Patterico at 09:19 PM | Comments (3)
Categories: Los Angeles Times

A.P.-manufactured "Boos"

A since-retracted Associated Press story (emphasis mine):

WEST ALLIS, Wis. - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday wished Bill Clinton (news - web sites) "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery." "He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally. Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them.

Bush offered his wishes while campaigning one day after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York. Clinton was hospitalized in New York after complaining of mild chest pain and shortness of breath.

Bush recently praised Clinton when the former president went to the White House for the unveiling of his official portrait. He lauded Clinton for his knowledge, compassion and "the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president."

There's just one problem: the boos were non-existent. I personally saw the announcement of Clinton's heart problems by Bush, and the only thing heard from the audience was polite applause.

(Via Swimming Through the Spin, which also has a link to a screen capture of the original AP story, as well as a sound clip of the event so you can judge for yourself.)

No Republicans In San Diego?

My family and I are still traveling in the Republic of California, and this morning our local paper was the San Diego Tribune. Today's edition featured four letters about the Republican convention, all of them harshly critical.

I suppose there's nothing surprising about that; most papers these days are not noted for their fair and balanced coverage of politics. But note the letters policy that is featured prominently on the letters page (see above link; emphasis mine):

The San Diego Union-Tribune welcomes letters to the editor. Because of the number of letters received, and to allow as many readers as possible to be published, it is the policy of the newspaper to publish no more than one letter from the same author within 120 days. Letters may be edited. It is also our policy to publish letters supporting or opposing a particular issue in a ratio reflecting the number received on each side.

I suppose there are no Republicans in San Diego, or maybe the ones who are there are so dumb they can't, or so arrogant they don't, write.

UPDATE [4 Sept.]

I checked the SDUT again this morning, and just as some commenters had maintained, today's Republican convention coverage was indeed fair and balanced: 4 critical, 4 supportive.">UPDATE [4 Sept.]

I checked the SDUT again this morning, and just as some commenters had maintained, today's Republican convention coverage was indeed fair and balanced: 4 critical, 4 supportive.

Cross-Posted on Discriminations

E-Mail from Former L.A. Times Reporter

A former L.A. Times reporter wrote me an e-mail yesterday. What an entertaining e-mail it was.

Among other things, his e-mail said the following about the L.A. Times, where he worked many years ago:

The folks who raise your ire were often journeymen reporters back then. Most of them were entirely competent journalists, decent diggers, good writers, thoughtful editors. The institution seemed very liberal then, but they didn't. The interesting thing is that in the long term, the institution wins. They have become entirely predictable in their outlook and entirely smug in their demeanor. They have become institutionalized, in an odd sense of the term. They have bought into the myth to such an extent that they don't even recognize that it's a myth.

The Times newsroom was always a politicized place. I knew that then but I didn't realize that the bias of the institution was so pervasive, so immutable. The place is still like it always was. There are new names on the masthead, but the blindness to alternative views remains.

. . . .

I encourage you to go after them with all the fury and indignation you can muster. They have become comfortable in their old age, and they deserve to be afflicted. Maybe it will keep them awake.

(All emphasis mine.)

I have asked the author's permission to reprint his e-mail in its entirety, including the details that might reveal his identity. I am still waiting for his reply. Hopefully the whole e-mail can run here soon, but I won't run it without the author's permission. (He is also welcome to reveal himself in the comments here.)

All I can say is that it's not hard to muster the fury and indignation at times. I don't always feel it, but when I do, I'm not faking it.

(Cross-posted at Patterico's Pontifications.)

DID THE LAPHAM HURT KERRY?

Did the press miss a big chance to tar the GOP with the Zell Miller speech because it had already decided that the best way to help Kerry was to portray Dick Cheney's talk as mean and harsh? I think so.

IT'S NO FUN WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN TRY

If the AP keeps writing stuff as transparently biased as this, they're going to put this site out of business as irrelevant and unnecessary:

President Bush glossed over some complicating realities in Iraq (news - web sites), Afghanistan and the home front in arguing the case Americans are safer and his opponent cannot deliver.

* * *

Bush's acceptance speech Thursday night conveyed facts that told only part of the story, hardly unusual for this most political of occasions.

He took some license in telling Americans that Democratic opponent John Kerry "is running on a platform of increasing taxes."

* * *

And on education, Bush voiced an inherent contradiction, dating back to his 2000 campaign, in stating his stout support for local control of education, yet promising to toughen federal standards that override local decision-making.

* * *

Nowhere did Bush mention bin Laden, nor did he account for the replacement of killed and captured al al-Qaida leaders by others.

The whole thing really must be read to be believed.

Ombudsmen: ignore Swift Vets

Palm Beach Post ombudsman C.B. Hanif dismisses allegations made by the 250 plus members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about John Kerry, and chastises the media for lending them any credence. He approvingly quotes a reader who states, “‘John Kerry's war record is the truth; the attack on it is a lie.’ The suggestion ‘that there are two sides to this story is Goebbels-like in its dishonesty.’” Hanif completely ignores evidence supporting the Swift Vets' allegations, including that Kerry’s ’68 Christmas in Cambodia story was an invention and that his first Purple Heart was received for a self-inflected wound before Kerry ever saw combat.

National Public Radio ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin takes a similar approach. Dvorkin, who also serves as President of the Organization of News Ombudsmen, has a piece entitled, Reporting Unprovable Allegations, which is currently on the front page of ONO’s website.

Asserts Dvorkin about the Swift Vets:

Journalists pride themselves on being even-handed. That value allows the more unscrupulous political operatives to drive their messages right into the lead stories and onto the front pages, knowing full well that false impressions may be more lasting than thoughtful dissections and analyses.

Oddly, I don’t recall either ombudsman criticizing highly publicized claims that President Bush was AWOL while in the Air National Guard.

As with the charges made by Arkansas State Troopers in 1992 about then-Governor Bill Clinton's use of his security detail to facilitate extra-marital affairs, the media are all too willing to denounce the source without adequately verifying whether the allegations are true.

Cross-Posted to The Ombudsgod

IT'S ONLY 79%!

The Washington Post joins the New York Times in the media's attack on school choice.

Salon: Big Media Supports Bush!

Francis Turner has a nice analysis of a rather astounding Salon article arguing that the way it has covered the Swiftees criticisms of Kerry, among other things, shows that the mainstream media is biased in favor of Bush. Read the article if you have a subscription, but read Turner in any event.

Revealing E-Mail from Reuters Editor

The National Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion group, recently received a startling e-mail from a Reuters news editor named Todd Eastham. Details are available here. And here is the text of Eastham's e-mail, which the group says came "out of the blue":

What's your plan for parenting & educating all the unwanted children you people want to bring into the world? Who will pay for policing our streets & maintaining the prisons needed to contain them when you, their parents & the system fail them? Oh, sorry. All that money has been earmarked to pay off the Bush deficit. Give me a frigging break, will you?

Although Eastham's e-mail did not purport to represent the views of Reuters, this is an interesting little window into the mindset of at least one of their news editors. One suspects that Eastham is not alone in his views.

(Cross-posted at Patterico's Pontifications.)

Rather Biased

From the focussed and dedicated RatherBiased.com:

Promoting Liberals, Shunning Conservatives.

The headline said it all: "Kerry Coverage: Conservative Bias?"
It should come as no surprise that's how CBS News would headline a piece it reprinted from the liberal American Prospect, since its top brass has long demonstrated a 'soft spot' for any liberals making the risible case that conservatives dominate the news media. Just last month, for instance, Dan Rather paid obsequious obeisance to liberal press critic Eric Alterman and even quoted from his work at journalism forum.

In fact, Rather and his colleagues' record proves the very opposite. Far from being the willing accomplice of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the network has been a steadfast opponent, just like with other media figures unpopular with liberals, a stark contrast to its very positive coverage of authors and film-makers loved by the left. After heavily promoting (even selling) the wares of liberal and anti-Bush figures for years, CBS News has done exactly the opposite in covering the allegations within the anti-Kerry vets.

More USA Today Slants

I'm still traveling in the Republic of California and so still reading the free (and worth every penny) USA Today that appears at motel room doors.

This offensive transgression has become so common that it's almost not news any more, but I was still struck by political writer Susan Page's reference, in her article about recent polling showing Bush gains in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, to the "Republican-financed attacks on Kerry's service in Vietnam." For some reason many Pennsylvanians seem to think Kerry may be lying about his record.

Page's comment strongly implies that the Republican party is financing those ads. If all she meant is that some of those financing the ads (over a million dollars raised on the Internet so far) are Republicans (she doesn't mean they all are does she?), then to escape justified accusations of bias she'd have to refer to most of the other 527s as "Democrat financed," and I don't think she does that.

But wait; there's more! In a long article right next to Susan Page's USA Today poll maven Mark Memmott does a creditable job of explaining the debate over relying on "registered voters" vs. "likely voters." He points out, for example, that "John Kerry is consistently doing better in polls of 'registered' voters, while President Bush comes out slightly ahead in polls of 'likely' voters."

In fact, in the last five USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup polls, from early July through this week, the split has been the same: things look better for Kerry when the sample is based on registered voters; things look better for Bush if the sample is based on likely voters. Other polls show similar results.

Memmott then explains why many legitimate pollsters, not just Democrats, believe that it is too early in the campaign season to determine who is likely to vote. For example, writes Memmott,

The Los Angeles Times on Thursday released its latest presidential poll and based its findings on registered voters.

“July and August are just too soon” to base results on likely voters, says Susan Pinkus, polling director at the Times.

“I know this is a hotly contested race, but I just don't think people are paying that much attention,” and can say with certainty whether they will vote until after Labor Day, Pinkus says.

Fine. No problem. In fact, helpful. But wouldn't you think that in an article that emphasizes that Kerry consistently does better in polls of registered voters while Bush does better among likely voters that Memmott would have at least mentioned that for the first time this year the Los Angeles Times poll found Bush leading Kerry by three points among registered voters? He didn't, but this is how the LAT described its results:

For the first time this year in a Times survey, Bush led Kerry in the presidential race, drawing 49% among registered voters, compared with 46% for the Democrat. In a Times poll just before the Democratic convention last month, Kerry held a 2-percentage-point advantage over Bush.

Memmott's omission may not be press bias, but neither does it inspire confidence in press competence.

[Cross-Posted on Discriminations]

First state newsrag holds two opposing views

The First State's (that's Delaware, for the geographically illiterate) biggest (only, really) newsrag, the Wilmington News Journal, holds completely opposing views on questions about the two presidential candidates' military service.

From the News Journal op-ed page, 8/23/04:

There is nothing honorable about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The group is impugning the integrity of Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, with well-funded advertising that twists truth with slander and innuendo.

From the News Journal op-ed page, 2/12/04 (partial text from search database; first entry listed):

Whether it is a tempest in a teapot or a brewing political scandal, President Bush must answer questions about his National Guard service. And the president ought to silence White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who characterized these legitimate questions as "gutter politics" or "trolling for trash."

Y'see, it's quite simple, actually: It's "slander and innuendo" when questions are directed against Kerry's service; however, it's don't dare label questions about Bush's Nat'l Guard service as "gutter politics" and "trolling for trash."

(Cross-posted at Hube's Cube; hat tip: Blogolution.)

"Balance & Lies"

From Ron Sanders, Dawson, TX:

WNYC, an NPR affiliate, teaches us the meaning of objectivity and neutrality:

When the leading newspapers finally joined the Swift Boat fray this week, they helped to expose the ads as unsubstantiated smears against Senator Kerry's reputation. But the ad campaign itself has also exposed a fundamental weakness in our contemporary press culture. The American Prospect's executive editor Michael Tomasky tells Brooke what's wrong with the he said-she said convention of political journalism.

And from the entry "Not So Swift":

The controversy around the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" ads posed a classic controversy for the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Should the candidate discredit the mudslingers before the mud sticks, or should he ignore what appears to be sideline noise, so as not to create something of nothing? Brooke talks to Chad Clanton, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign, about the candidate's choices. She also examines the coverage of the brouhaha, which has included as much debate over the tactics of the ad campaign as its substance.

The underlying assumption: these decorated vets, including POW's, with far lengthier service in Vietnam than Kerry, are not worth listening to. They're "mudslingers" making "sideline noise."

The next time an unsubstantiated charge is leveled at President Bush, let's see whether the accuser is attacked in this way.

9/11: All Cheney's Fault

From Cory Skluzak, Denver, CO:

Chris Matthews has quit his job as a journalist and is now a full-time Kerry campaigner. At least, that's how I'm reading this transcript:

MATTHEWS: MSNBC’s Felix Schein is on the campaign trail with John Kerry up in Portland, Oregon. And MSNBC's Priya David has been on the campaign trail with Vice President Dick Cheney. Let me go to Priya, sitting with me right now. Priya, what is this argument over the word “sensitive”? What’s wrong with that?
PRIYA DAVID, MSNBC POLITICAL REPORTER: Well, according to John Kerry,
nothing. He released a statement today...
MATTHEWS: Well, according to anybody, what’s it mean?
DAVID: ... saying, you know, Don’t worry about it...
MATTHEWS: What’s the word choice?
DAVID: Well, you know, what they’re trying to do is frame that John Kerry is weak. That’s the message that they’ve had all along.
MATTHEWS: OK, let’s get something...
DAVID: It’s a very typical message.
MATTHEWS: ... straight-- Dick Cheney is probably the man most responsible for the fact we’ve had troops in Saudi Arabia for 10 years. [if you forget about Saddam—ed.] That’s what drove the terrorists to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. They were angry that their own holy lands were besmirched--basically, dumped on by the United States for 10 years. That sensitivity might have saved us a horror, knowing how angry those people would be about us putting our troops, 10,000 troops in the holy land near Mecca and Medina. Why is it stupid to be sensitive to those kinds of insults to a country?
DAVID: Right, but when you...
MATTHEWS: It caused people to kill themselves to come get us.
DAVID: And kill us when they come here. I mean, when you hear the Cheneys speak out on the stump, though-and this is both Lynn and Dick Cheney when they’re out there-they say there’s something wrong with those people who think there’s something wrong with us. Nothing’s wrong with us. Something’s wrong with the rest of the world. We don’t need to be sensitive. We need to destroy these people.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
DAVID: This is the language they use all the time.
MATTHEWS: Well, unfortunately, it begins to sound like na-na-na-na-na-na in the schoolyard, calling people fruits and words like ”sensitive."
DAVID: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Sounds to me like the “San Francisco Democrat“ that Jeanne Kirkpatrick engaged in back 20 years ago. It seems pretty juvenile. If it bothers Kerry, that’s his problem. Let’s go right now to Felix. Does this really bother Kerry, to be accused of being sensitive?
FELIX SCHEIN, MSNBC POLITICAL REPORTER: No, Chris. You know, boys can‘t be sensitive, but in this race, this really isn’t an issue. John Kerry is willing to go mano a mano with Dick Cheney on service. In fact, he said out here yesterday that, you know, he was in Vietnam when Dick Cheney wasn’t, and he was in Vietnam when George Bush wasn’t. If they want to make this an issue, he’s more than happy to fight on the strength front and fight on the defend America front.

More here at Captains' Quarters. (Why didn't you put this on TLM, Ed?)

Continue reading "9/11: All Cheney's Fault "

SCHEIN: But really, he’s really trying to turn a corner out here.

MATTHEWS: Does he believe we’re better off...

SCHEIN: It’s more about domestic issues for John Kerry...

MATTHEWS: ... for having-let me ask you, I know you’re covering
the guy, you’re not working for him, Felix. [could have fooled me!-- ed.] Does John Kerry, the senator, the Democratic candidate for president, believe we’re better off for having gone to war with Iraq or not better off, in terms of the number of enemies we face, al Qaeda recruitment, casualties, the whole shebang. Are we better off for having gone to war or not? Yes or no.

(BLATHER)

MATTHEWS: Will he answer that question?

SCHEIN: ... better off or not. I think-no, he hasn’t answered that question. He wants to have it both ways on this one. In fact, someone asked him the other day whether or not he would have gone to war, and he said we might definitely have gone to war. It’s nuance for John Kerry. You can’t find him one way or the other on this particular issue, which is one reason you’re not hearing him say a whole lot about it. On the stump, it’s a very secondary issue. He’s trying to have strength, on the one hand, and then quickly focus to domestic issues.
But there’s no discussion of Iraq. All he’s promised is that he can change it around, and the only way he can change it around is by changing the presidency. But he hasn’t argued out to exactly why he’d
be the one to do that, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Felix-let me ask Priya, is there a sense on the Cheney side, and certainly the Bush side, that they’ve got him here, he won’t really stake out a position?
DAVID: Yes, this is exactly what I was-you know, actually, they’re elated that he did say, Yes, I would have voted the same way. They’ re thrilled.
MATTHEWS: And then they transport...
DAVID: Either way, they would have been happy.
MATTHEWS: ... that into yes, he would have supported the war.
DAVID: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: Which he hates them doing.
DAVID: Exactly. He-but they’re happy. They now have it. They can
now go ahead and form the argument however they want. And now they can go back and attack him on his record in the Senate and say he didn’t attend these meetings...
MATTHEWS: Right.
DAVID: ... the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings. He was wanting to cut back the intelligence and defense budget.
MATTHEWS: Right.
DAVID: So now they can go ahead and plow through and attack him on that.
MATTHEWS: OK. You know what they’re using, the politics of ridicule, and it’s brilliant, because if you have the self-centered confidence of a Dick Cheney, who has tremendous self-confidence, for better or worse, he knows that he can go out there on the stump and make a fool out of John Kerry and not feel bad about it.
DAVID: And he took a moment to let the crowd laugh when he said that line, when he said, Oh, can you believe that John Kerry said he wanted to fight a more sensitive war?
MATTHEWS: It’s perfect.
DAVID: Let the audience laugh at that. He loved it.
MATTHEWS: Politics of ridicule-is it hurting? Is it hurting, Felix, over there on the Kerry side?
SCHEIN: Well, you got to remember; they-Kerry backed himself into a corner. He’s promised to run a positive campaign, so where does he go? He doesn’t really have a lot of punch to throw around. And if he does, of course, they can turn around and say, Where’s the optimistic campaign that you’ve been promising the American people?
MATTHEWS: OK.
SCHEIN: And John Edwards, as we all know, he wears more of a white glove than a boxing glove. And so he hasn’t really pulled up his end of the bargain on that, either. Dick Cheney can outbox...
MATTHEWS: Where is John Edwards...
SCHEIN: ... John Edwards...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Where is John Edwards in this fight? Is he on the sidelines?
SCHEIN: Oh, he’s definitely on the sideline. And when they try to roll him out, Senator Kerry makes a comment himself and steps all over him. That hasn’t worked well at all, at this point. They’re going to have to perfect this twosome. In fact, John Edwards made some comments on this today and just kind of rolled it into his general stump speech, and it didn’t really make much of a splash.
As far as the rapid response is concerned, they’re going to have to pick it up a notch if they want to go toe to toe on this particular issue.
MATTHEWS: You know, I find it fascinating, being a student of politics,
like a lot of us. And I think-you know, Franklin Roosevelt destroyed his opponent in 1944 by talking about “My dog Fala(ph)" and Reagan destroyed Carter, my old boss, by making fun of him, saying, "There you go again, Mr. President." Ridicule is a damning weapon. And this side, the one you’re covering, Priya, is doing a great job this week with ridicule. It’s interesting to watch why Kerry can’t seem to figure this fight out. Anyway, Priya David, thank you, cover the-so well-cover the Dick Cheney campaign this week. And Felix Schein, thanks for covering Kerry for us.

These are the reporters for the Cheney and Kerry campaigns. All three of these interlocutors seemed to find reason to bash Cheney, and defend Kerry.

Hide extended entry

Posted by Brian Crouch at 09:17 AM | Comments (5)
Categories: MSNBC

Ombuds-history

According to Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler:

Kerry, from a privileged background, joined the Navy and volunteered for one of the most dangerous jobs the Navy had in Vietnam. Many others, coming from comfortable circumstances, were able to avoid service through deferments, or to miss Vietnam through Reserve or National Guard duty at home.

It’s true that while George Bush was able to find a slot flying F102s in the Texas Air National Guard, John Kerry’s request for an additional 12 month deferment was rejected by his draft board, so he joined the Navy. But did he actually volunteer for “one of the most dangerous jobs the Navy had in Vietnam?” According to the Boston Globe, “two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed -- and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous.” He left after completing four months of a one-year tour.

Media Matters active in trying to halt anti-Kerry book

Media Matters For America, the so-called "watchdog" for conservative media bias run by David Brock, has joined in the campaign to censor those who have issues with John Kerry's views of events in Vietnam.

Tim Chavez of the Tennessean writes the following:

I got an e-mail from a person who identified herself as Melissa Salmanowitz with a group called Media Matters for America.

It supposedly is a watchdog on conservatives, and she was wanting me to write about her group's effort to get chain book stores to quit selling Unfit for Command due to accuracy problems.

So I e-mailed Salmanowitz and told her that I'd write about their cause to quash the book's examination of John F. Kerry's military record and anti-war activities if they'd make the same appeal to the movie theaters to stop showing Michael Moore's documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11.

There was no reply.

A scan of the MMFA website does indeed list a Melissa Salmanowitz as a contributor. She's a member of the "Communications Department." Makes sense, then, that she'd be involved in an e-mail campaign.

Amazing, isn't it? One of the first things that came to my mind when I began Chavez' article was expressed perfectly by Chavez himself as I scrolled down:

The political party and ideology that preaches tolerance has shown a remarkable intolerance for free speech, particularly during a political campaign. Banning books is just one step removed from burning them.

When I used to write from a liberal perspective that these critics liked, conservatives who disagreed with me usually signed their names and even provided phone numbers. They wanted to debate. They believed they'd prevail on the ideas.

Nowadays, harsh liberal critics rarely provide their names. I thought it was just me, but then Jacki Cook, publisher of the Macon County Chronicle, wrote:

''If your opinion differs from mine, great! Just have the courage to put your name to your attacks. Funny thing — the more conservative letters we receive are always signed and the authors of them are willing to put their names where their mouths are.''

(Via Dissecting Leftism.)

Los Angeles Times Finally Prints Swift Boat Vet Correction

This morning, the Los Angeles Times runs a correction that I have been pushing them to run for a week:

Swift boat ads — An article in Section A on Aug. 20 about Sen. John F. Kerry's response to a veterans group critical of his military record stated that none of the members of the group served on Kerry's patrol boat in Vietnam. Steve Gardner, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, was a Kerry crewmate. He was not on Kerry's boat during the incidents for which Kerry was awarded medals.

Big thanks to Glenn Reynolds for helping to shine the bright lights on this issue. Without his help, this error might still be uncorrected. Continue reading "Los Angeles Times Finally Prints Swift Boat Vet Correction"

Yesterday, I noted that -- six days after I had notified the paper of this error -- I had seen no correction, nor even received a response to my e-mail. I supplemented my complaint with the text of a follow-up e-mail that I had just sent to the paper's Managing Editor. Instapundit kindly linked to my post.

And today, the very next day, the correction has appeared. Something obviously got the attention of the Times editors. I don't know whether it was my e-mail to the Managing Editor or the Instapundit link (or both), but I suspect the Instapundit link had a lot to do with it. It's easier to blow off a single reader than it is to persist in refusing to correct obvious mistakes when thousands are looking on.

As I have argued, this was not a trivial mistake. It concerned a matter of intense national interest. Kerry's campaign repeatedly defends Kerry against the accusations of the Swift Boat Vets by arguing that we should look to the opinions of those who were on the boat with Kerry. Yet Swift Boat Vet Steve Gardner says he spent more time on the same boat with Kerry than any of the crewmates who are supporting Kerry.

While Gardner may not have witnessed the incidents for which Kerry was awarded medals, he would know something about an issue that could pose a real threat to the Kerry campaign: the "Christmas in Cambodia" story. Indeed, Gardner is appearing in a new commercial focusing on the "Christmas in Cambodia" fabrication. It's important for the citizenry to understand that Gardner knows what he's talking about when he speaks about Kerry's Cambodia falsehood.

So, are bloggers having an impact on Big Media? From my personal perspective, I think it's a mixed bag. I'm still annoyed that the paper has completely ignored other valid criticisms of mine. For example, the Times editors haven't yet corrected their false implication that John O'Neill has given money only to Republicans. I asked them to look into this, and have heard nothing in response. Nor have they ever explained why they (apparently deliberately) omitted the fascinating story of Kerry's failed attempt at a photo-op with servicemen at a Wendy's on the campaign trail. I asked for an explanation and never got a response.

And the list goes on.

On the positive side, I appreciate this correction, however late and subdued it may be. This is the second correction I have persuaded the paper to make in recent weeks (the first was this correction from July 8, regarding Paul Bremer's farewell speeches that the Times initially claimed had never occurred). And there was that front-page story about Justice Ginsburg that the Times printed based on my tip. It's hard to grumble too much when it's clear they're paying some attention.

One of the most encouraging signs I have received in recent days was from a member of the White House Press Corps, who wrote me to say:

I will continue to read your blog. It's a good one. If you don't think blogs are having an impact on the thinking and work of the White House Press Corps, think again. (Though I suspect you know you guys have influence). They may scoff at blogs that pick on them for bias, but the more honorable ones are actually concerned about how they do their jobs.

(My emphasis.)

That may be the most encouraging piece of news I've heard yet.

(Cross-posted at Patterico's Pontifications.)

UPDATE: Here is Beldar's version of the correction:

Swift boat ads — An article in Section A on Aug. 20 about Sen. John F. Kerry's response to a veterans group critical of his military record stated that none of the members of the group served on Kerry's patrol boat in Vietnam. Steve Gardner, a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, was a Kerry crewmate. He was not on Kerry's boat during the incidents for which Kerry was awarded medals. Nor was he on Kerry's boat when it spent Christmas in Cambodia, since Sen. Kerry made that whole story up.

I like it.

Hide extended entry

Posted by Patterico at 06:48 AM | Comments (2)
Categories: Los Angeles Times