I used to have respect for the Washington Post. It was my hometown paper for many years, and I took some pride in believing that it was one of the few papers in the US which at least tried to be somewhat non-partisan. Much to my dismay, their latest article on Sarah Palin presents such a blatantly false and deceptive interpretation of one of her recent statements that I sadly have to admit that the Post has finally sold out and become part of the leftist lie machine.
In what is inexplicably presented as a news story, not an editorial, Washington Post staff writer Anne Kornblut writes:
Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.- led invasion.
The remainder of the story is basically factual, but this opening statement is so blatantly biased, relying on what can only be a deliberate misinterpretation of Palin's words, that it really dismays me to think that the Post has sunk to such a low level of partisanship. Spinning her words this way is the equivalent of lying, and doing so in the context of a news article is just reprehensible.
It's the inclusion of that first sentence in the second paragraph which takes this from news to propaganda. Palin did not say the troops were going to fight Saddam Hussein and his regime or that Hussein's regime was in any way connected to 9/11, as Kornblut suggests. That would require a time machine. In fact, what she says is that the troops are going to defend the innocent - the people of Iraq - from those who planned the death of thousands of Americans, which could very well mean al Qaeda which still has some surviving fighters in Iraq, or could mean the insurgents who have killed thousands of Americans in Iraq, or it could apply to the whole Islamic jihadist movement, which includes both groups. What it clearly does not refer to is Saddam Hussein or his long gone government, nor does she mention the 9/11 attack anywhere in association with the quote. The specific connection of the troops' mission in Iraq to 9/11 is made by Kornblut, but not in Palin's actual speech. Palin only makes a general reference to 9/11 later in the speech. So Kornblut's suggestion that Palin associated Saddam Hussein's Iraq with 9/11 is completely false and in no way supported by what Palin actually said. Kornblut's intent here is clearly to make Palin look foolish and uninformed, but to achieve that goal she has to resort to effectively putting words which Palin didn't say in her mouth .
.jpg?t=20120209092158)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
No, Dave, it's background. The paragraph that caused you to have a CVA attempts to put some context to Palin's words. I notice that you had nothing to say about the balancing sentence, "But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.- led invasion."
I'll grant you that technically it is a poorly-written report, and if I were the editor of the Post I'd have the politics editor on the carpet for letting that one get onto the presses.
2 - Dave Nalle
Dr. D., it's not background because it doesn't apply to anything Palin mentioned in her speech. Mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same 10 minute period is NOT an effort to connect the two of them together. She made her speech on 9/11 and the troops were heading to Iraq.
The left blogosphere and punditry are going wild with this story and the only reason there's any suggestion that Palin associated Iraq and 9/11 is that this reporter added in that sentence to make it seem that way.
Dave
3 - Dr Dreadful
Oh, pish*, Dave.
You don't seriously expect me to accept the conclusion that Palin would make a speech to military personnel embarking for Iraq on 9/11 and not connect the two at any point?
She did make the connection. However, (a) so what and (b) why do you have your knickers in a twist about it?
If this is the best example of 'liberal media bias' that you can come up with, I don't hold out much hope for the robustness of your theory.
* Yeah, yeah, I know, no-one's used that word since 1895...
4 - Lee Richards
Come on, Dave. You know you could say "Journalistic Bias Targets__________" --and fill in the blank with Bush, Clinton, McCain, Obama, or any other politician, depending on the "journalistic" source used.
Palin could have been misinterpreted, misunderstood, misquoted, the victim of bias, or she could have been following the Bush/Cheney line we were fed and meant to make a connection that wasn't there.
5 - Baronius
Dave, there's a saying among Republicans (I'm sure you've heard something similar) that the way the press covers campaigns, it's amazing that Republicans have ever won an election. Palin has to realize that her party choice is the sole reason that she'll be treated like the Potatoe guy instead of the Nobel guy. She's got to realize that Crazy Joe will get away with everything and she'll get away with nothing. Yes, it's our duty to point out the bias whenever it manifests. But Palin's got to take her game up a notch. Her statement invites editorializing, and the press will do it every time.
6 - Baritone
Dave seems to get apoplectic every time anyone disparages Sister Sarah or Uncle Johnny as if this kind of journalism is just unheard of. His outrage over this kind of reportage is perplexing. What world has Dave been living on?
Just as Lee suggests above, the same type of stories have been published including distortions, half truths and even out right lies about politicians since - I don't know - since the invention of movable type. One could probably discern political bullshit on sanskrit stone tablets, Egyptian hieroglyphs and cave walls.
IT'S POLITICS! It's the nature of the beast. Or are we all supposed back off and handle Tundra Barbie with kid gloves? Is she a delicate flower?
Hey, if she can't stand the heat....
B
7 - Dr Dreadful
Dave, there's a saying among Republicans (I'm sure you've heard something similar) that the way the press covers campaigns, it's amazing that Republicans have ever won an election.
Baronius, you touch on a question it has occurred to me to ask, but I keep forgetting to. I'll pose it now:
Fact: conservatives have won significantly more national elections than they have lost over the last 30 years.
If there indeed is a liberal media bias, it doesn't seem to have harmed them any.
So why do they get in such an unholy tizzy about it?
8 - Baronius
Same reason that Democrats rail against Republican attack ads. Same reason you can lose a football game 28-10 and complain about one bad call. It's easier than admitting that you blew it. That being said, it is frustrating to see an ostensibly objective referee influence a contest.
9 - Dr Dreadful
Heh.
In other words, it's just a big old wail of 'no fair!'? A complaint as hollow as Dave's article?
Repubs would do well to remember that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press. There's no caveat addressing fairness of the press.
10 - Daniel Miller
Doc,
Ah yes. It would help a bit, however, were the bias rather less one sided. As to whether blatantly lopsided "reporting" helps or hurts the side at which it aimed, it actually seems to help. That appears to be one of the lessons to be learned from the present campaign. Why do you suppose that may be the case? Or do you?
Dan(Miller)
11 - Dave Nalle
She did make the connection. However, (a) so what and (b) why do you have your knickers in a twist about it?
No, she didn't make the connection, Dr. D. Watch the video. She never mentions anything resembling a connection between Saddam and 9/11.
And I'm pissed because the Post used to be a believable paper and this is just so amateurish and blatant.
Dave
12 - Dr Dreadful
Dan,
I'm waiting to see what happens after the debates: the only times during the campaign, apart from the conventions, when the candidates are presented talking about the same issues in the same setting and can be compared directly.
One recent phenomenon of note is that the right-wing blogosphere seems to be a very vigorous counter to the mainstream media (note: I'm not conceding that there is an MSM bias), and if Obama were to make mincemeat out of McCain, or Biden out of Palin, I'm fairly confident that the Big Red Blog Machine will go into overdrive to convince everyone that really their side won. It'll be interesting to see, in such an event, how effective they are.
I don't think the 2004 debates offer much of a comparison, mind you, as the four people on the tickets back then possessed between them about as much charisma as an uncooked turnip.
13 - Dr Dreadful
Dave,
Oh, for the strong emotional feelings toward Michael...
Then where the hell did she think the soldiers who were being sent to "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans" were going? Bulgaria??
14 - Baronius
Dave, I remember years ago visiting Washington. There were three newspapers on display at a corner, each telling the same story about a telecom bill that had just passed throuth the Republican Congress. The headlines were, roughly:
Washington Times - Congress Supports Telecom Competition
USA Today - Congress Approves Communication Bill
Washington Post - Congess Votes to Deregulate Phone Industry, Increase Consumer Costs
There it was, Right Middle and Left. I haven't taken the Post or the press seriously since.
15 - Lisa Solod Warren
I stopped reading the Washington Post when they came out in support of the Iraq "war." I could not believe they bought that faulty bullshit intel. And when their editorial staff bought into it, I knew I could no longer read them, and I, too, had read them, faithfully, for 20 years.
Left leaning my ass.
The New York Times was the only paper that questioned the "war."
Dave, you are so far to the right I am surprised you haven't tipped over. If the media really was that liberally biased, we would have impeached Bush by now. If they had even begun to really report what our government has done to this country.....
I remember the old Post of the Watergate era. May they rest in peace.
But, now, the Post, along with most of the so-called "liberal" media, have left the excesses of the Bush administration slide for so long and been so easy on all of them for so very long that they haven't even begun to fulfill their duties as members of the fourth estate.
16 - Dave Nalle
I have to admit that I've generally been ambivalent on the issue of media bias. Most of the time it seems like reporters are just too eager to make their story into a bigger story than it is by giving it a slant, and because they are personally liberal that's the slant they choose a bit more often than not. But the problem isn't their politics, it's the drive to make stories more than they are on their merits.
This story is a good example of that. Palin's speech to these soldiers on 9/11 is not interesting or unusual. It's got some human interest value because her son is involved. It's the kind of story that should get burried on page 18 with half a column. But if you can twist it so she says something stupid or shocking, bingo your byline makes page 3 or even page 1.
That's essentially what we're looking at here.
Dave
17 - cj
Dave, you're half right about the WaPost. It's biased alright, some article are biased towards the left, others towards the right, such as this one, ok? The lefty watchdog groups and blogs get outraged every week at various authors' false/unbalanced reporting and defenses of statements that are factually wrong about democrats (Jonathan Weisman,Dana Milbank, Ann Kornblut, for example). And right-leaning sites and writers like you get upset at false and misleading articles about Republicans.
The point is that what's happening at the WaPost is what's happening all around the news media (NYT, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, AP): the high quality and accuracy of newspapers we're supposed to trust has gone downhill big time, especially over the last 5-6 years (regarding election-related reporting and the Iraq War, especially). And as consumers who seek to be properly informed on an everyday basis, we all lose as a result. And that's a damn shame.
18 - Joanne Huspek
"The point is that what's happening at the WaPost is what's happening all around the news media (NYT, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, AP): the high quality and accuracy of newspapers we're supposed to trust has gone downhill big time, especially over the last 5-6 years"
This, I agree with. We (the people) are being manipulated, or am I the only one who is seeing this?
19 - Lisa Solod Warren
Joanne, you're only being manipulated if you read or listen to one source. If you get your news from multiples sources and read several different magazines and check out other sources, then you can be very well informed.
I don't think the media manipulates and I think this whole left bias thing is ridiculous...esp. when you look at Fox which just gets is talking points from the White House (it will be interesting to see what happens to them if a Dem gets in). The right likes to say that, but it just ain't true. The NYT is is no way left leaning; it's pretty fair.
Nor is the Washington Post liberal at all! Check out its stance on the Iraq war, for years, or how it published much of what the white house told it to.... in that way, it did not do its job, yes, and you had to go to other sources to get "news."
If the American public insists on getting ALL its news from the 22 minutes of national news on ABC NBC or CBS each night ( only abou6 6 minutes of which is actual "news" and the rest of which is soft features; and remember, those stories are told in 30 to 60 seconds, with 90 seconds being 'in depth') then, yes, you won't know much, and yes, in a sense, you will know only what they tell you. BUT, if you read news magazines that come down on both sides, long stories, check things out, and do your homework, then no, you won't be manipulated. Unless, of course, you wish to be.
That's my 5 cents (inflation, you know)
20 - Baritone
In the course of the day I watch NBC, MSNBC, CNN and occasionally PBS. I often listen to NPR. I read the "New Yorker" and "The Atlantic Monthly" fairly religiously. I know that MSNBC and the "New Yorker" are generally left leaning, but CNN is far more "fair and balanced" than FOX ever dreamed of being. Despite charges to the contrary, I find both PBS and NPR to be pretty even handed. Also, "The Atlantic Monthly" publishes articles from all sides of the spectrum.
There are a plethora of publications that reflect all views - both newspapers and magazines. Of course, there is the ubiquitous internet. While there is a ton of crap coming out of both the right and left camps, if you are diligent, you can find good reporting and opinion pieces. Some even here at BC.
B
21 - Lisa Solod Warren
You are right, Bar. I mean, middle, I mean, correct.
22 - Dave Nalle
To go back to CJ's comment, is it just that they can't hire decent reporters anymore?
I was a fan of The Wire when it was on, and it was written and produced by former journalists. One of th issues they raised in the final season was the inability of the Baltimore Sun to hire and hold onto journalists who were competent and responsible. One of the main plot lines involved a reporter whose ambition led him to fake his stories with all sorts of negative consequences. I suspect the scenario they presented was very real.
Online and 24 hour video news sources have put old media under a great deal of pressure, and I think that the result is that newspapers are becoming more sensationalistic and the quality of their journalism is going down hill. Editors are under so much pressure they let writers get away with stuff they shouldn't and management just wants to sell enough papers to keep from going under, whatever compromises that requires.
Dave
23 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."
The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.- led invasion.
Contrast this with what Dave says:
Palin did not say the troops were going to fight Saddam Hussein and his regime or that Hussein's regime was in any way connected to 9/11, as Kornblut suggests.
Where does Kornblut suggest that Palin suggested Saddam Hussein's regime is linked to 9/11? I see no such suggestion. The closest thing I can find is:
Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks
No where does Kornblut say Sarah Palin linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11. In fact, she explicitly says the opposite, saying Palin linked the war (not Saddam Hussein) with 9/11. She then explicitly justifies Palin's claim by saying:
But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.- led invasion.
Kornblut thereby explicitly justifies Palin's claim that we are fighting to defend Iraq from the planners of 9/11. Kornblut EXPLICITLY PROVES Palin's claim.
Dave's next claim:
What it clearly does not refer to is Saddam Hussein or his long gone government, nor does she mention the 9/11 attack anywhere in association with the quote.
1) Kornblut never suggests Palin was referring to Saddam Hussein.
2) Kornblut explicitly states we are in fact fighting the planners of 9/11 in Iraq - in effect paraphrasing and proving Palin's own quote.
3) Dave is intentionally being deceptive by pretending the reference to 'the death of thousands of Americans' is not a reference to 9/11. Dave, just because Palin didn't say 9/11 doesn't mean the rest of us can't see she was explicitly referring to it.
Dave's next claim:
Palin only makes a general reference to 9/11 later in the speech.
Except for the explicit reference in the quote to 'the death of thousands of Americans' which anyone with half a brain recognizes as an explicit, immediate reference to 9/11 (ie not only a general one later in Palin's speech).
Dave's next claim:
So Kornblut's suggestion that Palin associated Saddam Hussein's Iraq with 9/11
Where does Kornblut say Palin associated Saddam Hussein with 9/11? Kornblut merely states as a fact that Saddam Hussein was not associated with 9/11. Stating that fact is in no way an accusation that Palin actually thinks that. The more obvious interpretation of this statement of fact is as a reminder to readers and a clarification (and subsequent justification) of Palin's words.
Dave's next claim:
but to achieve that goal she has to resort to effectively putting words which Palin didn't say in her mouth .
Again, Kornblut never interprets Palin's words one way or the other. She only disproves one interpretation, and explictly justifies another interpretation, thereby justifying the statement as a whole.
So let's see what Dave has done so far:
1) Denied a reference to 'the death of thousands of Americans' is a reference to 9/11, and thereby insulting my intelligence and any other readers intelligence.
2) Taken an explicit justification of one interpretation of Palin's words and made it seem as if Kornblut's previous disproof of the other (clearly false) interpretation of Palin's words is actually an accusation that this is what Palin intended.
Of course, I'm sure Dave never meant to interpret Kornblut's words with a slant. He just can't help it ;).
24 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
And just to be clear, anyone who actually did interpret Kornblut's article as an accusation that Palin thinks Saddam planned 9/11 IS a twisted, biased, leftist. But I'm not going to condemn Kornblut because some of the Post's readers are biased and misinterpreted her words.
What Dave has failed to do in this article is either prove Kornblut intended to accuse Palin of linking Saddam Hussein with 9/11 OR even that any of her readers did in fact interpret it that way. I, for one, did not, despite my well known political bias against Palin and her party.
25 - pleasexcusetheinterruption
I wonder if Dave is still such an ardent Palin defender after that complete embarrassment of an interview.