THEY DONT CARE! Trudy Lieberman gets it right about that hospital story: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2008
THEY DONT CARE: It was fairly obvious where things were heading when Anne Kornblut published a slightly odd news report in last Thursdays Washington Post. In Speeches, Clinton Often Veers to the Dark Side, the reports slightly odd headline said. Somewhat weirdly, Kornblut described the heart-rending anecdote[s] Hillary Clinton tells during speeches on the campaign trail. Early on, Kornblut noted the fact that many candidates, from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush, have told this type of storyhave honed the art of picking out stories to bolster a policy position in particularly human terms. For all of his grandeur, Obama can turn serious as well, she rather weirdly said.
Everyone does it, Kornblut said. But for anyone who has followed our political journalism over the past many years, the likely point of Kornbluts report soon reared its head, we suspectedin the following bit of slightly tilted novelization, for instance. Note the way Kornblut simply imagines her characters state of mind:
It couldnt be that Clinton told this story because she was upset by what had happened. As the worst of these novelists frequently do, Kornblut wormed her way inside Clintons head, offering an invented account in which Clintons state of mind was familiarand was vaguely unattractive. Nine years earlier, similar rules had applied to Gore. Gore couldnt have asked about a sick child because his own son had once hovered near death. No, there had to be an unflattering motivehe was trying to be just like Bill Clinton. It was pure (and nasty) novelization, but a string of reporters typed it up. And George Bush reached the White House.
Why did Kornblut write this slightly odd story? We were most struck by something near the end, when she reached the hospital story. Uh-oh! In this account, we spied a key fact: For whatever reason, the Washington Post was fact-checking Clintons anecdotes:
To us, that highlighted statement seemed suggestive. For some reason, the Post had gone around checking public records about this anecdotal event. (They had also gotten Holmans name, and they had interviewed him.) Because weve seen this movie before, we suspected we might be seeing the Goring of Clinton. Recently, Clinton had made a misstatement about her landing in Tuzla, and it was being widely flogged. Now, the Post was fact-checking public records about a fairly tangential matterpraying, we would have to suspect, that they might find misstatements again.
Two days later, all the excitement led an Ohio hospital to say that they hadnt turned Bachtel away. Ohio Hospital Contests A Story Clinton Tells, said the headline on Deborah Sontags report in the New York Times. In fact, Clinton had never named any hospital in the course of telling this story (nor had she ever used Bachtels name). But as a result of Kornbluts report, a local Ohio paper had written a further story, and the finger of blame had started to point at the hospital which was now complaining in Sontags report. This led to predictable pundit grumbling about Clintons vast dishonesty. By last night, for example, a credulous cable host was making this unwise but predictable statement:
Poor Chris! He was appalled to think that a politicians story wasnt true.
For the record, watching Matthews advocate accurate statement is one of lifes greatest ironies. (Has anyone in American history played with facts so constantly?) At any rate, we rolled our eyes at Matthews highly credulous statement. That story wasnt true, he said, without qualification. And he knew this because a single hospital administrator, in Ohio, had made a statementa statement he himself hadnt checked
As usual, Matthews didnt really know what he was talking about. And sure enough! One hour later, Kornblut appeared on Race for the White House and warned the panel, at the end of the show, that Clintons story might be more accurate than had been thought. My prediction is that the Hillary hospital story is going to, perhaps, have a surprise ending, she coyly said. In the end, it may turn out that Hillary Clinton was closer to the truth than we thought. This morning, Kornblut authors this short report; according to Kornblut, Bachtels aunt said in an interview Monday that Hillary Clinton has been telling the story accurately. Some facts are still a but unclear. But for the fullest current account of this matter, we recommend this AP report by ex-Postman Charles Babington.
Our views on what happened here:
First, Clinton shouldnt have told this story, in part because it hadnt been fact-checkedin part, because she was so clearly a major press corps target. Why did the Post spend its time and resources checking those public records? We cant answer that. But the pattern here is quite familiar to anyone who has watched this film about other Big Dems, especially about Candidate Gore. By their own admission, the press corps fact-checked quite selectively when it came to Candidates Bush and Goreand they mind-read Gore quite thoroughly. This allowed them to tell the story they loved: Gore is a big liar, just like Bill Clinton. When we read Kornbluts report last week, we suspected Clinton was now getting Goredthat the press corps was now working to churn a novel about her own vast lying. Does everybody get fact-checked this way? History, and current experience, say that they do not.
Second, pundits shouldnt have spoken with certainty based on a single hospitals unchecked report. This was a dumb thing for people like Matthews to do: Sometimes, hospital spokespersons dont tell you the truth; sometimes, as in this case, they may not actually know the full story. But Matthews (and others) werent doing journalism; they were mainly retyping a favorite old novel. And so, like Clinton, they failed to fact-check their story thoroughly. They asserted far more than they knew.
But for our most important conclusion, we direct you to this valuable post by Trudy Lieberman at Columbia Journalism Review. Lieberman authored her post before we learned that Clintons story was closer to the truth than we thought. But Lieberman went past the predictable sniper fire about Clinton. She got to the heart of what matters:
Omigod! Lieberman wants the press corps to stop typing novels. If some particular anecdote proves untrue, she would like them to find the real health care stories. (There are so many, she correctly notes.) Shed like them ask serious questions about the way our heath care system really works.
As Lieberman suggests, there are a million health care stories out there. If we had a more serious discourse, news orgs would have used this campaign to examine our system in detail. But we dont have a serious discourse, and plutocrat clowns like Matthews are slaves to their novels. Will this press corps do what Lieberman wants? We thought of Ryan Lizzas recent portrait of the way they conduct about affairs:
Watching our political press corps at work, Lizza noted short discussions of policyand long stretches of banter. Well take a guessthis gang of ghouls will not produce the types of discussions Lieberman wants. In Campaign 2000, policy discussions only served to further the press corps character tales. Regarding major policy matters themselves, your press corps quite plainly didnt care. (Regarding Social Security privatization, for example, Candidate Bush was providing bold leadershipand Candidate Gore was being nasty and negative. That was all you needed to know. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/30/06.)
Your press corps plainly didnt careand so it seems to us today. For both reasons we have noted, Clinton shouldnt have told that story without having it thoroughly fact-checked. But on the whole, your press corps simply doesnt care about policemen who get killed in campaign motorcades, or about pregnant women who die in small towns. (Nine years ago, they didnt care about five-year-old children who were sick.) Your press corps cares about dim-witted, dime-store novels, in which they chase down their favorite targets. Over the years, their fact-checking has been extremely selective, as they thunder, complain and rail about the deeply troubling character flaws they themselves so grossly display.
Will your press corps find the real health care stories? Do you have to ask?
DIGBYS TAKE: Heres Digbys account of this matter, posted yesterday. Our view: Democrats have to learn how to explain these matters to average voters. In our view, heres the simplest form of the story:
Gore is the obvious example. Today, he holds the Nobel Peace Prize. Eight years ago, they invented tales about him for two yearswhile hyping the now-discredited Bush. This is a simple, and important, story. Liberals have refused to tell it.
By the way: The mainstream press corps did this to Gore, far more than anyone else. Why do career liberals stay away from this tale? The conflict is blindingly obvious.
To their credit, conservatives fought back against the press corps, starting in the 1960s. Liberals, it seems, never will. The mainstream press corps doesnt care about health care. Career liberals dont care who wins.