THEY SOMETIMES INVENT YOUR FIRST TIME! The Times and the Post misstated baldly about their new target, Pelosi: // link // print // previous // next //
SATURDAY, MAY 16, 2009
They sometimes invent your first time: On the one hand, the sweep of Nancy Pelosis accusation against the CIA was almost surely unwise. (And perhaps unplanned.)
On the other hand, the New York Times led yesterdays news report with a claim which is simply untrue. This bungled claim constitutes a key part of the rolling indictment now forming against Pelosi.
In a more rational world, its the job of journalists to challenge false claims. In this instance, the Times led its report with a false accusationa type of claim journalists luvv in stories of this kind.
The problem began in the opening paragraph of Carl Hulses news report. Hulse presented his central claim: In Thursdays press conference, Pelosi had said something for the first time. She had never said this before, Hulse informed the world:
Pelosi Says She Knew of Waterboarding by 2003, said the headline on Hulses report. She was saying this for the first time, his opening paragraph said.
Later, Hulse restated his central claim, making it more clear in the process. This is the first time Pelosi has said this! In the biz, such troubling conduct by a pol is known as rolling disclosure:
Again, Hulse said Pelosi was saying this for the first time. But Hulses claim is flatly wrong. What are the actual facts?
In Thursdays press conference, Pelosi did make the statement Hulse describes about what she learned in February 2003. But she plainly wasnt saying this for the first time. As Hulse notes in his report, these CIA briefings first became news in December 2007. At that time, Pelosi issued a formal statementthe first statement shed ever made on this topic. In this, the full text (link below), Pelosi said the same damn thing she said in Thursdays press conference:
That was Pelosis original statement about these CIA briefings. Plainly, Pelosi said Harman was told in early 2003 that the techniques were being usedand that she herself knew about it. It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter of protest, Pelosi said. I concurred with the protest, Pelosi said, using the past tense.
Lets state the obvious: This is the same darn thing Pelosi said on Thursday. The central claim of Hulses report was simply wrong. Plainly, Pelosi wasnt making this statement for the first time. Apparently, Hulse didnt know this.
Pelosi did make, or seem to make, some sweeping accusations on Thursdayaccusations which were almost surely unwise, and possibly unintended. Its one thing to say you were inaccurately briefed; its another thing to say what Pelosi seemed to saythat this error by the CIA was intentional, part of a sweeping pattern of conduct on the agencys part. Its hard to prove such a sweeping accusation. Its impossible to do so without creating a giant public discussion, the type of discussion which gobbles up everything else in its path.
That said, journalists love the claim of rolling disclosure in a matter like this (though only if they want to make some pol a target, of course). Such belated disclosure is taken as a sign of the targeted pols bad faith. Its a sign that the target had something to hide, that she wouldnt be truthful until she was forced. Mainstream journalism of the 1990s is littered with episodes of this type. (Weve recently been working on a remarkable case from June 1999, one small but punishing part of the life-changing War Against Gore.)
Sad but true: When journalists get somebody in their sites, they simply luvv making this type of claim. Recent history teaches a grisly lesson: Even when rolling disclosure hasnt occurred, journalists will sometimes pretend otherwise. They will sometimes ignore the very reports they themselves have typed in the past, so much do they want to pretend that their target never said this before. (Ceci Connollys ears may be burning. But many others were involved in that remarkable episode from June 1999.)
In the world of love and romance, its said that you always remember your first time. In modern pseudo-journalism, they sometimes invent a pols first time, erasing her real first time in the process. For whatever reason, thats what Hulse plainly did in yesterdays bungled report.
Many others are making the same bungled claim, building the fury against Vile Pelosi. Its a type of claim modern journalists love. Absent extensive rolling correction, this claim is likely to spread.
About that press release: The press release from 2007 can be seen at Pelosis web site (click here). For those who have suspicious minds, the same text appears in the Nexis archives in real time, dated December 9, 2007. The full text was posted in real time by at least two different news services.
Quite gruesome/The Post did it too: Horrible. The Washington Post did the same thing. In one way, the Post was far worse.
Small improvement: Paul Kane didnt start his Post report with the first time charge. But he got to it fairly quickly, in his fourth paragraph:
At least he held off until paragraph four. But in another way, the Post was far worse than the Times.
Prepare to see the way the press reinvents the facts of your world.
Accompanying Kanes report, the Post presented a set of four statements by Pelosithree past statements, plus a clip from Thursdays press conference. The statements can be seen on-line under the title, Pelosis Statements Regarding Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. To see them accompanying Kanes report, just click here.
The first of these statements comes from Pelosis original statementthat press release for December 2007. For some reason, the Post has dated it incorrectlyDecember 12, not December 9. But the Post has done something worse to this, Pelosis original statement. The Post has dropped the last sentence from the statementthe sentence where Pelosi specifically said that she learned, in early 2003, that the enhanced techniques were being employed.
Thats right. The Post dropped the sentence where Pelosi said she learned in 2003. Then Kane reported, at the top of page one, that Pelosi never said this before.
How did this bit of slick reinvention occur? We cant answer that question; Kane may not have been involved in compiling that group of four statement. But this is a very common pattern from past coverage of Clinton and Gore. Earlier statements are air-brushed away. Then, outraged journalists rail at the fact that Clinton or Goreor now Pelosinever made this statement before!
Its hard to believe your world functions this way. But this is the way your world works. Sadly, we now have reams of pseudo-progressives who are happy to play the same way.
The political price: What political price will Democrats pay for Pelosis sweeping accusation? Consider Pat Oliphants new cartoon, which appears in this mornings Post. Too gaze on it, just click here.
The cartoon is called The Pelosi Position. Pelosi is shown smoking a large joint marked Torture. Shes making a familiar statement: But I didnt inhale.
Translation: Pelosis sweeping charge is reactivating press/pundit frameworks from the Clinton era. This has been obvious watching cable. Oliphant spells it out nice and clear.
During the 1990s, Clintonthen Gorewere portrayed as feckless dissemblers, willing to do and say anything. You couldnt believe a thing they said! Clinton had said that he didnt inhaleand Gore had said he invented the Internet! In June 1999, Hillary Clinton even said she was a childhood fan of the Cubs and the Yankees! Earlier profiles seemed to show this was true. But so what? The press called her every name in the book (links below). As theyd done throughout the era, the corps was prepared to pretend.
You couldnt believe a thing Big Dems said; Big Dems were feckless dissemblers. (If the press corps had to dissemble to prove it, dissemble the press corps would.) Given Obamas impressive demeanor and unusual background, this framework has been dying on the vine this year. But it still lurks inside these idiots heads. Pelosi made a sweeping accusation this weekand the framework returned from the closet.
A few guesses about the political price to be paid:
The hubbub will make it slightly harder for Obama to nominate Sotomayor (as opposed to a more traditional choice like blonde Diane Wood). But Obama will nominate Sotomayor anyway. Because of the hubbuband the reactivated frameworksthe nomination fight will be a bit harder. Obama, and his party generally, will lose a bit of political capital in the form of a few ratings points.
This makes the health care fight a bit harder. Does the public plan therefore come out? These are the political problems we sometimes create when we scream our deepest beliefs, as progressives have begged Obama to do all through the course of this year.
Jonathan Turley just cant understand why Obama wont scream long and loud, just like him. Then again, the heartfelt professor already has good health care.
About the Cubs and the Yankees: In June 1999, Hillary Clinton said she loved the Cubs and the Yankees as a child. Earlier profiles seemed to suggest that this was truebut the corps called her every name in the book. It triggered an established framework, you see. Send your own kids to another room. Then, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/16/08.
In 2007, they took a turn with this bullroar again. This time, their clowning may have been even dumber. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/2/07. The n-word even got used this time! (When trashing Clinton, as when trashing Gore, the n-word was Nixonian.)
This is the way they portrayed Big Dems right up through Obamas nomination. Under Obama, these frameworks had been dying on the vine. In the last day or two, they are back.