Let the record show that David’s post yesterday about Donald Rumsfeld’s speech was based on an Associated Press article that was basically a fabrication:
[There is] no “accusation” with the phrase “moral and intellectual confusion.” In fact he’s talking about our military when he uses the phrase. “Moral confusion” is also found in the speech where he discussed the history leading up to WWII. However it is never addressed to the administration’s critics. [The AP said, “In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration’s critics as suffering from ‘moral or intellectual confusion’ about what threatens the nation’s security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.” -ed.]
Additionally, “courage” is found one time in the speech and it is addressing something completely different (”And one day, a future speaker may reflect back on this time of historic choice — remembering the questions raised as to our country’s courage, dedication, and willingness to continue this fight until we have prevailed.”). Nowhere is anyone “accused” of “lacking the courage to fight back.”
And so on and so forth. The AP has now edited the story, by the way, eliminating the most egregious errors. But not before the writer’s (perhaps deliberate, or perhaps just unconscious but overwhelmingly biased) mischaracterizations and fabrications were read by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans, on websites like CNN, Forbes, Yahoo, ABC, and yes, even Fox — and many, many others. (It’s a good thing all those big-media sites, unlike we pajama-clad bloggers, have fact-checkers!)
None of this is David’s fault, of course. It’s the fault of the biased AP writer and his overly trusting (and probably also biased) editors. But it is a good object lesson, not just for David but for all of us: NEVER BLINDLY TRUST A THIRD PARTY’S WRITE-UP OF A SPEECH — especially when that third party is an MSM reporter and the speech is given by a member of the Bush Administration or some other prominent Republican. (That said, it sometimes applies to non-Republicans too… like, for example, Julian Bond. Yep, I plead guilty: I haven’t always followed this rule either.) A speech says what it says; it doesn’t say what someone else says it says. Before you criticize a speech (or article, or other published work) on the basis of someone else’s write-up, find a transcript and judge for yourself — or, if you can’t find a transcript, at least load your analysis with caveats, because there’s an excellent chance they’ll be needed. (Hat tip: flicka47.)
P.S. It’s like, remember that time when Joe Lieberman said no one should criticize the president? Or that time Paul Wolfowitz said we invaded Iraq for oil? Or that time George Bush said terrorists aren’t a problem anymore? Or that time…
August 31st, 2006 at 12:11:49 am
Let me be the first to say that this completely changes my post on Rumsfeld and as soon as I get back from dinner i will add a note to it. I stand by what i said IF it were true, however since it appears to have been a gross mischaracterization it definitely changes how I feel about the whole post. I still think Rumsfeld has failed in his position, but that does not approach the level of anger i had at what I was led to believe he said.
I don’t think one needs to be as skeptical as Brendan about the media, I think by and large the AP has proven to be pretty accurate, but in this case there is no excuse whatsoever. If the AP has any sense it will dissasociate itself from or fire the writer involved. Just as I condemn the attitude sometimes put forth by those on the right that the ends justify the means, likewise i think that this writer let a personal agenda and an ends justify the means attitude overwhelm their journalistic duty. And its pathetic and dispicable.
I believe as do many others that this administration has engaged in dubious and possibly illegal acts. That they have misled the public and have used disinformation and possibly lies to do so. Regardless of all that, it is absolutely wrong to use those same tactics to try and bring them down. And it is not the place of the news media to bend and even break the truth in order to do so. The media serves an essential role to keep government honest by exposing lies and illegal activities, just as was done during Watergate. But when they make choices like this they threaten not only their credibility but the very foundations of our society. If we are to rely on the media to act as a check on government it must be trust worthy and even if incidents like this are rare, they must be condemned in the strictest terms because their potential impact is so great.
Again, this is absolutely and utterly inexcusable behavior on the part of the writer and possibly his editors. I withdraw my criticsim of what Rumsfeld supposedly (and in fact did not) say. I stand by my criticisms of the administration in general, but only insofar as they are not directly drawn from that particular speech. Shame on this writer and i hope that the AP owns up to this.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:22:53 am
I have noticed more and more over the past couple of years that the correlation between AP and BDS hass gotten closer and closer to statistical identity …
Fortunately, we can still rely upon the published media to be the honest watchdogs of our society … except, of course, for most of the MSM which needs to be watched even *more* closely than Government …
August 31st, 2006 at 12:23:00 am
Bravo, David.
As for this line: I don’t think one needs to be as skeptical as Brendan about the media … Let me clarify one point. I’m not saying that media write-ups of speeches are usually wrong, by any means. The vast majority of reporters do their level best, and most of the time, their level best is reasonably good. So when I say “NEVER TRUST” blah blah blah, I’m not suggesting that media reports are always or usually wrong. I’m just saying that this, and similar examples of blatant MSM distortion (Reutersgate, anyone?) by people working for normally trustworthly sources like the AP, have happened enough times now, that we should ALWAYS be on our guard, even though this sort of thing obviously isn’t ALWAYS going to happen — far from it. But because we never know* when it’s going to happen again, we can’t simply trust without verification that what the media says is accurate. Once burned, twice shy.
*Although, when something fits perfectly into liberal preconceptions of conservative/Republican attitudes… one still doesn’t “know,” but the “too good to be true” aspect of the “quote” in question should set off extra red flags to at least double-check it. The Wolfowitz “war for oil” speech was the archetypal example of that, and this one is a pretty good example too, as it fits right into what is almost an article of faith on the Left: that behind every conservative criticism of liberal attitudes toward terrorism is a creeping accusation of unpatriotic, uncourageous, terrorist-sympathizing, appeasing behavior.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:39:14 am
The AP lies, credibility dies
[Source: The Irish Trojan’s Blog] quoted: Let the record show that David’s post yesterday about Donald Rumsfeld’s speech was based on an Associated Press article that was basically a fabrication: In example one, it is apparent, at least …
August 31st, 2006 at 1:20:07 am
Yeah Alasdair, cause its not like the administration planted friendly reporters in the Press Corps, or passed of propoganda pieces as actual news…
None of that excuses the AP’s behavior, but a few isolated incidents and the fact that the Bush administartion is equally guilty of tainting the journalistic process means your gloating is, yet again misplaced. And if you think that the media deserves more watching than the government, you apparently forgot which one has the power to:
1) spy on american citizens writ large
2) declare war and mobilize armies
3) imprison people without cause, without allowing them to see a lawyer indefinitely
Yeah the press is such a huge threat.
August 31st, 2006 at 1:39:10 am
Actually, David, as I understand it from MSM behaviour, the MSM *does* consider itself to be above the law in its ability to 1) spy upon american citizens, and then to publicise what it feels like publicising …
The MSM certainly acts as though it has 2) declared war upon the current Bush White House, and has mobilised armies of BDS sufferers …
The MSM doesn’t yet 3) imprison people, as far as I know - it simply accuses them on page 1 above the fold, judging them guilty beyond a shadow of MSM doubt, without paying much if any seeming attention to the concept of “Innocent until proven guilty” - and then, when the person is proven innocent, may or may not even publicise said innocence in the least-read part of the publication … so, Rather than imprisoning people, it simply holds the truth hostage …
Fortunately, more an dmore pople are aware of the increasingly egregious behaviour of way too much of the MSM, and the MSM is becoming less and less of a threat as it makes itself less and less relevant …
Thank you, David, for bringing out the comparisons between the MSM and the Government !
August 31st, 2006 at 2:59:25 am
Eh, I don’t know. As a news story; a summary of the content of Rumsfeld’s speech, the original piece was pretty sloppy. The AP more or less admits that when they release the edited version. But had it appeared in an op-ed column, the original version is a pretty spot-on interpretation of the political intent of the speech.
And once we’re into the realm of interpretation, the post that Brendan quotes has problems of it’s own. The post author (McQ) reads this: can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased? and thinks “Rumsfeld wasn’t at all accusing anyone of anything.” Oh, really? Set aside for a moment what counts in Rumsfeld’s mind as “appeasement”; whatever it is, we can assume that Rumsfeld thinks it’s bad. So who exactly is “we”? Nobody in particular: is that what we’re supposed to assume? Of course not. This was a political speech with political intent. We all know who he’s talking about.
McQ sees no accusation in the “moral and intellectual confusion” phrase. According to McQ, Rumsfeld is “talking about our military when he uses the phrase.” I read the whole speech, and I can see why McQ gets this wrong: the paragraph which contains the phrase is preceded by one which talks about the relative paucity of “bad actors” in our military. Here’s both paragraphs:
And in every army, there are occasional bad actors, the ones who dominate the headlines today, who don’t live up to the standards of the oath and of our country. But you also know that they are a very, very small percentage of the literally hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women in all theaters in this struggle who are serving our country with humanity, with decency, with professionalism, and with courage in the face of continuous provocation.
And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.
Rumsfeld is connecting the (very few) “bad actors” to the reaction to the bad actors by those opposed to the war. It is they (the anti-war people) who carry the “moral or intellectual confusion.” Many would say that the accusation is fair, but who really thinks there was no accusation at all? That was whole point.
The biggest piece of strained credulity in McQ’s post is this: He never said it should be obvious that confrontation was preferable to appeasement. He instead asked a question for others to answer for themselves. Asked in good faith, I’m quite certain.
So to summarize, I’m forced to agree with those saying the AP report was a poor piece of news writing. But the political interpretation was fairly accurate. I’m curious, does anyone know Robert Burns’ bio? I wonder if he comes from a country, like Britain perhaps, where the line between news journalism and opinion journalism is more acceptably blurred.
August 31st, 2006 at 4:03:11 am
Yes. Accurate, but fake.
We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.
Anais Nin
An appropriate quote from a lady who was an excellant observer of human frailties.
August 31st, 2006 at 4:19:03 am
You can try twisting it all you want Alasdair, but only extreme right wingers like you are going to buy into the bizarre theory that the media (and the whole MSM term which the right wing has thrown out there to try and make it some vast conspiracy against them is really getting old) is a greater potential threat than the government.
And your constant allusions to BDS, something that you invented in your sad little mind only prove that. Come back when you can come up with intelligent arguments against positions you don’t like and don’t have to cry BDS every time. Sorry but your with us or against us attitude is a bigger threat to freedom than any supposed BDS out there.
August 31st, 2006 at 4:21:36 am
Without commenting on the substance of your feud, I just want to make the factual point that Alasdair did not “invent” BDS.
August 31st, 2006 at 5:27:54 am
From the previous thread, I started my first comment with:
“Caveat of not having been able to find a transcript…”
But I certainly didn’t think they would misrepresent the speech THAT bad, but they really did.
First Fauxtography, now this.
August 31st, 2006 at 10:50:33 am
While I think AP was wrong to state definitively that Rumsfeld was bashing critics, the speech itself is open to interpretation, so I think it is inaccurate to say that “AP lied.” When Rumsfeld starts off by saying: “But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons…” who do you think Rumsfeld is referring to? The Republicans?
August 31st, 2006 at 10:59:53 am
Angrier -
Actually, I somewhat agree with you. The AP misrepresented what Rumsfeld said, especially in how explicit they made his remarks look, but I wouldn’t characterize it as lying as the AP wasn’t concoting quotes wholecloth.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:16:12 am
Lojo-
It’s definitely sloppy reporting. I think it is made worse by the fact that the other media outlets that had to be there to cover the speech anyway opted to use the AP’s story over what their reporters were submitting. You would think editors along the way would have questioned the differing tone in the various accounts before just running with what AP had. The news media are a bunch of lazy fucks.
August 31st, 2006 at 3:07:49 pm
Aaron - when I was a kid in Scotland, I got used to the various newspapers being very upfront about which party they supported … and, when one read them, one allowed for that bias …
Back then, the BBC was comparatively neutral, as was the rest of Great Britain’s then-limited TV … political talk-show hosts had known leanings (like the Dimbleby family) and were pretty scrupulous in basically saying “I’m a leftie and I don’t respect Tories, but the fair questions to ask are …” and then the questions would be asked …
Now, the BBC has gotten to where to Brit Armed Forces personnel asked that it be removed as one of the channels they could get …
O tempora, o mores !
August 31st, 2006 at 10:00:59 pm
Aaron, Briandot, et al: Yes, we can negotiate with the terrorists. We can negotiate With Hezbollah, and Iran. And Syria. But what you have to realize is that, while they are completely rational in their logic, the irrationality of their presuppositions is what dooms negotiations from the start.
Here’s what I mean: Any time you negotiate, you’re attempting to win a concession from the other party that improves your situation from the status quo, and since both parties are doing the same, the best method of success is looking for win-win situations and painless compromises. The problem with negotiations with much of the Islamic world is, we start at different perceptions of the status quo.
We tend to think of the Iranians and jihadists as simply pissed off at us — for having bases in the Arabian peninsula; for being in Iraq; for exporting our evil culture; for supporting Israel; etc. Thus, we tend to think that if we simply try to mitigate some of these situations (force Israel to give land for peace; move our military presence out of the Islamic sphere; repeating diplomatic apologies over and over for our coarse Western culture; and so on), our enemies will lay down their arms.
In reality, the jihadists see things this way: “Right now, you — America — are evil, and I will become a martyr for killing you and the Jews. When I get to heaven, I will have 72 virgins. Yes, yes, of course we can negotiate — what can you offer me better than that???? Oh, you want to give us money to build infrastructure and hospitals and schools, lovely, but how is that better than 72 virgins? You will withdraw support for Israel, lovely, but I still can martyr myself and kill Jews and get my 72 virgins.” The sad result is, no matter how many concessions we make, the would-be martyr still has a brighter future killing infidel Americans and Jews and taking his 72 virgins.
Yes, we can appease and negotiate with these bastards, but let’s not pretend: The price is very, very steep indeed.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:14:25 pm
Andrew-
You have an extremely simplistic view of the jihadists, and I would contend that the majority of Iranians - and most Muslims in the Middle East - are not jihadists.
The leadership in Iran is not stupid and it is not suicidal. Iran’s leadership has had 20+ years to commit suicide and it hasn’t.
I believe most of what is coming out of Iran right now is nationalistic and theocratical rhetoric designed to gag reformers within Iran and to provide red meat to the Islamist old guard in the country.
Why? Because the greatest threat to the leadership of Iran is to become irrelevant, which it was becoming in the 1990s because of the influence of Western culture and freedoms on that nation’s young people.
Unfortunately our piss-poor reaction to 9/11 of invading Iraq is giving the Mullahs the rallying cry they need to counter the influences of the West. Sunnis are killing Shi’ites in the streets of Baghdad and the Americans are responsible. Think of that rallying cry.
September 1st, 2006 at 7:44:35 pm
…I would contend that the majority of Iranians - and most Muslims in the Middle East - are not jihadists.
And I would contend that, so long as the majority of the Muslims in the Middle East find common cause more with the jihadists than with us, they’re part of the problem as well.
The leadership in Iran is not stupid and it is not suicidal. Iran’s leadership has had 20+ years to commit suicide and it hasn’t.
It’s not about simply committing suicide. It’s about martyring yourself in the cause of killing the infidel. I’m not entirely convinced the Iranian regime wouldn’t gladly risk self-annihilation if it could simultaneously destroy Israel and launch a few nukes at Europe and/or the United States.
I believe most of what is coming out of Iran right now is nationalistic and theocratical rhetoric designed to gag reformers within Iran and to provide red meat to the Islamist old guard in the country.
I believe that is largely true as well, but it doesn’t contradict my point, either.
Because the greatest threat to the leadership of Iran is to become irrelevant, which it was becoming in the 1990s because of the influence of Western culture and freedoms on that nation’s young people.
It’s not about being “irrelevant”, it’s about maintaining theocratic power and becoming powerful enough to kill a bunch of Jews and Americans. Iran was a problem well before we invaded Iraq and took out Saddam.