NY Times's Kit Seelye Speculates Baselessly -- In Paper's News Pages -- That Hillary Is Trying To Keep Obama Drug Issue Alive
(December 14, 2007 -- 10:33 AM EDT // link // )

Isn't it an article of faith that you never find baseless speculation in the news pages of The New York Times? Well, it's time to jettison the idea. Because in today's paper, reporter "Kit" Seelye injects pure speculation into the Times news pages, saying outright -- based on a highly questionable and selective reading of the facts -- that the Hillary campaign is trying to keep the Obama drug issue alive.

This comes in an article Seelye published today about how both Hillary and Mike Huckabee have apologized to their rivals in recent days, Hillary having apologized to Obama because her New Hampshire co-chair brought up Obama's past drug use:

in the aftermath of the apologies, both the Clinton and Huckabee campaigns kept the original slurs alive through a series of interviews, raising questions about the sincerity of their apologies, especially in the heat of a wide-open campaign with the first voting less than three weeks away.

The single bit of proof offered for this is that her adviser supposedly brought up the drug question on Hardball last night. Here's how Seelye reports on that:

On Thursday afternoon, Mrs. Clinton’s top adviser, Mark Penn, appeared on MSNBC with Mr. Obama’s top adviser, David Axelrod, and John Edwards’s top adviser, Joe Trippi. They argued with one another, and it was there that Mr. Penn dropped the word “cocaine,” saying that the Clinton campaign had not raised the issue of “cocaine use.”

It's hard to overstate how reckless this representation of the facts is. Seelye simply tells you that the advisers "argued" without saying what they argued about -- and then says Penn dropped the "cocaine" word, suggesting he brought up the drug question out of nowhere.

But if you watch the actual exchange, which is posted over at Taylor Marsh's site, you see that virtually the entire segment was about the drug flap, and that they'd been talking about the drug thing for literally minutes before Penn said "cocaine." Even if you want to read something into Penn using the word "cocaine," rather than "drug," failing to tell readers that this whole conversation was about the drug flap is a blatant misrepresentation of what happened. And no, slugging this a "news analysis" doesn't make it okay -- this is a factual misrepresentation, and it is the key piece of evidence offered to support the entire speculative premise of the piece, i.e., that the Hillary camp wants to keep this alive.

Look, a lot of people probably think the Hillary camp does want to keep this alive. I happen not to think this -- it's obvious to me that they see this issue as a big loser for them and want it to go away -- but lots of folks probably think they do want to. And few people will care about this because Penn is such a loathed figure. But it matters when crap like this is published, and even Penn and the Hillary campaign deserve to be treated by The Times with a modicum of fairness and journalistic integrity. And in this case, they weren't.

Comments section disabled until next month. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

Same News Outlets Who Said Bill Would Be Liability To Hillary Now Say He'll Need To "Rescue" Her
(December 13, 2007 -- 11:45 AM EDT // link // )

This blog refrains wherever possible from saying, "we told you so," chiefly because there are rarely if ever any grounds for saying this. But...

As predicted here yesterday, the very same news outlets that pushed the idea that Bill Clinton's presence could prove a liability to Hillary's Presidential campaign are...now saying that he'll need to rescue her.

CNN, a few months ago:

Bill Clinton Factor: Campaign Asset or Liability?

CNN now:

Fox News analyst Juan Williams, a month ago:

When women, especially you know, as I said, educated upper income women look at Hillary Clinton, I think they have a lot of problems with her because of Bill Clinton and the way that she related to Bill Clinton because of the Lewinsky incident.

Fox News' Sean Hannity, before that:

Fox News Opinion Dynamics did a poll, Frank, and they asked whether or not he was a liability or whether or not he would hurt Hillary's campaign. And a certain percentage of people said, yes, he would help it. And then, but by an eight-point swing against helping, it went negative towards his involvement.

Fox News, now:

Purists will argue that this isn't a perfect contradiction. Fine. But this is still amusing. Back when Hillary was on top, the media meme of choice -- pushed by David Broder and multiple other pundits, in addition to these news orgs -- was that she and her advisers should worry that Bill Clinton could very well drag her down. Didn't matter that the polls said again and again that this wasn't true. This was the narrative, and nothing could change it.

But now that Hillary's not doing so well, the storyline of choice has suddenly become that his dazzling stump skills may be the only thing that can save her -- a meme that of course makes her look bad in comparison to him.

It's the sheer mindlessness of this sort of thing that really gets me, not to mention the glaring lack of self-awareness on display here.

Comments section disabled until next month. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

Novak's Hillary-Obama "Scandal" Story Turns Out To Be A Bust. So Should We Stop Listening To Him Now?
(December 12, 2007 -- 4:24 PM EDT // link // )

You may recall that last month, Robert Novak published a much-talked-about column reporting that the Hillary campaign was sitting on "scandalous" information about Barack Obama.

The sourcing of this was laughably thin -- it said that unnamed "agents of Hillary" were said to be telling this to unnamed "Democrats." Nonetheless, the political media went absolutely rip-roaring mad over the story, speculating for days about it and laboring with Talmudic intensity to divine its hidden meaning for Hillary, Obama, and the campaign in general.

Well -- surprise, surpise -- we now learn that there was really nothing to the Novak column at all. Ben Smith reports that tomorrow Novak will reveal the truth about this big revelation Hillary was supposedly sitting on:

Two sources tell me his column, which runs tomorrow, will report that the "scandalous information" in question arrived in the form of the attack on Obama's PAC as a "slush fund" for its contributions to early-state politicians.

This was a fairly sharp criticism of Obama's interpretation of election law, and was the subject of a couple pretty harsh Washington Post pieces. But I don't think many of Novak's reader had election law in mind.

No indeed. This major "scandal" that Hillary was sitting on concerned Obama's PAC, it turns out. As Ben says, this engendered a couple of tough pieces, but it's still fairly routine oppo research -- and is a very far cry indeed from the sort of explosive campaign-rocking scandal that Novak implied Hillary was sitting on.

One thing that endlessly puzzles this blog is the unwillingness of so many commentators and media figures to learn from it when they get burned by bogus stories. It doesn't matter if Drudge's latest "siren" exclusive has proven to be false yet again -- the next time the siren goes up, media people will still say to each other, "have you seen Drudge"?

Newsflash: Novak was full of sh-t. So I propose we learn something from this experience. Any chance we can all agree not to waste our time talking about it the next time Novak says something like this?

Don't answer that.

Comments section disabled until next month. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

Will Same Pundits Who Said Bill Was "Liability" To Hillary Now Suggest That He Will Need To "Rescue" Her?
(December 12, 2007 -- 10:21 AM EDT // link // )

This will be a fun one to watch. As you know, it's been conventional wisdom for months now in pundit circles that Bill's presence risks being a big liability to Hillary's Presidential candidacy, in defiance of all polls showing the contrary.

Today, however, we have intimations that a new, seemingly contradictory media meme is forming: That Bill will have to step forward and rescue Hillary's candidacy with his dazzling campaign skills. From today's New York Times piece on Hillary's struggles in Iowa:

At a time of growing tension in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, her aides described former President Bill Clinton as increasingly frustrated that his wife’s campaign has not fought back even more forcefully against efforts by Mr. Obama and former Senator John Edwards to raise questions about Mrs. Clinton’s character. They said that Mr. Clinton had warned for weeks that they were taking a toll on his wife’s candidacy.

Mr. Clinton, they said, is still confident that his wife can regain momentum if her campaign presents her message — and particularly criticism of Mr. Obama — more sharply. He took matters into his own hands Monday, campaigning at four events across Iowa to deliver that message: that Mrs. Clinton was a "change agent."

Meanwhile, today's New York Daily News blares: "Bubba to the rescue!"

Just to be clear, I'm not faulting the reporting here, just suggesting that it's only a matter of time until the pundits grab on to this stuff to spin a new tale that's directly at odds with the old Bill and Hillary storyline. Sometimes it's fun to try to flag media memes before they emerge as full-flown narratives, and this one seems like a likely candidate. So how long before the same commentators who said Bill's presence was likely to be an albatross to Hillary start sternly asking, "Can Bill's stump skills save Hillary's candidacy?"

I wager that it won't be long at all. Bears watching.

Comments section disabled until next month. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

What, Me Worry? WaPo Exec Editor Len Downie Finally Comments On Obama Muslim Piece, Sidesteps Criticism
(December 11, 2007 -- 3:45 PM EDT // link // )

Okay, so Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie, Jr., has finally commented publicly on the paper's disastrous front-page piece recycling the Obama Muslim rumors without declaring them false.

Stunningly, Downie offered no mea culpa; no discussion of the substance of the widespread criticism the piece attracted; no sign of recognition that the Post had badly botched things; no sign that he was even slightly perturbed by the episode at all.

Downie's comments came in the form of a letter to Romenesko that he wrote in response to a professor/blogger who had criticized the reporter on the piece, Perry Bacon, Jr. Downie defended the reporter and actually attacked Romenesko for daring to air criticism of him:

Chris Daly's blog posting about Perry Bacon' s recent front page story in The Washington Post on how the Obama campaign has responded to a campaign of rumors falsely portraying the candidate as a Muslim is an outrageous personal attack on a fine young journalist, and I'm disappointed that it has been given circulation on Romenesko. Daly begins by distorting Perry's story beyond recognition. He then recklessly attacks Perry himself with a vicious phony anology, followed by an irresponsible denigration of Perry's substantial credentials as a political reporter...

It's really telling that Downie was able to work up so much outrage about this but was unable to find anything to say about the piece itself. His newspaper publishes a major front-page story recycling rumors about a leading candidate without declaring them false or including widely-reported information debunking them? No comment. One mean and vicious blogger indulged in some over-the-top language? The outrage pours forth in torrents.

Also note that Downie characterized the story as being about "how the Obama campaign has responded to a campaign of rumors falsely portraying the candidate as a Muslim." Actually, that isn't what the story said: While Downie described the rumors as false here, the article didn't do this. It's really unclear at this point whether Downie and his fellow editors are even capable of grasping that this is the crux of the criticism here. They want to pretend that this is all about what the editors' motives were or about whether the topic itself was a valid one, rather than about their own failures of execution.

Incidentally, we now know that Downie himself signed off on the piece before publication. So, now that the paper's Ombud and leading media critic both have condemned the article, does Downie have any regrets about the way it was handled? Does he think that he or anyone else, you know, screwed up a wee bit? Does he still think that publishing a piece about rumors without declaring them false and without including information debunking them is journalistically acceptable or up to his paper's illustrious standards?

Downie is pretty quick to voice his outrage when a single blogger criticizes his reporter and paper in nasty language -- but still no word from him that I can find on whether he's even given any thought to the core journalistic questions raised by his own institution's widely-criticized performance. Odd priorities.

Comments section temporarily disabled. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

Washington Post Is Back On The Edwards $400 Haircut Beat -- Two Mentions Today Alone
(December 11, 2007 -- 12:14 PM EDT // link // )

Updated below.

Yesterday I heard that The Washington Post was set to weigh in today with a big profile of John Edwards, so a friend and I started gaming out the key question: Is there any chance that the piece won't mention Edwards' $400 haircut high in the piece?

Well, today we have our answer: Nope. Here's what WaPo's piece had to say about it:

Always describing himself as "the son of a millworker," he tells stories of family hardships -- the one about his father having to borrow $50, at 100 percent interest, to bring his newborn son home from the hospital is a favorite -- and says he identifies with "the little guy."

But he does so with such glibness, and frequency, and it contrasts so greatly with who he is today -- a polished former trial lawyer worth millions -- that the truth of his biography is sometimes lost. These days, Edwards's $400 haircuts and $6 million house garner the lion's share of attention, and he is testimony to the fact that youthful good looks aren't necessarily a political asset.

Well, yes, WaPo, Edwards' $400 haircut does get "the lion's share of attention," because...

...YOU KEEP FRIGGIN' WRITING ABOUT IT!!!

Apologies for the capital letters. But nothing gets this blog into a funk quicker that the site of a big news org passively making observations about a candidate's public image when that same news org played a big role in shaping that image.

After all, WaPo's reporters and commentators have probably talked about the haircut more than the employees of any other news organization have. Indeed, though this story broke back in April, the paper carries two mentions of it today alone. Here's a partial list of WaPo's multiple haircut mentions -- and keep in mind that these are only the gratuitous ones:

WaPo's Dana Milbank made another mention of it today:

Sounds like a bit of class warfare -- coming from a man with a 28,000-square-foot house, $30 million in assets and a $400 haircut.

Continue reading "Washington Post Is Back On The Edwards $400 Haircut Beat -- Two Mentions Today Alone"

Pundits Lavish Tons Of Attention On Rudy's "Cackle"
(December 10, 2007 -- 6:04 PM EDT // link // )

Okay, admittedly, that hasn't happened yet. But surely it will, right?

After all, every pundit in town surely watched Rudy Giuliani's interview yesterday on Meet the Press. If you saw it, you couldn't help but notice that Rudy giggled...and giggled...and giggled some more. In case you missed it, TPM video editor Ben Craw has compiled a nifty highlight reel of Rudy's nonstop giddiness:

Those of you with long memories will recall that a couple months ago D.C. reporters, commentators, pundits and talk-show hosts went absolutely bonkers for days and days over Hillary's far-less-surprising "cackle" in interviews, relentlessly lampooning her allegedly phony outbursts of hilarity. In case you've forgotten just how extensive the coverage of the cackle was, here's a handy reminder.

At any rate, brace yourself for wall-to-wall pundit dissection of Rudy's laugh...

...it's coming any second now, I tell you...

...any second now...

Comments section temporarily disabled. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

WaPo's David Ignatius: Bush's Iran Intel Lie Is A "Non-Story"
(December 10, 2007 -- 10:31 AM EDT // link // )

For those of you who get a kind of perverse kick out of seeing D.C. punditry at its most vacuous and borderline-corrupt, The Washington Post's David Ignatius really delivered with a one-two punch of pundit buffoonery yesterday.

First he devoted all of yesterday's column to -- yawn -- the notion that Bill Clinton is a liability to Hillary's candidacy. He actually outdid other pundits, though, arguing that Bill is an issue that won't go away until Hillary addresses it. This "issue," of course, has never been here at all -- multiple polls show that large majorities either view Bill as a non-issue or as a positive. Wouldn't it be much simpler, if Ignatius would just say that he, and not the public, has issues with Bill returning to the White House?

But now on to the worse part. Ignatius also went on Chris Matthews' show yesterday and gamely tried to explain away the fact that Bush misled the nation last week about when he'd heard about the new intel suggesting Iran may have shuttered its nuke program. Via Nexis:

MATTHEWS: Had you--had you gotten the word in August as a reporter that there was going to be a big change in our assessment of the nuclear threat from Iran downward, there was going to be less of threat estimate, what would you have asked as a follow-up ?

Mr. IGNATIUS: Well, you know, I would have wanted the--to let the analysts finish the job. I mean, I think in some ways this is a non-story. They come to Bush, they say, `Mr. President, we've got some startling new intelligence. We're trying to figure out what it means. We'll try to figure out whether it might be a deliberate attempt to deceive us, so let us work on this,' and the president says, `OK, go finish up.'

This is pure shillery. Ignatius is completely misstating the crux of what happened last week. The issue isn't whether intel officials told Bush that they needed to solidify their intel; they did. Rather, it's that Bush said last week that he hadn't been briefed until very recently on the general thrust of the intel -- which was that Iran might have shuttered its nuke program -- when in fact he had been briefed about it much earlier, as his press secretary subsequently admitted.

Hmmm. To me it seems like a story that the same President who misled the nation into a war once already by hyping a non-threat was again caught dissembling on what he knew and when about another nuke threat. But to Ignatius it's just a big yawner -- a "non-story."

It gets worse. Later in the same exchange, he tells us that contrary to what many suspect, he knows that the White House actually wanted to share the new Iran intel with the public. "My sources tell me that quite the opposite, the White House said, as this thing was being finished, `You've got to put it out,'" he told Matthews.

We are never told who these "sources" are or even what their affiliation is. So maybe we shouldn't be taking what these "sources" say all that seriously. After all, we already know that Veep Cheney was actively working behind the scenes to discredit the intel. And over the weekend, Ignatius' own paper quoted a top intelligence official saying that the info was pushed out because officials "knew it would leak."

All this nonsense in one day -- Bill's a liability to Hillary, and Bush's dissembling about another nuke threat is a "non-story" because Ignatius' "sources" tell him so. Ignatius just didn't live through the same last decade as the rest of us did, apparently.

Comments section temporarily disabled. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.