Democratic candidates spin each other (5/1)

By Bryan Keefer

As the race for the Democratic presidential nomination begins, the candidates have begun to publicly spar with each other. Unfortunately, these exchanges have already included a number of factually inaccurate attacks.

Last week, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean accused Congressman Dick Gephardt (D-MO) of changing his position on the tax cut passed in 2001. In response to Gephardt's proposal to repeal the 2001 tax cut, Dean asked in a statement, "[W]hy did Congressman Gephardt and too many in my party support huge tax cuts -- tax cuts that make his own health care plan unworkable?" Yet Gephardt, who was then House Minority Leader, voted against the tax cut package in 2001.

Dean made a similar mistake last month. In a March 15 speech at the California State Democratic Convention, Dean attacked Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John Edwards (D-NC) for what he claimed were remarks flip-flopping from their positions supporting the war Iraq. Dean suggested that "We've had two fine people-United States Senators Edwards and Kerry-who've done a lot for our country, and they have served us honorably. . . . But I don't think we can win the White House if we vote for the President's unilateral attack on Iraq in Washington and then come to California and say we are against the war." In fact, Kerry and Edwards had reiterated their support for the war at the convention and were reportedly booed by the crowd for their statements. Dean later apologized privately to Edwards, but has not apologized to Kerry.

Most recently, Florida Senator Bob Graham has misrepresented his opponents' record on the tax cut proposal currently making its way through Congress. In an interview last Monday, Graham claimed that "Both [Sen.] Joe [Lieberman] and [Sen.] John [Edwards], as well as John Kerry, voted for the $350 billion tax cut." Yet all three voted against the budget resolution which included the $350 billion cut. Graham later claimed that his statement referred to the senators' votes against an amendment proposed during the debate which would have eliminated the tax cut. Regardless, however, Graham is clearly being deceptive by ignoring the fact that all three voted against the budget resolution.

Candidates for president have a special responsibility to get the facts right in criticizing their rivals, and to correct the record when they make mistakes rather than spinning their statements. Citizens and the press need to be vigilant as the campaign, and accusations against opponents, heat up.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

5/1/2003 08:19:02 PM EST |

The Tim Robbins "Today Show" myth (4/30)

By Brendan Nyhan

In a widely circulated article, television producer Steven Rosenbaum claims that an April 14 interview with actor Tim Robbins on NBC's "Today Show" was cut off due to controversial statements by Robbins. The transcript, however, shows that, rather than being silenced, Robbins returned for another interview segment after the break and elaborated on his views for another two minutes and thirty seconds. If NBC was indeed engaging in "censorship," as Rosenbaum asserts, its methods of carrying this out were bizarre.

As Rosenbaum so melodramatically depicts, the transcript of the interview does show Robbins being cut off. However, this occurred at the end of a very long interview segment with host Matt Lauer, which Rosenbaum himself clocked at nine minutes:

LAUER: You--you've said in the past you think this is a--a war based largely on oil. When--when you see the scenes of people celebrating in the streets of Baghdad and tearing down statues, does it change your opinion as to our need to go in there at all?

ROBBINS: No. I'm ecstatic that they feel this freedom. I--I hope that they--that we have the resolve to--to get in there and make it work. So far we've lost our focus on Afghanistan, it seems to me, and--and we have a terrible track record, as far as our military leading to democracy. Look at Panama, look at Nicaragua. It's not--it's not--you know, our best interest for some of these things to keep it going and to--to pursue it to the next level. I hope--I hope... (commercial break)

It's unclear how or why this occurred, though sometimes producers unexpectedly cut to breaks when segments run long. Rosenbaum asserts that Robbins was silenced for explicitly political reasons and implies that the interview ended when Robbins was cut off. However, Robbins and Lauer resumed their conversation after the commercial, as the Media Minded blog points out, referencing a comment by Sean Engmann on another blog. Moreover, the MSNBC video of the segment after the break (Windows Media Player format) shows Lauer asking a sympathetic question about dissent:

LAUER: We're back with Tim Robbins talking about the controversy that's now brewing over the Baseball Hall of Fame's decision to cancel his appearance as part of the anniversary of "Bull Durham." What do you think about the climate we're living in right now, where the Dixie Chicks records are pulled, where Madonna pulls a music video because she's afraid that people will misinterpret it as anti-war, anti-troops?

The interview ended cordially at the end of this second, shorter segment:

LAUER: Tim Robbins. Thanks for sticking around. I appreciate it.

ROBBINS: Pleasure.

LAUER: All right. We're back after this.

Robbins, who has been outspoken in speaking about dissent, did not mention the incident during his speech on the subject the very next day at the National Press Club, which is an indication that he does not feel that he was censored. Nonetheless, Rosenbaum's account has spread through the blogosphere and via email forwards, eventually being carelessly republished by Tapped, The American Prospect's weblog.

Let's hope it stops here.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

4/30/2003 05:55:34 AM EST |

Patriotism charges from left and right (4/29)

By Brendan Nyhan

[Donation drive: After two years of hard work to widespread media acclaim, we're asking for your support for one week -- please help make what we do possible! Amazon and Paypal links are available on the right sidebar for donations. Thanks!]

In recent weeks, pundits from both sides of the political debate have engaged in cheap or misleading attacks meant to call into question the patriotism of their opponents.

First, on April 8, the left-liberal Internet website TomPaine.com attacked House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) in an "op-ad" that ran in the Weekly Standard and the New York Times. Titled "Twisted Allegiance: Tax Cuts Before Country," it attacks DeLay, stating "He's demonstrating the twisted allegiance that now dominates Washington -- tax cuts for the wealthy before all other needs." The site also calls him a practitioner of "the tax-cuts-before-country creed."

Like many such attacks, TomPaine.com is defining patriotism as its preferred policy position (no tax cuts) and implying that, simply by disagreeing with the site on that issue, DeLay is unpatriotic. In reality, of course, he simply has a different opinion about what's best for the country.

Gary Kamiya of Salon.com has been the target of similar accusations of a lack of patriotism in the wake of his April 11 article on the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The piece is titled "Liberation Day" and the subtitle states "Even those opposed to the war should celebrate a shining moment in the history of freedom -- the fall of Saddam Hussein." In it, Kamiya wrestles with the complexities of the US victory in Iraq, calling for liberals to celebrate the freedom of the Iraqi people but struggling with mixed feelings about the war.

During this discussion, Kamiya offers the following passage:

I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.

Kamiya disavows "[s]ome of this," stating that it "is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. That part of it I feel guilty about, and disavow." He also admits that he worried that President Bush's success in the war would lead to worse outcomes in the future, but ultimately returns to his position that we should celebrate the liberation of Iraqis previously oppressed by Saddam.

Those who wish to quote from such a nuanced piece have a particular obligation to represent it accurately, but many conservatives did exactly the opposite. Writing in the Washington Times, Inside Politics columnist Greg Pierce ran an item predictably titled "Cheering the enemy" on March 18, which claimed that Kamiya "confirms what some Americans have only suspected: Liberals were cheering for the enemy in Iraq." He then quotes Kamiya out of context, stating that the Salon editor believes "[m]ore casualties would have been a preferred alternative to the 'larger moral negative' of a victory that boosted President Bush's chances for re-election."

Pierce's item was then picked up and amplified by NewsMax.com, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh and Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly, who also ignored and misrepresented Kamiya's larger argument to take cheap shots at his patriotism. This prompted Salon to try to bait O'Reilly into an online debate about the article, complete with a crack about "the wing nut fedayeen of the right."

Kamiya's critics have every right to criticize his provocative statements, but they should represent them accurately rather than misleading their audience with crudely drawn caricature. Similarly, TomPaine.com ought to be able to express disagreement with DeLay in terms other than an attack on his patriotism. Unfortunately, the last refuge of a scoundrel is all too often the first tactic to be used.

[Disclosure: Spinsanity articles ran on Salon from February-October 2002.]

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

4/29/2003 06:31:29 AM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS