When criticizing the use of "selective facts," The Note should have some facts of its own
SUMMARY: ABCNews.com's The Note criticized New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for using "selective facts" to say that John McCain "is not a maverick, a moderate, nor a straight talker." However, The Note offered no facts to counter Krugman's argument.
The March 13 edition of ABCNews.com's The Note attacked New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's column (subscription required) of the same day, claiming simply: "Paul Krugman writes with selective facts that [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ] is not a maverick, a moderate, nor a straight talker." The Note offered no facts to rebut Krugman's "selective facts."
ABCNews.com describes The Note as "a morning news summary that will tell you what you need to know about politics at that critical moment in the news cycle."
In his March 13 Times column, Krugman wrote of McCain: "He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be." Here are some of the examples Krugman offered:
- McCain's recent vote to extend President Bush's 2003 tax cuts on dividends and capital gains after years of opposing them
- The "rogue state rollback" policy McCain offered during his 2000 presidential campaign, which Krugman argued "anticipat[ed] the 'Bush doctrine' of pre-emptive war unveiled two years later
- McCain's hawkish stance on the Iraq war
- McCain's spokesman's recent statement that McCain "would have signed" a South Dakota law banning all abortions except when the life of the woman is threatened. The spokesman explained that McCain "would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included." As Krugman noted: "But that attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest."
The Note labeled these examples "selective facts": McCain's changing position on the central facet of the Bush administration's economic policy; the foreign policy initiatives he espoused during his last presidential bid; his stance on the defining foreign policy issue of this administration; and his muddled stance on one of the most divisive social issues of the past 40 years. But The Note offered no counter-examples to rebut Krugman's argument that McCain "is not a maverick, a moderate, nor a straight talker."
Rather than "selective facts," some might consider Krugman's examples "salient" -- The Wall Street Journal editorial page, for one. No one's source for "liberal" commentary, the Journal noted on February 18: "And speaking of that election, the most intriguing vote on behalf of the tax cut this week was cast by Arizona's John McCain. He and two other Republicans opposed these same tax-rate cuts in 2003 on grounds that they added to the budget deficit. His opposition meant that Vice President Dick Cheney had to break a 50-50 tie to pass the lower rates. ... Our guess is that Mr. McCain may also be looking ahead to the 2008 GOP Presidential primaries, which won't be kind to candidates who've voted for tax increases."
While The Note complained about Krugman's use of "selective facts" to contest the notion that McCain is a straight-talking maverick, it has demonstrated no similar concern about the use of selective facts to promote that notion.
The Note did not criticize ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos when he asked McCain "[t]wo straight talk questions right at the top" of the February 6, 2005, edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Nor did The Note challenge Stephanopoulos when he introduced McCain as "the maverick Senator with his eye on the White House" on the May 15, 2005, edition of This Week. The Note itself had no problem quoting Los Angeles Times columnist Ronald Brownstein on April 25, 2005, describing the hypothetical pairing of McCain and former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE) as the "all-maverick independent ticket" for the 2008 presidential campaign. Nor did it take issue with Brownstein's statement on January 17, 2005: "Until recently, complaints about the Pentagon's personnel strategy came from Democrats and a few maverick Republicans such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona." It appears that The Note has a problem with "selective facts" only when it disagrees with the conclusion.
Yes, ABC in its role as part of the MSM, keeps the conservative home fires stoked.
BUT!! OFF-TOPIC (since there's really little to say on the subject):
WHEN IS MMFA GOING TO INCLUDE NPR's "ALL THINGS CONSIDERED" ON THE SITE.
THOSE GUYS ARE MSM, TOO, AND IT SHOWS.
I've heard (and tipped MMFA to) several instances of conservative misinformation and/or talking points masquerading as news on NPR. Not a single one of them has ever been posted.
...they have done several NPR items - type "NPR" in the search engine.
But, yes, the notion that NPR is "liberal" is absolutely laughable to anyone who's ever bothered to really listen to it. MMFA should do more on them.
Of course, so much right-wing spin, so little time...
While I don't know what instances you've heard on NPR of unchallenged wingnut tripe, I tend to write those off as lazy reporting/producting than an intentional right slant. NPR's story ideas and concepts are consistently progressive, bringing a side to the news that you don't hear anywhere else. So when I hear those wingnut points left alone, I give the benefit of the doubt. Now, that's not to say they don't need to be challenged, but I would never, ever pile NPR in the dung heap of media that MMFA usually skewers.
...he's the MSM's as well.
His columns prove time and time again that most of the DC punditocracy has no idea what it is talking about.
He was, for example, one of the few national opinion writers who pointed out in 2000 that Bush's proposed budget made no sense.
Did any of the "cool kids" care? No, they talked instead about Gore's suits, "inventing the internet," and Bush's "authenticity." Like any of that mattered.
The fact is that most of the political opinion makers in this country - including several who have bylines right next to Krugman's in the NY Times (Dowd, Teirney, Brooks) - have neither the intellectual capacity, nor the training and experience, nor the writing ability to talk policy like Krugman can.
So they continue to publish vacuous tripe, turning politics into a horse race and presenting all policy debates as "he said-he said," as if all sides - even those of liars and frauds - were making valid points.
The biggest offender? Hard to say, but my money's on Chris Matthews, a man who has proved time and time again that the most basic facts and simplest ideas are beyond his grasp. Tim Russert's up there too, as he proved during the Social Security debate.
It's not that they're especially conservative: it's that they're intellectually lazy.
No wonder they like W so much...
but the fact is he is nowhere near a moderate. he's supported all the judges, almost all the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, and he is in lockstep on iraq. the comments on the south dakota abortion law just prove the point. he and the other five or six so-called moderates mouth all the appropriate concerns and words of caution, but when it comes down to it, he would sign the law. if the south dakota legislature wanted those exceptions in there, they would have been. and all you people who insisted that the gop wouldn't really outlaw abortion, you were wrong. any chance this is all a coincidence just after alito and roberts?
There is no link to the NY Times either. In fairness I have seen headlines from them, but no instant link. Could they be shielding NPR and NYT?
...but maybe because they are a damn pay site now?
Is in the "Times Select" section, so yeah - like Jpark says, you gotta pay to read him..
when did sen. mccain become a "maverick", and why wasn't i told about this? geez, you don't show up for a couple of days, and everything goes right by you!
sen. mccain may play a "maverick" sen. on tv, but certainly not in real life, not since bush was "elected" in 2000. he has consistently marched to the administration's drumbeat, with rare exception: codified limits on torture being among the few.
he may have parted ways with some in the GOP at some point in his senate career, but not within recent memory, and that's all that really matters.
Elllington ,right!If only I could access KRUGMAN's columns.We need his insight , not so much horse race. I'm glad I know more about McCain.We've had enough economic mismanagement.I thought he knew better, but he would give into the plutocrats.Managed capitalism is what we need, not Spencer-Randism.