About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Philadelphia Inquirer corrected online and print editions of Casey-Santorum article but didnt explain how correct quote shows Santorum is "quick on his feet"

September 13, 2006 5:40 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

22 Comments

On September 13, The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a print correction and appended a correction to the online version of an article that falsely attributed a recent comment by Pennsylvania U.S. Senate candidate Bob Casey Jr. (D) to incumbent Sen. Rick Santorum (R). As Media Matters for America documented, a September 11 article by Inquirer staff writers Thomas Fitzgerald and Carrie Budoff -- offering purported evidence that Santorum is "quick on his feet" -- purported to quote Santorum asking Casey during a September 3 debate on NBC's Meet the Press: "I just gave you a plan [to fight terrorism]. Where's yours?" In fact, Casey spoke those words, in response to Santorum's assertion that "my opponent has no plan." The correction noted that the Inquirer "incorrectly attributed" Casey's quote to Santorum but gave no indication of whether the writers stand by their assessment expressed in the article of Santorum as "quick on his feet," given that he didn't say what they originally asserted -- in support of that assessment -- he had said.

From the correction:

In Monday's story on the U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania, a quotation was incorrectly attributed to Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.). It was Bob Casey Jr. -- not Santorum -- who said: "I just gave a plan. Where's yours?" Casey made his remarks during a debate Sept. 3. He was responding to Santorum's statement: "My opponent has no plan."

The original online version accurately quoted Santorum but provided no correction or indication that the original story misattributed the quote. The original print version of the article with the misattributed quote is still available without correction on the Nexis database.

Philadelphia Inquirer print story falsely attributed Casey quote to Santorum; online version switched quote, but didn't identify correction

In a September 11 article in The Philadelphia Inquirer, staff writers Thomas Fitzgerald and Carrie Budoff falsely attributed a recent comment by Pennsylvania Senate candidate Bob Casey Jr. (D) to incumbent Sen. Rick Santorum (R), erroneously citing the comment as evidence that Santorum is "quick on his feet." Fitzgerald and Budoff wrote that during a September 3 debate on NBC's Meet the Press, "Santorum turned from calm to aggressive." As evidence of Santorum's "quick[ness] on his feet," the article purported to quote Santorum asking Casey during the debate: "I just gave you a plan [to fight terrorism]. Where's yours?" In fact, Casey spoke those words, in response to Santorum's assertion that "my opponent has no plan."

The online version of the Inquirer article included the correct quote from Santorum, but provided no correction or indication that the original story misattributed the quote. The print edition of the Inquirer has also not yet issued a correction to the story, and the unaltered version with the misattributed quote and no correction remains in the Nexis database.

From Casey's exchange with Santorum, on the September 3 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

CASEY: Well, I don't -- that's not the, that's not the, the objective here. The objective here is to make sure we're doing everything possible to give the American people the information they need and to protect our troops. And I think it's an abomination, Tim, when you have people like Rick Santorum, who have rubber-stamped this administration 98 percent of the time, did not call for or insist upon the best body armor when those troops needed it.

And I think when you point to the 9-11 question on Saddam Hussein, and you point to this crazy theory that there's still weapons of mass destruction, Tim, I think you've unearthed something. You've unearthed the 2 percent of the time that Rick Santorum disagrees with President Bush, and I think that's new information for this campaign.

Let me, let me just have a moment on, on Iran. Rick, you just talked about, and you've heard him a lot talking about Iran. You've heard him a lot talking about the terminology of, of the war on terror. He calls it Islamic fascism and, and he, and he talks about the terminology and changing the terms. What we need, Rick, is not a change in the terminology, we need to change the tactics. And we've got to make sure that even as you're debating whether or not we call Osama bin Laden a terrorist or a fascist, I don't think that really matters. We need a plan. You're in the Senate, you have votes, you should be leading that effort. And I, I think after it's over, after you get the terminology right, maybe you can have a seminar in Washington about whether bin Laden, whom we should be finding and killing, whether he's a dead terrorist or a dead fascist. And I think you should worry more about finding him and killing him.

SANTORUM: My, my opponent has, my opponent has, my opponent has no plan. The idea -- all he's suggested is his plan is Special --

CASEY: I just gave a plan. Where's yours?

SANTORUM: All you, all you suggested with your plan is more Special Forces.

CASEY: No, it's not. That's not, that's not all it is.

SANTORUM: Do you, do you support, do you support more intelligence-gathering because your party has been out there --

CASEY: Absolutely.

From the original September 11 Philadelphia Inquirer article:

Quick on his feet

Santorum's staff says he has never had a speech coach, and it is apparent that he's quick on his feet.

On the campaign trail, Santorum, like an actor, knows when to lower his voice or raise it. He can infuse a discussion of Medicare Part D benefits with drama.

But the debate reflected the inherent tension in Santorum's style -- restrained at times, glib at others. His approach can be unpredictable, lending in no small part to his deficit in the polls.

About 15 minutes into the debate, Santorum turned from calm to aggressive, prompted by what he saw as his opponent's vagueness on Iraq.

"I just gave a plan. Where's yours?" Santorum asked.

Casey presented several steps that he believes should be taken -- more "accountability" of the Bush administration, fire Rumsfeld, double the number of Special Forces -- but Santorum belittled them as Democratic talking points.

A few minutes later, Santorum took a risk, invoking Casey's father while explaining his opposition to making emergency contraception available without a prescription. Casey supports the increased availability.

"I think his father, if he were alive today, would be very upset," Santorum said.

Casey didn't respond to it, in what analysts called a missed opportunity to stand up to Santorum.

But in the end, many say, their style differences might not matter so much. Larger forces are at work this year, such as Bush's dismal approval ratings and Santorum's close association with him.

"He has to make the campaign a referendum on Santorum -- that's it," Democratic media consultant Neil Oxman said.

From the altered article posted on philly.com, the Inquirer's website:

Quick on his feet

Santorum's staff says he has never had a speech coach, and it is apparent that he's quick on his feet.

On the campaign trail, Santorum, like an actor, knows when to lower his voice or raise it. He can infuse a discussion of Medicare Part D benefits with drama.

But the debate reflected the inherent tension in Santorum's style -- restrained at times, glib at others. His approach can be unpredictable, lending in no small part to his deficit in the polls.

About 15 minutes into the debate, Santorum turned from calm to aggressive, prompted by what he saw as his opponent's vagueness on Iraq.

"My opponent has no plan," Santorum said.

Casey earlier presented several steps that he believes should be taken -- more "accountability" of the Bush administration, fire Rumsfeld, double the number of Special Forces -- but Santorum belittled them as Democratic talking points.

A few minutes later, Santorum took a risk, invoking Casey's father while explaining his opposition to making emergency contraception available without a prescription. Casey supports the increased availability.

"I think his father, if he were alive today, would be very upset," Santorum said.

Casey didn't respond to it, in what analysts called a missed opportunity to stand up to Santorum.

But in the end, many say, their style differences might not matter so much. Larger forces are at work this year, such as Bush's dismal approval ratings and Santorum's close association with him.

"He has to make the campaign a referendum on Santorum -- that's it," Democratic media consultant Neil Oxman said.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (September 12, 2006 2:04 pm ET)
         

      Maybe it was actually a docudrama and, of course, creative license should be granted.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mr. l (September 12, 2006 2:23 pm ET)
         

      Besides the paper's lazy reporting and editing, all have to say is....WARNING <> PENNSYLVANIA, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS PURE ANG GOOD FOR ALL CITIZENS, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE VOTE SANTORUM OUT OF OFFICE!! Thank you, from a former 'yinzer...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (September 12, 2006 2:31 pm ET)
           

        You are breaking Sean Hanitty's heart with comments like that.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by rusty shackleford (September 12, 2006 3:15 pm ET)
           

        But if Santorum is defeated, the U.S. will be overrun by man-on-dog sex. Can we take that chance?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by voodoochild (September 12, 2006 2:32 pm ET)
         

      Since the MSM has been taught by the right wingnuts that Democrats never have a plan. The MSM hearing a Dem like Casey has a plan. That doesn't make sense to them, and attribute to the closest Repub.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (September 12, 2006 4:15 pm ET)
           

        Dick Cheney said the following about Iraq on Meet The Press: "If we had it to do over again, we’d do exactly the same thing.".

        That's the ONLY reason anybody should need to vote these weasels out of office.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (September 12, 2006 4:12 pm ET)
         

      just moved his lips while Santorum was talking,then the Meet the Press CGI Pinkos superimposed a closed mouth onto Santorum's face.

      The only other reasonable explanation would be that every conservative isn't a quick-witted, manly man who embodies everything good and pure in the universe, and every liberal isn't a spineless wuss with no ideas.

      And I watch way too much TV to fall for that.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by joanl (September 12, 2006 4:15 pm ET)
         

      Is one of the biggest phonies in the Senate. Especially when he goes on Imus and talks about autism. Santorum could care less about children he is a disgrace.

      I am not familar with the Philadelphia Inquier but they probably have a vested interest in seeing this lowlife be reelected.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Con Man (September 12, 2006 4:49 pm ET)
           

        Yes, Santorum could care less about children because he cares about them a lot right now. But his notion of children also includes the unborn and the autistic.

        Normally I wouldn't even bother, but saying something like this is so disingenuous I can't just let it stand. Do you even know anything about Santorum and his family? Saying he doesn't care about children is like saying Bill Clinton doesn't care about black people. Neither is true.

        It's these ad hominem attacks that are driving the political discourse down the drains. Lets all act like logical, reasoned people who engage in logical, reasoned debate.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (September 12, 2006 5:04 pm ET)
             

          I'll act like a logical, reasonable person and I'll engage in logical, reasoned debate. I just wish that Santorum was logical and reasonable. He has shown many times that he is the least logical and one of the most unreasonable people to have ever served in the senate. He lets his religion do his thinking and that is a danger to his constituents. I'm trying to be nice.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Con Man (September 12, 2006 5:31 pm ET)
               

            As to the "danger to his constituents" thing... who do you think elected (and re-elected) him? ;-)

            And perhaps he doesn't let his religion think for him, but rather, he just happens to think the same as his religion. (That is why people stay in their religion... they believe what is preached/taught/practiced) He's Catholic, right? Well perhaps he just happens to believe what Catholics believe... surely you're not saying he's not allowed. ;-)

            You might not like what Catholics believe, but I'm going to assume you don't want to force them out of their beliefs. Therefore, he thinks what he's doing is right, and since he was re-elected, his constituents must have thought the same. I suppose we'll see if they still do.

            Apparantly Ed Rendell (Governor, Democrat) thinks he's doing a good job: "Rick Santorum has proven that he gets the job done. Time and time again he has come through...When it comes to Pennsylvania, Santorum delivers."

            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (September 12, 2006 6:07 pm ET)
                 

              And no, I have nothing against Catholics, I'm one myself, at least I was raised a Catholic. Santorum's opponent Bob Casey Jr. is also a Catholic.

              My problem with Santorum is that since his last re-election he has gone off the deep end with his stand on the Schiavo tragedy, his comments about how our giving equal rights to gays will lead to man on dog sex and his stand against science and for "Intelligent Design". These have nothing to do with the Catholic Church doctrine, but plenty to do with Santorum's personal beliefs and his courtship of the fundamentalists on the religious right.

              If he had been logical and offered a reasoned explanation for his stance, I could understand, but he didn't. He was pandering to his base which has nothing to do with the Catholic Church..

              Report Abuse
    • Author by solon (September 12, 2006 5:20 pm ET)
         

      Easy enough to transpose what happened in your notes. However when you MAKE the correction you aknowledge the mistake.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Con Man (September 12, 2006 5:32 pm ET)
           

        NOT having a correction is a total lack of journalistic standards. We HAVE to admit if we make a simple mistake. Out.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by redking75687 (September 12, 2006 7:29 pm ET)
         

      Double the special forces? Is that it? No "change the realtionship with Israel"? No "remove troops from Iraq and the Persian Gulf"? Just "more troops"...great plan, Casey. Same plan LBJ used in Vietnam. Didn't work, either.

      Also, please note, no minor party Senatorial candidates included in debate. That's because Casey's people are actively trying to smash any Green candidacies in our state. Casey is also a conservative...pro-corporate, anti-abortion, pro-Israel. This Pennsylvanian won't be voting for either of the bastards....look at them, they could be brothers.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (September 13, 2006 11:54 pm ET)
         

      you sly devil. Why not let all on this post what really happened with the GREEN party? I dare you. Illegal signatures gathered by a Republican paid-for group out of the South who did this garbage before. If I am wrong, let me know. Little Dick will probably not know anything about that, will he? Please inform the masses about his "home" in Penn Hills, Pa. which he maintains to keep his residency in Pa. For God's sake, the guy doesn't even live here. He claims he wants to be near his family so they now reside in Virginia...but the people of Penn Hills pay the cyber-school bill. Is this not true? What Dick doesn't understand is that all parents want that to happen. He may be a baptised Catholic but is so far from Catholic views that the Pope would not understand him. The campaign is getting ugly because he is losing. Too bad the whole country doesn't see how he is using his own kids in a political ad. He is a dirty campaigner and will do anything to win. He has always referred to Mr Casey as "BOBBY" as ploy but Casey is too smart to fall for it. Rick is really Dick but when you call him Dick, his sheep go nuts and call it an insult. He will lose and we from Pa. will allow him to stay in Virginia so he can continue his work with the K Street mob. Adios, Dick

      Report Abuse
      • Author by redking75687 (September 14, 2006 1:12 am ET)
           

        That group that was hired only fielded one bad signature gatherer in Philadelphia. Romanelli had to hire them to make the outrageous 65,000 signatures that Harrisburg demands. He got 100,000. All those signatures are passing thru a committee of Greens and Dems in a room in Harrisburg all this month and so far they're validating almost all of them. Dems are left with going after technicalities, people leaving out middle initials kind of stuff.

        Casey is pro-war and anti-abortion, Santorum is pro-war and anti-abortion. Both will vote to kill people, impose theocratic rule upon us and impoverish us and our children. I love my family and Pennsylvania too much to even dare think of voting for them, I find the idea completely abhorrent.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (September 14, 2006 1:08 pm ET)
         

      Santorum said "I just gave a plan. Where's yours?" Therefore he's quick on his feet.

      -- OR --

      Santorum said "My opponent has no plan." Therefore he's quick on his feet.

      How about:

      Santorum said "werieajlkutialeksjlkef." Therefore he's quick on his feet.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • The Philadelphia Inquirer
    Philadelphia Inquirer

    The Philadelphia Inquirer
    P.O. Box 8263
    Philadelphia, Pa. 19101
    Phone: 215-854-2000

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace