NY Times falsely suggested Lieberman isn't invited to fourth debate; in fact, he refused to participate
In an October 27 article, New York Times reporter Nicholas Confessore falsely suggested that Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont and Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger are meeting in a debate next week from which incumbent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who is running as the representative of his own party, was excluded. In fact, Lieberman was invited but has refused to appear at the debate -- despite reportedly "call[ing] for more debates" during the last one.
According to Confessore's Times article:
Though the Lamont and Schlesinger campaigns said this week that any explicit alliance would be wrong and impractical, advisers to each candidate suggested that the two could serve their separate purposes by agreeing to more appearances at debates and town hall gatherings, with or without Mr. Lieberman.
Next week, for instance, they will meet for a debate on a Fox-affiliated channel, without the senator.
"We recognize that Schlesinger is the candidate of the other major party in the state of Connecticut," said Tom Swan, Mr. Lamont's campaign manager. "For town halls, we would invite other candidates, we would invite Schlesinger, and our appearance wouldn't be dependent on Joe's."
The article did not include any indication that the reason next week's debate will occur "without the senator" is that Lieberman has refused to appear; indeed, the Times even omitted mention of the fact that Lieberman was invited, leaving the false impression that his exclusion from the debate is the result of a Lamont-Schlesinger agreement.
In fact, according to the Hartford Courant, Lieberman has refused to appear at the debate:
Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger, meanwhile, have accepted an invitation to a fourth debate Thursday, but Lieberman declined. His press secretary, Tammy Sun, said the campaign was sticking to the agreement to hold three debates.
It was unclear whether the debate at Quinnipiac University, which would be televised live by WTIC-TV, Channel 61, would go forward without Lieberman.
Earlier this week, the Courant reported:
Lieberman appeared to call for more debates as he bemoaned the negative tone of the campaign.
Lamont said he would prefer a debate in every congressional district over a continuation of campaigning by 30-second commercials.
Schlesinger, faced with his last evening of free television, happily accepted their invitation.
But after the debate, Lieberman said he believed that three probably were enough.
Once again, the MMFA headline misrepresents the article. How can you "falsely suggest" something if you don't mention it?
The analysis: The article did not include any indication that the reason next week's debate will occur "without the senator" is that Lieberman has refused to appear; indeed, the Times even omitted mention of the fact that Lieberman was invited, leaving the false impression that his exclusion from the debate is the result of a Lamont-Schlesinger agreement.
This is better. Take out the word "suggested" from the headline and insert the word "implied" and that would be more accurate.
As for Lieberman, he's sitting on his lead, he thinks he has it won and that's it.
Three paragraphs to peevishly critique how MM wrote a headline, but not a single word of criticism for the NY Times.
What's your point anyway? That Bruce is biased and, therefore, his argument is invalid? Nonsense.
Further to Bruce's point, I read "with or without" to suggest that Lieberman was invited. If Lieberman had not been invited, then why add the "with?" MMFA got this one completely wrong.
I will disagree with Bruce on one point. The Times didn't "imply" either. That's synonymous with "suggested." (Perhaps he was being facetious.)
FYI. I have made a similar argument before to MMFA, but MMFA prefers to use "suggests" in most instances. I am not quite sure about the difference, but it appears to be MMFA's preference.
I think the text of the article "suggests" or "implies"...either one...that Lieberman was not invited to this debate.
To use your own question, how can you "imply" something without mentioning it? It comes off the same way, does it not?
Dictionary.com for "suggest" - 4:to bring before a person's mind indirectly or without plain expression: I didn't tell him to leave, I only suggested it.
And for "imply" - 1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith.
Really, Bruce, you can do much better than this. Your point is simply a mystery here.
I will try to clear it up. When I read the headline by MMFA, it created an expectation of what the NYT article was going to say, specifically that the NYT article (somewhere in there) would "falsely suggest" that Lieberman was not invited to the fourth debate.
The article failed to meet my expectations in that regard, so it was my opinion that it was because of a poorly written (misleading, if you will) headline.
Because MMFA is all about the importance of language I didn't think they should get a pass on this one.
That's about it.
I think your expectations are clouding your judgment then. To "suggest" by omission is a perfectly valid, and common, use of the word.
I'm just not sure what you thought you were looking for. You admit the text "implies", but "suggest" is commonly meant as the same thing. It's the semantic difference I'm not getting here. You were expecting something more...explicit, or what? Then wouldn't it be "falsely stated"?
I was using the most common definition of "suggest" which in my mind means to specifically state or offer up an idea.
"I suggest we go to lunch now"
"What do you suggest?"
That made it a misleading headline to me. I see your side of it also.
Yes, Bruce lost me on the "imply" vs. "suggest." That aside, his original point seems to be correct. As I noted above, the key phrase to me was "with or without," which suggests to me that Lieberman was invited.
Could the Times article have been written clearer by explicitiy stating that Lieberman was invited? Yes. Perhaps the author a) thought it wasn't relevant to the topic or b) assumed the reader already had knowledge of the situation. I tend to disagree with the former and find the latter to be all too common a mistake in journalism.
"Though the Lamont and Schlesinger campaigns said this week that any explicit alliance would be wrong and impractical, advisers to each candidate suggested that the two could serve their separate purposes by agreeing to more appearances at debates and town hall gatherings, with or without Mr. Lieberman."
In context, it sounds like the absence of Lieberman is because of an agreement between Lamont and Schlesinger. It makes it sound like their choice whether he is there or not.
I can understand people reading it the way you do, but surely you can understand how many people will see it differently.
I agree the article could have been better written. I also agree it can be misread, as it has been. However, that's different than an intent to mislead, as MMFA asserts.
I agree that information is omitted in order to intentionally mislead, as is often the case with the Bush Administration. However, I cannot reach that conclusion with respect to the Times article, since the "with or without" suggests to me the exact opposite of what MMFA claimed.
I honestly think you're reading too much into "with or without" here. Just because it leaves open the option for him to be there says absolutely nothing about whose option it is. What's the alternative phrasing, just "without"? That would be outright lying. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground here - either it's obvious to you from the wording that he was invited, in which case the NYT is cleared of any "intent" to mislead, or the alternative phrasing would be flatly false. In other words, if they did want to mislead people in a more subtle manner, what other phrase could they possibly use?
Besides this, "omit" is the only thing in the article (as far as I see) that even suggests that MMfA is accusing the NYT of intentionally misleading people. Even that is questionable, as the word could mean left out by oversight. So the "assertion" that you claim on the part of MMfA is not very clear in the first place. Whether it is intentional or not, it's still misinformation, and MMfA still reports it.
You can't simply dismiss a part of the reported quote as unimportant when it's directly relevant to the accusation. "With" is inclusive. The quote, itself, would have been misleading if Lieberman had not been invited. For example, would it be misleading for me to state that "I'm going to lunch with or without you" if you weren't invited?
I agree that intent is not ultimately important. In fact, had the Times had omitted the "with or" then it could clearly be misleading. What I should have simply stated was that the MMFA's claim cannot stand when words on the page suggest the exact opposite, i.e., suggesting that Leiberman was invited. Omission of another relevant fact doesn't change the meaning of "with or without."
...and now I think I'll go listent to U2.
"You can't simply dismiss a part of the reported quote as unimportant when it's directly relevant to the accusation. "With" is inclusive."
I don't see where I'm dismissing anything, I'm putting it in context. And "Without" is exclusive. By the same logic, it could just as easily mean that they could choose to have him there or not. I see absolutely nothing to justify the definitive conclusion that they were trying to include him.
"What I should have simply stated was that the MMFA's claim cannot stand when words on the page suggest the exact opposite, i.e., suggesting that Leiberman was invited."
But your interpretation is subjective. Because you read that he was invited doesn't mean many others will. By itself, it simply does not suggest that he was invited. It suggests there was an option, and by no means is there any evidence that that option was Lieberman's. In fact, if you read Skiploader's post on this thread, it's even more obvious that the context suggests that it was not Lieberman's choice at all. It's just not clear enough in the least to constitute an "opposite" suggestion, as you assert.
In any event, the argument seems to be that because you read it a certain way (when other possibilities clearly exist, as you admit), it can't be misinformation. To say MMfA's claim "cannot stand" on those grounds is simply ludicrous. You admit that intent is unimportant, and that you see how it can be misread. Is your personal interpretation of the article really the only thing that disqualifies this as "misinformation", as far as the rest of the world is concerned?
When the Administration or others speak of invading, imposing sanctions against or taking action against the enemy de jour "with or without" UN support, do you really think they mean to suggest that the UN was *not* invited? Of course, not. In fact, the clear intent is to suggest to the American public that the UN was invited to participate, sanction, approve - whatever - no matter how rediculous that suggestion is.
Improved clarity may reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation. Thus my prior comments regarding clarity. However, misinterpretation by the reader does not equate to misinformation by the author.
You keep taking the phrase out of context. If you look at the phrase just by itself, you can reach your conclusion. You need to look at it in context, where the discussion about an alliance makes all the difference.
They're serving their separate purposes by agreeing to more debates, with or without Lieberman. The topic is what they are doing, and what they are agreeing to. The context suggests that the inclusion of Lieberman is dependent on what they decide serves their purposes. That's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, as you've admitted already.
Words are important, and that's why you should read all of them instead of the same four over and over.
"However, misinterpretation by the reader does not equate to misinformation by the author."
This could be framed and mounted on Karl Rove's wall. Of course it does. If the interpretation is fair, then it is misleading. It doesn't have to be intentional, and you've admitted how it can be misread. That's all the definition requires for it to be misinformation, and those standards have been met by your own admission. Whether you read it that way or not is irrelevant. A phrase which commonly suggests something regarding the U.N. does not mean people should read this the same way, obviously (international protocol = connecticut politics?). If other people can make a fair interpretation that leads to a false conclusion, then that's misleading information, therefore misinformation.
That's the crux of it, on which we disagree...and will apparently have to disagree. You see it as a fair interpretation and, therefore, the article is misinformation. I see it as a misinterpretation and, therefore, an inaccurate title by MMFA.
"I also agree it can be misread, as it has been."
If you understand how it can be misread, then you understand how it's reasonable to do so. You understand how people can see it that way.
If the interpretation wasn't "fair", then why would you think it could legitimately be done at all? If it's only people with poor comprehension who read it "unfairly", then why do you say it's "unclear" and "could have been better written"? For what purpose, to avoid unreasonable misinterpretation?
I do agree that there probably was no malicious intent in the Times story, but it was inept of them to leave such a cloud of uncertainty around such a crucial point.
"Suggest" also means to cause one to think something.
So, yes, you can falsely cause one to think something.
then wouldn't that also SUGGEST that MMFA is FALSELY SUGGESTING that the NYTimes is FALSELY SUGGESTING? Why not do something innovative, and ask them if thats what they mean? Rather than follow them down the same slippery slope? I have to go with the first comment, and say they are grasping at straws on this one. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty ... and the articles doesn't suggest anything .. the error is in interpretation. There are bigger fish to fry here ... Must be a slow news day.
MMFA ... I just ask you to be more careful ... and keep up the mostly good work, and avoid headlines like this one, which say NOTHING but IMPLY everything.
"Why not do something innovative, and ask them if thats what they mean? Rather than follow them down the same slippery slope? I have to go with the first comment, and say they are grasping at straws on this one. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty ... and the articles doesn't suggest anything .. the error is in interpretation." --temphandle bourbon41indiscreet
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You seem to miss the point of MMFA. Because that portion of the article was sloppily written enough that it could easily be misinterpreted by readers, MMFA has written an article to clarify the FACTS of the matter.
Who cares what the Times really meant, the Times article was simply unclear. It should have been precise enough to not be easily misinterpreted by readers. MMFA is absolutely right in pointing that out and I don't see how you can find fault with MMFA for doing just that.
I agree with that. However, I believe the original point is that the MMFA heading is incorrect. As already noted, the inclusion of the quote suggests the Leiberman was invited. These headings would have been fair:
"Times article fails to state that Leiberman was invited."
"Times article suggests Lieberman was invited, but failed to explicity state this was the case."
I'd even accept, "Times article was unclear as to whether Lieberman was invited." However, stating that the Times article suggested Lieberman wasn't invited is simply wrong.
You are right. The title is misleading. Other than that, I have no problem with MMFA clarifying the crux of the matter.
As I stated above, it is beside the point what the Times was "suggesting" or "not suggesting". "Intent" should not be part of any of it. The misinformation -- which in this case was the lack of clarity -- should be the focus of the title, which you have offered excellent suggestions. MMFA occasionally takes suggestions from posters. I hope they take your constructive and helpful advice.
I have no problem with MMFA reporting on whatever they want, including items which are not "misinformation." Some of it - including this one - I find interesting, title notwithstanding. However, I'm of the opinion that accuracy matters to MMFA as it does to me. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.
As you can see from the NY Times report, and even more clearly by the Hartford Courant's report of, "Schlesinger, faced with his last evening of free television, happily accepted their invitation. But after the debate, Lieberman said he believed that three probably were enough.", that the main steam media cannot be relied upon to accurately report the facts. Whether intentional or not, they always seem to put their own "spin" on things.
My husband and I were fortunate enough to attend the third debate, and what actually happened was that during the debate, Alan Schlesinger asked if the other two candidates would be willing to engage in a fourth debate.
Ned Lamont responded that he would prefer going around the state and having discussions rather than relying on 30-second commercials. So he then agreed to the fourth debate.
When called upon for his anser, Joe Lieberman half-heartedly agreed to paraticipate as well, to which Alan Schlesinger expressed his happy amazement.
Following the debate, and after most of the audience had left the theater, my husband and I stayed behind to observe what would happen next. As a result, we were there to see Joe Lieberman put a hand over his mic and proceed to get into Ned Lamont's face and curse him out.
If Joe Lieberman did decline to participate in a fourth debate, it would have to have been after that, when there was no audience to be a witness.
How the heck is the Times or ANYONE (paging Russ Feingold and John McCain) going to go back to the campaign finance reform prattle after ignoring Lieberman's almost $400,000 slush fund?
And its going to turn out to be far more than $400,000. My bet is it'll be close to a million because the $400,000 is just the stuff that says "stipend volunteers." Lieberman has lots of other disbursements that just show someone having gotten large amounts of money for "food, gas, mileage." One that sticks in my mind is someone named "Vonda" who got $1300. Unless there are receipts, thats really more "petty cash."
If he cursed off Ned Lamont, as you say. Doesn't look like he's being the Orthodox Jew that he loves to advertise himself as.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
the MMFA article suggests or the article excerpt that MMFA posted suggests.
Here are the two preceding paragraphs in the Times article:
"But in what amounts to a tacit alliance of sorts, Mr. Lamont has begun subtly promoting a third candidate in the race, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, in the hope that he may take crucial votes away from Mr. Lieberman. So far, polls indicate that a majority of Republicans appear to prefer Mr. Lieberman, who is running as an independent.
Mr. Lieberman is ahead in those polls, while Mr. Schlesinger is receiving support from fewer than 10 percent of the likely voters."
The article presents no evidence of how Lamont is "subtly promoting" Schlesinger. It outright says that they have a "tacit (def: understood and unspoken) alliance."
Then it says that both Lamont and Schlesinger have said that an "explicit alliance would be wrong and impractical." This leaves open the possibility that the two candidates are open to a secret alliance.
THE AUTHOR'S THESIS OF THE ARTICLE IS THAT HE THINKS THAT THERE IS A SECRET ALLIANCE BETWEEN LAMONT AND SCHLESINGER.
The first pieces of evidence to support this thesis is that Lamont and Schlesinger would have more debates whether "with or without Mr. Lieberman" and that the next debate will be "without the senator."
How can having a debate without Lieberman be evidence of an alliance? It is only if one believes that Lieberman was not invited.
Joe was invited...Joe wasn't invited...the NYT implied...the NYT didn't imply...the NYT suggested...the NYT didn't suggest.
This illicits a yawn and another big so what...
Joe has dusted Lamont and the jig is up for Lamont and his band of far left supporters.
And his six years as a Senator will be starting soon.
I tend to agree with you, I am from CT and am voting for Lieberman. Lamont is not someone I can support . I did not like his negative campaign and I know on all the issues especially a womens right to choose is what I want in a candidate.
He may support this dumb war but there are so many other issues , we can have a big umbrella and agree and disagree on some issues.
[link to www.ontheissues.org]
[link to ctbob.blogspot.com]
If this is really your key issue, your decision is puzzling, to say the least.
Not really, Liebermans record is outstanding on choice.
[link to www.ontheissues.org]
I never said it wasn't, but where is Lamont lacking in that department?
And how do you address Lieberman's "short ride" comments?
Right now it looks like you're choosing between two used cars, one in excellent condition and the other beat-up, and choosing the beat-up one because it has a sunroof and you just love sunroofs. Except the nicer car has a sunroof too. See what I'm saying?
Candidate A supports the Iraq war and is pro-choice. Candidate B opposes the Iraq war and is pro-choice. Do you prefer A or B?
Of course, A is Lieberman and B is Lamont. I believe Brabantio is concerned that perhaps you're not fully aware of Lamont's position on the issues. If not, please take the time to review [link to nedlamont.com]
"At this critical time in the Middle East, I believe that when Israel’s security is threatened, the United States must unambiguously stand with our ally to be sure that it is safe and secure. On this principle, Americans are united."
So Lamont supports continued US support of the Israeli war crimes. Great.
Thanks for ruining my evening. ;)
What does abortion matter when our military is killing children in far off lands and your tax dollars are being used to fund torture cells in Iraq and Israel? Abortion is a side issue, the mass murder and war crimes are Issue One.
Lieberman is a murderer, a bomber of women and children, a supporter of torture. How can you vote for that man?
Help elect some real liberals..and if they don't win and whichever lying crook from the other two parties gets that Senate seat and votes to kill children in foreign lands, you can say it's not your fault.
to be succint and understandable. They are supposed to be printing news, not gossip, innuendo or suggestions or implications. If it was confusing to people here, it was obviously written poorly at best or trying to be misleading at worst. Either way, the NYT is supposed to be better than this. It seems lately they either have a lot of green reporters, are getting lazy, too comfortable, or just incompetent. Just suggesting (sic).