Wash. Times and others repeated Morris' Obama falsehood despite Morris' acknowledgment of error
In his January 17 column for The Hill, headlined "Obama's First Blunder," Fox News analyst Dick Morris falsely attacked presumptive presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for voting against "a Senate reform banning the increasingly widespread practice of legislators hiring their family members on their campaign or PAC [political action committee] payrolls." As Media Matters for America noted, Obama actually voted against a motion to table, or kill, the amendment. In a January 17 entry on The Hill's Pundits Blog, Morris acknowledged that he had been wrong, retracted his allegations against Obama, and apologized to the senator for his "mistaken reading of the record." Nevertheless, several media outlets republished Morris' column or cited it as fact, including The Washington Times and the Statesman Journal of Salem, Oregon, which quoted and republished Morris' column on January 18 -- the day after Morris retracted the column.
In addition to the Times and the Journal, on January 17, Morris' column was cited or republished by:
- U.S. News & World Report's online "Political Bulletin"
- The conservative news website NewsMax.com
- Right-wing pundit David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com
- The right-wing website Human Events Online
- The conservative website Family Security Matters
As of this posting, The Hill has not published a correction, and though the column still appears on the paper's website, it is not listed among Morris' columns. As of this writing, none of the other media outlets listed above has acknowledged Morris' retraction, either.
In his January 18 Media Notes column, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz noted that "Morris was flat-out wrong" about Obama, and that Morris had made this false allegation on the January 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. Kurtz quoted a spokesman for Obama saying: "Dick obviously took a ready-fire-aim approach when he wrote this column. Hopefully next time he'll check his facts before criticizing a politician for a position he didn't take."
It is endless work tracking these echoes of misinformation.
when the only purpose of the MSM is to feed their right-wing sheeple lies, propaganda, and hate? The right-wing MSM would rather be wrong than give support to anyone on the left.
A lie goes around the entire internet(s) before the truth even gets a hyperlink.
True to form, the minions in The Rovian Ministry of Propaganda act as the ether for such stink.
Kinda like how a really noxious fart, in a sympathetic environment, gets disseminated and lingers forever.
In typical FOX News fashion, he apologizes and at the same time throws other Dems under the bus. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morris: I want to retract the allegations in my column yesterday that criticized Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for voting against a bill to prohibit campaign committees and PACs from paying spouses and relatives. In fact, he voted against tabling the bill.
I sincerely apologize to the senator for my mistaken reading of the record and want to commend him for his correct vote on the issue, unlike the majority of his fellow Democrats, including likely presidential candidates Sens. Joseph Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the other hand, if Morris thinks Obama's vote was "correct", then was the vote REALLY correct (would liberals think so?????)
Generally, no. Most liberals I know view issues more critically than that.
Yes Morris is a Fox News analyst but why isnt he also identified as former Advisor to President Clinton? And why does a man who was on the Clinton payroll hate the Clintons so much? And why did Bill Clinton hire this douche bag?
He hates the Clintons becuase he got caught with his hand in another cookie jar (not his wife's) before Bill and he could not handle it.
Had better get ready for an entire column dedicated to all the lies, distortions and smears from the media that will surely come out associated with Sen. Obama.
At least I hope they do.
One for Sen Clinton also would be interesting as well seeing as they are the "presumptive" front runners.
...the media will harp endlessly on the ONE thing they think they have on Obama: his past drug use.
Never mind the fact that it was ages ago, he admitted it, and there's absolutely nothing to suggest he currently has a drug problem.
We will hear about it over...and over...and over...
And over...
And simply refuse to talk about it.
I'm sure the media would show Obama the same respect that they showed The Unitard and just let it go, and never talk about it again.
Yeah, and it's always sunny on that planet, too. ;-)
I predicted that this would happen. But, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this coming; they've been doing it for years. I hope MMFA stays on top of this stuff, so we don't see a repeat of 2000 and 2004. Gore and Kerry didn't respond forcefully enough to the mountain of lies heaped upon them, and now look where we are. Maybe Obama, or whoever the Dem candidate is, will be smarter this time.
Colonel Mustard, why is it that I am just as sure that you killed her with the candlestick in the dining room as I am that you had sex with a dog when you were twelve! Wasn't that on the news?"
Objection!
Sorry. Your honor, I withdraw the question."
Judge: "The jury will disregard that statement."
Juror in deliberations: "He must have done the murder if the newspapers said that sick b**tard raped that collie!"
that's unethical for the lawyer to knowingly present something to the jury that is blatantly inadmissible, because there is no relaistic way to undo the damage short of a mistrial (starting over). In my state, lawyers get disciplined regularly for doing unethical stuff...sufficiently regularly to lament the number. Journalists have ethical standards too...but the enforcement of them is up to the publishers, and apparently there is no enforcement process present among them. Thank God for MMFA!
Besides getting Obama's voting record wrong, Morris made the unsubstantiated (and now proven false) allegation that Obama voted against the legislation because he didn't want to alienate Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.
In Morris' column, as MMFA quotes, Morris says Obama's vote (the one he didn't make) "MAY (my emphasis) have been cast in sympathy with Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr."
When Morris appeared on Hannity & Colmes the night of Jan. 16, he had lost his doubt and described that as THE reason for Obama's "vote."
[link to www.newshounds.us]
I were anything like Michelle Malkin (and I thank my personal God I am not) I could use this as an example of how a proven misstatement by Dick Morris and its subsequent regurgitation across the spectrum of right wing misinformation outlets discredits 100% of the stories and coverage that they produce. Obviously a claim of Malkinesque proportions is ridiculous-- I'd say about 75% is a more accurate estimate.
I'm a columnist and I always double and triple check any statements of fact that I put forth. As a journalist, it's always embarrassing when readers know more than you do.
Perhaps his toes were being nibbled and he was distracted.
Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I'm going to have to plead ignorance on this one.
serialized Zell Miller's smear book on the Democratic Party and John Kerry on the front page, above the fold. That's really all you need to know about the integrity of this "newspaper."
Oh, and it's main cartoonist is a guy whose idea of biting political satire is to add a bra hanging out of his pockets whenever he draws a picture of Bill Clinton.
Enough said.