Wash. Post article on McCain speech falsely suggested he received "three standing ovations" for Iraq war stance
In a March 15 article about the International Association of Fire Fighters' (IAFF) 2008 Presidential Forum, The Washington Post reported that "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who sought to sell the importance of continuing the fight in Iraq to a highly skeptical audience, got three standing ovations." But contrary to the article's suggestion, the applause McCain did receive from the audience was not in response to his arguments for continuing the war in Iraq. The IAFF's video of the speech indicates no audible applause for those comments. Indeed, in his March 15 "Washington Sketch" column, Washington Post staff writer Dana Milbank offered a detailed account of the chilly reception McCain received for his comments in support of continuing the war:
Then came McCain, and the mood changed. Right after an opening joke and the obligatory nod to the heroism of firefighters, the senator plunged into "the issue that is of greatest concern to all of us, the war in Iraq." For the next several minutes, the audience listened in stony silence.
Only McCain's pleas to honor the troops earned the crowd's approval. "Whether we believe their mission can succeed or is certain to fail, have the political courage to stand by our convictions and offer something more than doubts, criticism, or no-confidence votes to the national debate."
McCain allowed that his own contribution to the national debate could imperil his candidacy. "Presidents don't lose wars," he said, in the tone of a valedictory. "Political parties don't lose wars. Nations lose wars, my friends, and nations suffer the consequences -- and those consequences are far more serious than the loss of elections."
McCain finally moved on to the need for better equipment for firefighters. The applause, predictably, returned.
For about a 10-minute span, McCain discussed the Iraq war and why he said he supports increasing U.S. troop levels there. During the speech, widespread applause can be heard at the following times in the IAFF video of McCain's speech:
- 2:47 -- McCain walks on stage after being introduced
- 4:34 -- The end of, as Milbank put it, the "opening joke."
- 7:15 -- Saying he is "in the company of heroes," McCain says he is "grateful for the privilege" of addressing the forum.
- 14:45 -- "May God bless" U.S. troops in harm's way "and protect them."
- 15:19 -- Elected officials should have "the political courage to stand by [their] convictions and offer something more than doubts, criticism, or no-confidence votes to the national debate" on Iraq, because the troops "deserve more than that."
- 20:10 -- The federal government, and not the first-responders, are to blame for the communications system's failure on September 11, 2001.
- 21:47 -- The federal government needs to stop wasting money and instead needs to "put first the needs" of first-responders.
- 24:21 -- End of speech.
From the March 15 Washington Post article, headlined "Firefighters Gain Favored Spot With 2008 Hopefuls":
The firefighters gave Democratic candidates the most enthusiastic receptions. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) received several standing ovations -- but Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) got more.
Edwards brought enthusiastic cheers with his union-oriented agenda. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) started slowly but won several rounds of applause when he talked about ending the war and giving better treatment to returning veterans. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who sought to sell the importance of continuing the fight in Iraq to a highly skeptical audience, got three standing ovations.
This is really a stretch, and an example of one of the most nitpicking threads in a long time.
I am no supporter of McCains, but the article clearly states the Democrats received the most enthusiasm. And it also says McCain sought to sell Iraq to a highly speptical audience, then a "comma", "got three standing ovations". The article does not specifically say the ovations were a result of his good "sell" of Iraq. The "comma" clearly differentiates and seperates the two.
See if you can tell which of these sentences is laden with a political slant:
"John McCain, whose hair looked terrific, got three standing ovations."
"John McCain, who thinks Roe V. Wade ought to be overturned, got three standing ovations."
Comma or no, what is spliced in the middle DOES send a specific message to the reader, and DOES insinuate what the standing ovations were for.
Randy
Your examples do not indicate what was between the "commas" in this article - it says "who sought to sell the importance of continuing the fight in Iraq to a highly skeptical audience". That would certainly put doubt in the reader's mind of what prompted the standing ovations.
I agree, it could have been phrased more succintly.......but as I said, it's a nitpick nevertheless.
You beat me to it... nice examples. I guess if we read "Dick Cheney, who shot his friend in the face after mixing beer with his meds, got three standing ovations." we may think the audience was in jail. I'm certain Dick Cheney did get three standing ovations sometime in his life, but not during one speech.
Haha...though I read it to be the VP was applauded for shooting his friend. I'm reminded that Leno has also gotten some mileage out of headlines with similar unfortunate juxtaposition of events with ambiguous time-frames, e.g., "Man shot in head gets mad." (I really can't stand Leno otherwise - I miss Johnny.)
I agree, this is could be thought of as somewhat of a stretch. The article had only one sentence about McCain.
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who sought to sell the importance of continuing the fight in Iraq to a highly skeptical audience, got three standing ovations."
To me that reads that McCain sold his audience on the importance of continuing the war.
Other candidates appeared and spoke in favor of the war and were met with silence. From the one sentence about McCain's appearance, it implies that he was not met with silence.
It is a case of very sloppy reporting or editing by the Washington Post.
Worrier,
I see your point and definitely agree the reader could come to that conclusion. I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the article's author because of the entire article, perhaps. But you are right, it is sloppy sentence construction and should have been edited more clearly during proof-reading.
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
You guys are beyond belief.
The article clearly makes it sound like McCain got standing ovations because of his position on Iraq. And that's a lie.
Even worse, other witnesses noted that McCain didn't even get any "standing ovations" to begin with. So that's TWO lies.
There's no "nitpicking" here. Just media bias. McCain has always been the anointed choice of the corporate media, and article authors never have the final say in how a piece gets edited. And that's presuming they are blameless here.
I just wanted to explain that I was not giving the benefit of the doubt to the reporter and am in total agreement with you about this. The media is now selling St. John's appearance as if he converted his audience to his pro-war stance. It's obvious that those listening were not supporters of the war.
Technically, I believe you're correct, Tommy. However, even if unintentional, the suggestion is there. I wouldn't rake anyone over the coals for this, but I see no harm in a clarification.
I agree -- it's not so egregious as to ship poor old Dan Balz to a forced political rehabilitation camp, but it does appear reporter Dan Balz made the best of it for the Straight Talker. I think Balz is a pretty good reporter and gets it right most of the time, but he's not immune to perhaps his own biases. Put another way, he's not an out-and-out GOP whore like Adam Nagourney of the NY Times.
On a side note, is Giuliani a "spineless wuss" for not attending?
This article is reaching a bit.
Edwards brought enthusiastic cheers with his union-oriented agenda. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) started slowly but won several rounds of applause when he talked about ending the war and giving better treatment to returning veterans. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who sought to sell the importance of continuing the fight in Iraq to a highly skeptical audience, got three standing ovations.
With
When
Two words that distinctly explain why Edwards & Obama received their cheers/applause
Only a comma between McCain's message and a reaction, in this case 3 standing ovations.
Since the article does not specify what those 3 standing ovations were for, one could very easily assume by reading this article it was directed at his selling of the importance of continuing the fight in Iraq.
Good call MMFA.
You're right. You've also pointed out how the article was structured to be DELIBERATELY deceptive about McCain. Good work.
None of this is surprising. The MSM wants McCain to be president, and has so for a long time. He's the teflon candidate.
it is indeed a good call, and the fact that the "with" and "when" were included in the descriptions of the other candidates' receptions, while mccain's was described using commas, suggests that this was more than a matter of sloppy editing. come on, these guys are college educated--we must assume they took english composition classes.
Took them? Perhaps. Paid attention? Given the examples of atrocious grammar I've seen in major newspapers, I sometimes doubt it.