About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Kurtz faulted media for depicting Gore as "exaggerator" but omitted his own role

May 23, 2007 6:55 pm ET
image

15 Comments

In his May 22 "Media Notes" column, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote that in contrast to current media reports portraying former Vice President Al Gore as "a heroic figure," Gore "got terrible coverage" during his 2000 presidential campaign, adding that Gore "was depicted as an Internet-inventing exaggerator who sighed during the debates and needed a consultant to steer him to an earth-toned wardrobe." Kurtz, however, did not mention his own contribution to this depiction of Gore -- misrepresenting Gore's statement about his role in creating the Internet and falsely claiming that Gore "suggest[ed] he discovered the Love Canal disaster."

Kurtz wrote in his May 22 column:

Al Gore, non-candidate for president of the United States, is suddenly drawing such warm coverage that you wonder whether climate change is melting the hearts of journalists who once portrayed him as a cold fish.

I mean, the guy is being portrayed as a heroic figure saving the planet, with the only outstanding question whether he will heed the call of the masses and run for the job he failed to win in 2000.

What's really striking is that the ex-veep got terrible coverage during that campaign, when he was depicted as an Internet-inventing exaggerator who sighed during the debates and needed a consultant to steer him to an earth-toned wardrobe. Afterward, Gore was savaged for losing an election that was widely viewed as winnable.

At the time, however, Kurtz himself propagated the image of Gore as an "exaggerator." In an October 15, 2000, Washington Post article, Kurtz, along with columnist Terry M. Neal, wrote:

Gore entered the fall campaign with considerable baggage because of his involvement in the 1996 campaign finance abuses, symbolized by the Buddhist temple event that he insisted he didn't know was a fundraiser.

His clumsy comments about how he had played a role in creating the Internet and suggesting he discovered the Love Canal disaster made him the butt of late-night comedians. He even got tagged with exaggerations that weren't his fault -- Gore never claimed he and his wife were the models for the book "Love Story" but instead referred to an article in which author Erich Segal was misquoted as saying so.

Kurtz and Neal's reference to the "Love Story" controversy as an example of "exaggerations that weren't his fault" suggests that Gore's "comments about how he had played a role in creating the Internet and suggesting he discovered the Love Canal disaster" were exaggerations and were, in fact, Gore's fault.

Kurtz and Neal's mention of Gore's "comments about how he played a role in creating the Internet" was a reference to Gore's 1999 statement, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet," which the Republican Party distorted into a claim that he "invented the Internet" -- a distortion that many in the media then treated as fact and have continued to cite in recent months, as Media Matters for America has documented.

In characterizing Gore's comments as "clumsy" -- rather than noting the media's role in propagating the falsehood that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet -- Kurtz and Neal also ignored Gore's role as a major supporter of the technological research that helped convert the military communications system Arpanet into what is now the Internet. In his August 22, 2000, column, Chicago Tribune metro columnist Eric Zorn wrote:

In June 1986, back when there were fewer than 5,000 network host sites (there are tens of millions today) available to a comparative handful of knowledgeable users, Gore, then a senator from Tennessee, introduced the Supercomputer Network Study Act in response to fears in the research community that the U.S. was dangerously lagging in this area.

Then in October 1988, Gore introduced the National High-Performance Computer Technology Act. After it died, he reintroduced it in May of the following year. It called for more ambitious funding to improve and expand the connections between universities, libraries and other institutions. Both before and after the act passed in 1991, Gore spoke frequently of "the information superhighway," a phrase he is widely credited with coining and that recalled the key role his late father, also a U.S. senator, played in building (figuratively, of course!) the interstate highway system.

Computer scientist Vinton Cerf, sometimes called "The Father of the Internet," was co-designer of the communications protocol that forms the backbone of the Internet and a pioneer in the academic/military computer networks from which the Internet sprung. In a statement sent to me Monday by MCI WorldCom, where he is now senior vice president of Internet Architecture and Technology, Cerf wrote:

"Gore's support for the research agencies ... helped to shape the development of the NSFNET -- a national network with international connections that took up where its predecessor, the ARPANET, left off. ... By the mid-late 1980s, then-Senator Gore had become a visible proponent of NSFNET, which enthusiasm and insight continued and grew with his election to the Vice Presidency. For having seen the potential in these technologies, and for having pursued and argued for legislation and administration support for research in these areas ... I think it is entirely fitting that the Vice President take some credit for helping to create an environment in which [the] Internet could thrive."

As Colorado Media Matters noted, on his Daily Howler weblog, Bob Somerby wrote that, in a September 1, 2000, speech to the American Political Science Association, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) said that "Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet":

GINGRICH: In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is -- and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a "futures group" -- the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the '80s began to actually happen.

In a September 22, 2000, article, the Los Angeles Times noted Gingrich's remarks, reporting: "Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House and a Republican who is no friend of the Gore campaign, said earlier this month, 'Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet.' "

In their October 2000 article, Kurtz and Neal also inaccurately asserted that Gore "suggest[ed] he discovered the Love Canal disaster," a claim first made in December 1, 1999, articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times and partially retracted in a correction printed in the Post's December 7, 1999, edition and the Times' December 10, 1999, edition. However, the allegation was cited by the media throughout the 2000 campaign to describe Gore as an "exaggerator." From the Post's December 1, 1999, article:

"I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal," he said, referring to the Niagara homes evacuated in August 1978 because of chemical contamination. "I had the first hearing on that issue."

Gore said he first became aware of the problem when a young girl in Tennessee wrote to him about a mysterious illness that had befallen her father and grandfather. Although few remember his hearings on that site in Toone, Tenn., Gore said his efforts made a lasting impact. "I was the one that started it all," he said.

Gore's shorthand description of Love Canal -- and his failure to note that the hearings he chaired came a few months after President Jimmy Carter declared the neighborhood a disaster area -- were reminiscent of earlier attempts to embellish his role in major events.

In reality, Gore didn't say "I was the one that started it all" -- a fact that was clear as early as the December 1, 1999, broadcast of MSNBC's Hardball, which played a clip of Gore saying:

GORE: I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal, had the first hearing on that issue in Toone-Teague, Tennessee. That was the one you didn't hear of, but that was the one that started it all. We passed a -- a major national law to clean up hazardous dump sites, and we had new efforts to stop the practices that ended up poisoning water around -- around the country. We've still got work to do, but we've made a huge difference, and it all happened because one high school student got involved.

As Media Matters has also documented, in a February 27 column, Kurtz's Post colleague Richard Cohen faulted "some of my colleagues" who "caricatured" Gore during the 2000 campaign "as a serial exaggerator, a fibber, a pretender -- the guy who invented the Internet, who was the model for the novel (and movie) 'Love Story,' who applied one too many coats of passion to that kiss he delivered to his wife, Tipper, at the Democratic National Convention in 2000." But like Kurtz, Cohen also failed to acknowledge his own contributions to this caricature of Gore.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by fantagor (May 23, 2007 7:02 pm ET)
         

      Short memories abound. Kurtz, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Gonzalez, insert name of anyone in the Bush administration.

      Seems to be spreading like a virus.

      Morally upright people are immune, I happy to say.

      Randy

      Report Abuse
    • Author by kevin1007 (May 23, 2007 10:54 pm ET)
         

      Create = To give rise to, produce.

      Invent = To produce or contrive by the use of ingenuity or imagination.

      I can see why MMFA threw a hissy fit on this one. Those verbs are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 24, 2007 10:40 am ET)
           

        Yes, they are, JamesBondKevin. I can create a Ham Sandwich, but I didn't invent the Ham Sandwich.

        Try again, we have plenty of time.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by DTRAIN (May 23, 2007 11:43 pm ET)
         

      This one's easy. They can be interchanged in almost any context. Here's how it works (follow me closely)...

      All inventions are creations.

      Not all creations are inventions.

      But some most certainly are.

      Al Gore laid the seeds and foundation by being an advocate and financial backer, thus created opportunities for the invention called the internet to expand and grow into the mainstream as it has today.

      The internet was invented.

      The internet was created

      Honestly, I didn't really have to got this far, read the definitions you put up again. You might find something in common. Here let me help you:

      Create = To give rise to, produce.

      Invent = To produce or contrive by the use of ingenuity or imagination

      I do have some questions about these definitions you provided though, isn't a bit repetitive to say "contrive by the use of ingenuity or imagination" when the word contrive itself means to devise with cleverness and/or ingenuity? Where did you get your definitions? And you don't think "create" might have an element of imagination and/or ingenuity as well? I mean, you know that MOST religions believe in some form of "creationism" right? Was god not imaginative, dare I say inventive when he was creating? Are you lost yet? I sure hope not. For your sake.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by NL207 (May 23, 2007 11:59 pm ET)
         

      MMFA fumbles again.  Al Gore deserved every bit of that negative press for his exaggerations in 2000. 

      Nothing about him has changed.  He deserves to be pilloried again for producing that environmental propaganda movie.  It is rife with inaccuracies, distortions and exaggerations, which Gore has attempted to justify as necessary in orer to get Americans to pay attention.  Gore thinks it appropriate to distort the debate so listeners will adopt his position.  to wit.

      "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."  A. Gore.

       An over-representation of factual presentations?  This is the definition of exaggeration is it not?  Gore is admitting he intentionally exaggerated the facts!

      If a retail establishment engaged in such practices, the local prosecutor in most US jusridictions would charge it with fraud or false advertising.  Al Gore is just a cheesy con-man.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by conleytgwinn (May 24, 2007 5:20 am ET)
           

        Some persons appear to have substantial difficulty with the language: "An over-representation of factual presentations?" is hardly related to exaggeration, explicating "factual". Linking to WSJ or Fund in any medium, is, however, an overt attempt to distort the discussion: the charges he levels are unrelated to the supposed issue, outright false (lies), or both. The link to his direct quote is better, but if you had read the sentence without zealot fervor, you could have understood as I did, that he is directing the tactical approach toward: A) Factual presentations, designed to persuade that there  is  a problem (as a predicate for); B) introduction of possible solutions; and, C) full-blown discussion of the potential solution(s).

        An example of exaggeration: "the poster lies incessantly". It is clear that even the most fevered poster either lapses occasionally into truth (OK, you're safe there) or pauses for the call of nature; thus, exaggeration.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by NL207 (May 24, 2007 9:19 am ET)
             

          So what, exactly, is factual about presenting a scare scenario about a 6 meter sea level increase over the next century when the IPCC 2001 report, the most recent at the time Gore's propaganda movie was filmed,  predicted a sea level rise of 0.1 to 0.9 meter over the same interval.  How does this value become 6 meters?  Why discuss some huge, hypothetical sea level increase when the officially accepted value is a fraction of that, unless Gore intended to produce a false impression?

          What is exactly is "over representation" of information, factual or otherwise?    It can be demonstrated by direct comparison [see the links provided] that "An Inconvenient Truth" contains statements that are not factual and/or do not represent the predictions of any reputable scientific body.  Are these "over representations"?  

          Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (May 24, 2007 7:03 am ET)
           

        to the point, nl.  what is inaccurate about anything posted here about the events in 2000?  you made the claim.  back it up.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by NL207 (May 24, 2007 9:04 am ET)
             

          The entire article is inane.  Whether Kurtz or anyone else at any time took Gore to task for exaggeration but did not do so at some other time is irrelevant since Gore can easily be shown not only to have exaggerted, but also to has made many assertions which cannot be sunstatiated by known facts.  [see the details of "An Inconvenient Truth" linked above or do your own research]

          The only point MMFA can make about Kurtz is that he has not been consistent in his criticism/praise of Gore nor did he criticize himself for the same inconsistency he leveled criicism against others, opening himself to charges of hypocrisy.  Personally, I think whether Kurtz is hypocritical in this instance is simply flatulence in a tornado because Gore surely has been exaggerating.  I also think that if Gore were to seek elective office again, all this exaggeration baggage will reappear both from Kurtz and a collection of other journalists.  The pass [and praise] he is receiving today from journalists is purely a courtesy.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (May 24, 2007 9:57 am ET)
               

            "al gore deserved every bit of that negative press for his exaggerations in 2000".  that's your claim.  back it up.  what is untrue about anything in this story?

            Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 25, 2007 2:35 am ET)
           

        He DESERVED to have the rightwing make up outright lies about him? And you came to that value judgement HOW. Because YOU dont believe his take on Global Warming even thought the VAST MAJORITY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DO. Meanwhile, as Gore was telling your 'exagerations' Bush was telling outright LIES and the press gave him an absolute pass. Did he say he had never been arrested after 1968? Yes, was that a lie? YES. Did he say he had brought the Dems and Reps together to pass a patients bill of rights? YES, did he in fact VETO that law? Why yes he did. Did he claim BY FAR, the VAST MAJORITY of my tax cut will go to benifit those on the bottom of the economic ladder? Yes he did, and in fact didnt only  less than 15% go to the bottom 60% of the people? Why yes it did. Bush lies like most people breathe but because YOU dont believe his take on Global Warming he DESERVES to have the press make up lies about him. Ok, we see where you are coming from. I call that place Planet Wingnut.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 24, 2007 10:43 am ET)
         

      Even the trolls are flailing aimlessly. Are we in the last throes of the Flying Monkey Liars Propaganda Blitz...if you will?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (May 24, 2007 10:49 am ET)
         

      I think, in order to understand this, you have to buy a copy of the NeoClown Troglodyte Liars Dictionary. All nuance has been removed, specifically for black and white thinkers. For example, in their dictionary, "Weapons" is synonymous with "Weapons Program Capabilities". See how easy that is? You just have to turn off the "critical thinking" part of your brain.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by alessandro6102 (May 25, 2007 10:12 am ET)
         

      Dr Vinton Cerf spoke recently in Brisbane Australia at a Press Conference hosted by Alessandro Sorbello of New Realm Media - Dr Cerf presented 'Internet, Infinity and Beyond' to an audience of 800 people at the Brisbane Convention Centre. He was in Brisvegas to launch Hear and Say WorldWide. You can see his presentation online at http://www.newrealm.com.au

      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.