CNN's Crowley, Fox News' Rosen cite McCain attacks on Obama's Iraq knowledge without noting McCain's misstatements about conditions in Iraq
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: CNN's Candy Crowley uncritically reported that Sen. John McCain is "continually suggesting Obama wants to surrender in Iraq without knowing what's happening there," and Fox News' James Rosen said, "Obama's absence from the war zone over the last two and a half years, McCain argued, has left the first-term senator divorced from the reality that now prevails on the ground in Iraq." However, neither Crowley nor Rosen mentioned any of the misstatements McCain has made that have raised questions about whether McCain himself "know[s] what's happening" in Iraq.
On the May 28 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley uncritically reported that Sen. John McCain, "continually suggesting [Sen. Barack] Obama wants to surrender in Iraq without knowing what's happening there, is itching for a fight and a headline," and that the Republican National Committee has "set up a website dedicated to clocking how many days have passed since Obama's last and only trip to Iraq." On the May 28 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News Washington correspondent James Rosen said, "Obama's absence from the war zone over the last two and a half years, McCain argued, has left the first-term senator divorced from the reality that now prevails on the ground in Iraq." However, neither Crowley nor Rosen mentioned any of the misstatements McCain has made during and surrounding the recent trips he has made to Iraq, and during a Senate hearing with Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the Multinational Force-Iraq, which have raised questions about whether McCain himself "know[s] what's happening" in Iraq.
Specifically:
- As Media Matters for America documented, after visiting Iraq on a fact-finding tour, McCain twice made the Iran-Al Qaeda claim to reporters during a March 18 press conference in Amman, Jordan -- one day after he made a similar claim during an interview with nationally syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt. After Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who was accompanying McCain on the trip and stood by McCain during the press conference, whispered something in his ear, McCain corrected himself, saying: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda." As The New York Times reported on March 19, Iran is believed to be financing and training Shiite extremists in Iraq, not Al Qaeda in Iraq. As Media Matters noted, CNN host Wolf Blitzer misrepresented McCain's error on the March 18 edition of The Situation Room.
- At an April 8 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, McCain asked Petraeus, "Do you still view Al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?" Petraeus replied: "It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say, 15 months ago." McCain then asked, "Certainly not an obscure sect of -- of the Shiites all -- overall --" prompting Petraeus to reply "No," as McCain went on to finish his question: "or Sunnis or anybody else?" In fact, Al Qaeda in Iraq is a Sunni Muslim, not Shiite, group.
- On March 26, 2007, just before embarking on a fact-finding tour to Iraq, McCain told conservative radio host William Bennett that "[t]here are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today." When asked about those comments the next day on The Situation Room, McCain told Blitzer: "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee." When confronted about his comment on the April 8, 2007, edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, McCain, then in Iraq, admitted to correspondent Scott Pelley: "There is no unarmored Humvees. Obviously, that's the case. ... Of course I'm going to misspeak and I've done it on numerous occasions, and I probably will in the future."
- On April 1, 2007, as part of a Republican congressional delegation, McCain visited an open-air market in downtown Baghdad. At a press conference later that day, a reporter asked McCain about his previous statement that he "could walk through" neighborhoods in Baghdad, and McCain replied: "Yeah, I just was -- came from one. ... Things are better, and there are encouraging signs. I have been here many ... times over the years; never have I been able to drive from the airport, never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today." However, McCain later admitted during his interview with Pelley on 60 Minutes that he was provided with security during his visit to the market: "I understand why they would provide me with that security, but I can tell you, if it had been two months ago, and I'd have asked to do it, they'd have said, 'under no circumstance whatsoever.' I view that as a sign of progress." As Pelley noted, McCain was accompanied by "10 armored humvees, soldiers with rifles, and two Apache attack helicopters circling overhead." Several other media outlets also noted McCain's heavy security during the visit.
From the May 28 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
[begin video clip]
CROWLEY: For the second day in a row, Obama did not directly engage John McCain on Iraq. McCain, continually suggesting Obama wants to surrender in Iraq without knowing what's happening there, is itching for a fight and a headline.
McCAIN: Now, I asked Senator Obama to go to Iraq. I asked him to go back. And I asked him to meet with General [David] Petraeus and our great ambassador there, Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker. And I said I would go with him, if necessary. I'd be glad to go with him.
Now, why is it that Senator Obama wants to sit down with the president of Iran, but hasn't yet sat down with General Petraeus, the leader of our troops in Iraq?
CROWLEY: McCain is getting reinforcement from the Republican National Committee, which set up a website dedicated to clocking how many days have passed since Obama's last and only trip to Iraq.
Yesterday, an Obama spokesman called the whole thing a publicity stunt.
[end video clip]
CROWLEY: And just a little bit more from the Obama campaign. Again, Barack Obama himself has not responded to McCain's comments today. But here's what his spokesman, Bill Burton, had to say: "It seems odd," says Burton, "that Senator McCain, who bought the flawed rationale for war so readily, would be lecturing others on the depth of understanding about Iraq." Wolf.
From the May 28 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: Republican candidate John McCain is renewing his challenge to the Democratic front-runner, Barack Obama, to see for himself how things are going in Iraq. Correspondent James Rosen reports it's a way for McCain to highlight his strengths in an arena where he says, McCain does, that the younger man is lacking.
[begin video clip]
ROSEN: Kicking off a townhall meeting in Reno, Nevada, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain charged that Democratic front-runner Barack Obama is not only inexperienced, as McCain and others have long maintained, but also, in an attack on one of Obama's chief selling points, intellectually incurious, because the Illinois senator has only been to Iraq once -- back in January 2006. McCain noted pointedly that he has visited the Iraqi theater many times, eight, in fact, since the war began.
McCAIN: I learned from the men and women who are serving in the military. I learned.
He could meet General Petraeus and he could meet Ambassador Crocker, and he could see -- he could see the fact that Sadr City is quiet. He could see that -- with the [Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-] Maliki government has taken control of Basra. He could see that the Iraqi military is leading the fight in these places with the support of American troops.
ROSEN: Obama's absence from the war zone over the last two and a half years, McCain argued, has left the first-term senator divorced from the reality that now prevails on the ground in Iraq, where commanders say last year's surge in U.S. forces has reduced violence to its lowest levels in four years.
But McCain, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, did not limit his new line of attacks solely to the war in Iraq. He also reprised a theme first sounded by the Clinton campaign about another war.
McCAIN: Senator Obama is the chairman of a important subcommittee that has the oversight of what's going on in Afghanistan. He has not held one single hearing on Afghanistan, where young Americans are in harm's way as we speak.
ROSEN: McCain's comments, particularly on Iraq, reflected a concerted effort by the GOP, as was clear from the new feature posted on the Republican National Committee website, a clock counting the days since Obama last stepped foot in Iraq, a figure that debuted at 871.
The McCain campaign first sought to exploit Obama's long absence from the war zone earlier this week when the Arizona senator proposed cheekily that he and Obama visit Iraq together. That proposal earned a swift dismissal from the Obama campaign, which responded to today's thrust by casting doubt, as it has for months, on McCain's judgment.
"It seems odd that Senator McCain, who bought the flawed rationale for war so readily, would be lecturing others on their depth of understanding about Iraq," a campaign spokesman said. "Senator Obama challenged the president's rationale for the war from the start. Senator McCain stubbornly insists on pursuing the failed Bush policy that continues to cost so much," unquote.

















While both reports do note the response from Obama's campaign, I believe the response was tepid, off-target and ineffective.
Since the "liberal" media failed us so horribly early in the war (a fact that even Scotty McClellan recognizes), the Obama campaign simply cannot afford to depend on them to be critical of McCain. Instead, Obama's spokespeople need to have a laundry list of McCain's Iraq gaffs ingrained in their memory that they can refer to whenever they are afforded a response to McCain's foolishness.
Oops. That's "gaffes," not "gaffs."
(Thanks Tommy)
I agree with you Irony, it's up to Obama and his campaign to respond appropriately to this stuff, the media, specifically Crowley, in this case anyway, is reporting what Burton's response was, which I agree with Pete was ineffective. It's not her fault if she reported his response accurately, and there is no evidence she did not.
At least the Governor is satisfied with the DNC and that's apparenlty good enough for him.
At least the Governor is satisfied with the DNC and that's apparenlty good enough for him.
Well, I'm not satisfied with CNN's and Fox News' partisan ignorance to McCain’s very clear and very readily available misstatements which they could very easily report if they were interested in balanced reporting.
What it would sound like Governor if at the end of Crowley's report on what Bill Burton's response was, she said something like this?
"Oh, and incidentally, since Bill Burton didn't mention these McCain gaffes, we will, here they are................................."
They would rightly accused of anti-McCain bias, and they should be. It's not their responsibility, in this particular instance, much to the chagrin of you and MMFA.
Well, I'm not satisfied with CNN's and Fox News' partisan ignorance to McCain’s very clear and very readily available misstatements which they could very easily report if they were interested in balanced reporting.
Tommy, I have to agree with the Gov on this one, Crowley is very disapointing, I think she is another media type afraid of being left out of the McCain inner circle.
I can agree with that. I really don't care about bias all that much. I care more about the information.
I think someone can even have a personal bias - and that is fine with me. However, they have an obligation to look past that bias to present the arguments and facts faithfully - even when their bias may seem inconvenienced by those facts. Some of the media fail miserably at this and some do it very well.
Really? She was not obligated to give the DNC equal time?
The link you provide elsewhere is about the "gaffe list". That was in response to criticisms from the RNC about Obama's gaffes, which is a completely different matter. You can see it encompasses topics like the economy and Czechoslovakia, so it's not a relevant response to what she's talking about here.
If the DNC issued a comment regarding this particular matter, then yes she would be obligated to say that they are reinforcing Obama's position as well.
She quotes McCain at length, adds "reinforcement from the Republican National Committee" through its website and fails to provide the DNC or the Obama Campaign with equal time.
Also, it's clear by this…
CROWLEY: And just a little bit more from the Obama campaign. Again, Barack Obama himself has not responded to McCain's comments today.
…that she herself did not call the Obama Campaign, or the DNC, or go to its website.
There's nothing balanced about her report.
I honestly don't think you even read my post. If the website in question is just a day-counter, then that doesn't add anything new to what McCain said. Why would that justify a list about gaffes regarding Iran, Czechoslovakia, the economy, etc?
Burton made a public comment. That eliminates any need to call the campaign.
It is funny seeing Bra and Tommy on the same side.
Priceless
It's happened quite a few times over the last few years. I don't base my arguments on the premise that anybody is always wrong, therefore I must be right if I disagree with them. I'm also more interested in honest evaluation than alliances or grudges.
There shouldn't be anything about my history that makes this surprising.
There is nothing surprising about it whatsoever, I have often complimented your fair minded evaluations, even though we often are at odds.
But if our agreeing on this topic is "priceless" to some, so be it.....although I fail to see why.
Case in point below by Tommy, same old shite as he insults my intelligence. He makes it hard to stick to the posted item in question but I think I have here.
And Brab, to expand on what you are saying, Crowley does counter the RNC website day-counter with her report that the Obama capmpaign calls it a "publicity stunt", which it absolutely is, it doesn't even deserve further clarification that that.
Then she goes on to give Burton's response to McCain's opinion, perfectly fair and balanced reporting.
An Obama spokesman's response is a response, duh. Are you saying that because Obama himself didn't respond that that is bias? Because that is absurd. And she obviously did seek a response, where do you think she got hers from? She reported their response to the RNC website, and she reported their response to McCain's comments.
You are the one who included the top 10 list, now you want us to ignore it?
Whew.....
Crowley gave McCain and the RNC far more and better play than Obama and the DNC. She went to the RNC website mocking Obama and reported it to her viewers, so all she needed to do was share with her viewers simple points made by the DNC concerning McCain and foreign policy; namely that he doesn't even know who is in charge in Iran and that he doesn't know the difference between Sunni/Shia.
Well, you wanted equal time for the DNC based on that list, right? Otherwise I have no idea why you thought it was relevant here.
If the DNC doesn't make a statement about the matter, then there's no "equal time" to be given. It's not like they don't know how to issue a press release.
Well, you wanted equal time for the DNC based on that list, right?
No, I wanted equal time based on journalistic integrity, which you yourself brought up and claimed Crowley has shown in this report. I disagree.
"P U B L I C I T Y S T U N T !!!!", per the spokesman for the Obama campaign.
In case you missed it again.
So if McCain makes a long speech and Obama's campaign refutes it with a single sentence, is that unfair reporting? They're supposed to dig up material from the DNC to make up that imbalance?
Again, what equal time are you expecting if the DNC doesn't comment on the matter? They're not involved.
The point here is that Crowley put together a report that could have been produced by the McCain Campaign.
Then why did she include the Obama campaign's rebuttals?
She mentioned a day old statement by Burton as a rebutal which she got from a press clip. As for the "publicity stunt" statement, she quotes no one, just those two words. And I think she got the claim that Obama's camp called McCain's trip challenge from McCain himself. I can't find anything about Obama's ppl calling Iraq a "publicity stunt". I could be wrong.
Just to be clear, I'm not up in arms over this, I simply see this CNN report on McCain/Obama/Iraq to be slanted to McCain's benefit.
If the Obama campaign released a statement on the matter that she didn't cover, then you have a point. But I'm not seeing evidence of it. If there's nothing more out there, then there's nothing more for her to cover. Even if that creates some discrepancy in allotted time to each side, she did what she was supposed to do.
Right?
My google search said it was from an email exchange between Burton and TalkingPointsMemo. If that's true, then you have to wonder if she is just such a frequent reader of that liberal site, or if she got that information through Obama's campaign. Either way she made an effort to get their side.
In any event, what needs to be demonstrated is that there is some response out there that Crowley isn't covering, not that she's conveying one they didn't actually make. If it came from McCain, then either Obama's campaign didn't say anything about it (hard to imagine), or they did and Crowley didn't mention it. Where is it, then? Someone must be covering it, somewhere. Even if it's just on the internet, press releases and public comments by campaign spokespeople don't just evaporate into the atmosphere.
My google search said it was from an email exchange between Burton and TalkingPointsMemo.
She did not quote anyone. What was the actual "publicity stunt" quote?
She said it came from an Obama spokesman, right? Is there a relevant difference between that and saying Burton said it?
Like I said, if there's some other response out there that she's not reporting, then that's wrong. But MMfA isn't making that argument. If she called them up and then didn't report what they said, or needed to call them and didn't, I would think the campaign would issue a press release about that at the very least. If they thought their responses weren't accurately or fully conveyed to the public, they could clarify and expand on it the same way. There's a lot of media, so they have a pretty big megaphone to get their point across whenever they like.
So where are the actual responses from the campaign, if Crowley didn't represent them? Where are the objections, the clarifications, the expansions of their views? If they're not out there somewhere, then they're not being made. That would be the fault of the campaign and nobody else. Otherwise, you should be able to find something.
Gov, Are you for real? First you complain how bias and lopsided Crowley is towards McCain, and now you say since there is no attributable Obama spokesperson quoted on "publicity stunt", she must have made it up? Do you not see the mind-boggling contradiction in that?
Gov, The way you have moved the goalposts so many times during the course of this topic it's a wonder anyone can keep up....next time I will check the floor to see who mopped you up before I post, sorry.
Thanks Brab....
Here
So it appears that the comment wasn't about the RNC website, but McCain's proposal, and there's more to it than just the phrase "publicity stunt". However, you have to remember that this was from a video clip of a previous broadcast. In the original broadcast she might have aired more of his comment. If she didn't, that would be a valid complaint.
Google "Bill burton political stunt talking points memo" to see more links.
No. If Obama started making statements about McCain and Hagee and how late and lame McCain was in doing anything about the hate pastor, Crowley would be able to and would "report" Obama and Wright WITHOUT a statement from McCain. The fact is that McCain screwed several times in Iraq and his documented lack of understanding in that region is something to report. McCain thinks Obama is too young to be president. Does Crowley need to check with the Obama campaign to confirm how or whether to report McCain's age?
"If Obama started making statements about McCain and Hagee and how late and lame McCain was in doing anything about the hate pastor, Crowley would be able to and would "report" Obama and Wright WITHOUT a statement from McCain."
That would also be inappropriate then. If it's a factual matter, then anything false should be corrected. If it's opinion, like Obama's judgment of McCain's behavior regarding Hagee, then a reporter should let the McCain campaign make the response.
"The fact is that McCain screwed several times in Iraq and his documented lack of understanding in that region is something to report. McCain thinks Obama is too young to be president. Does Crowley need to check with the Obama campaign to confirm how or whether to report McCain's age?"
Again, she has to evaluate and judge respective knowledge to make the determination that McCain is being hypocritical. If she were to look at your age example and decide on her own that it was unfair, that would be inappropriate. It's not her job to make points or arguments. If it's a simple argument, then the response should be able to provide it. If it's a more complex argument then you can see how someone who's supposed to be objective shouldn't be making it, since there's more to say for the opposing side of that argument. Either way there's no way to assert that Crowley is supposed to be doing that in her particular role.
If it was Chris Matthews who dropped the ball I'd call him an idiot. That's the sort of person who should be evaluating, analyzing and judging this sort of thing, someone in a commentator position.
Thanks!
"P U B L I C I T Y S T U N T !!!!", per the spokesman for the Obama campaign.
In case you missed it again.
Tommy: I cannot find an actual quote for the Obama campaign on this... Can you? It appears that Crowley made it up....
Are you serious? Of course the bias matters, because you're arguing against yourself. Which position are you now taking, that she was unfair to Obama for not filling in the uneven time or that she's unfair to McCain by acting as an agent on behalf of Obama? Obviously if there's no other response from Obama's campaign and she just decided to help him out, then she would have crossed the line already and you wouldn't want her to fill up any more time with material from the DNC that wasn't issued in response to McCain's comments anyway.
So she issued it from McCain's vantage point, but decided to rebuff the "entire thing" by calling it a "political stunt". That makes no sense whatsoever. If she was really going at it from his viewpoint, she wouldn't say anything derogatory about his side.
This is especially true since Burton did make the comment as shown above. I'm not sure why you think it came from McCain.
Burton: John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer.
Crowley: Yesterday, an Obama spokesman called the whole thing a publicity stunt.
She gave McCain more time and better coverage than Obama.
Because - and I admit this is pedantic but shows to me that she sought most of the info for her report from McCain - the words "publicity stunt" came from McCain:
"That is again a result of Senator Obama’s lack of appreciation of the importance of this issue. My friend, 4,000, more than 4,000 brave young Americans have given their lives. To say that, that my urging a person who wants to be President of the United States to go to Iraq for the first time in 871 days and see the situation for himself and to call that a publicity stunt is a fundamental misunderstanding of the gravity of this issue"
How do you distinguish between her getting the phrase from what Burton said and getting it from McCain's repetition of it? I see no basis for that determination. If she just got it from McCain's quote, how did she know that it had been said the previous day and that it was a spokesman who said it?
I agree she should have given more of that quote, since Burton brought up the Baghdad market in particular. That's a far cry from where you started from, but it's a valid complaint.
I agree she should have given more of that quote, since Burton brought up the Baghdad market in particular. That's a far cry from where you started from, but it's a valid complaint.
No it is not a far cry. I have been very clear that she should have given equal time to the Obama campaign. She choose not to. She cropped the quote and left out full and clear responses to McCain's attack.
Oh come on. First it was that Crowley should point out McCain's comments like MMfA argued, then it was that they should have put up some list from the DNC because they're owed equal time for some reason, then she was manufacturing quotes for Obama's sake, then it was about presenting the report from McCain's perspective, then it was about misquoting, then finally it was about equal time for the Obama campaign. Did I miss anything? You didn't even know where the quote came from or that it was real, much less the fact that there was anything to crop for most of this.
If this had been the point from the beginning, I would have agreed with it.
You didn't even know where the quote came from or that it was real, much less the fact that there was anything to crop for most of this.
Um.... that's because she did not report it correctly - she cropped what was a response to McCain's attack that should have gotten equal mention.
Whether she cropped it or not she still said where it came from. You acted like you had some cause to accuse her of manufacturing it, when a simple google search showed otherwise.
The point was that you've shifted your argument all over the place, while you act as if you're being consistent.
The full response to McCain's Iraq quip (an attack she reported in full and with RNC backup), should have been reported here.
We did not know the full (and apt and quite good) reply because she choose not to report it.
Point taken, I'm not sure. But this has no bearing on the issuse of her cropping Burton's words and reporting a very limited response from Obama's campaign re McCain's attack.
Understood, though the words "publicity stunt" were never stated by the Obama campaign re this matter. My guess is that she got it wrong because she was too busy reporting McCain's attack and did not care to report Burton's full and, in my opinion, very solid reply.
I think months ago Obama said he would go to Iraq sfter the primary was over.
I don't think he really has to go; there's more than enough information about Iraq in the public sphere.
No, more like this:
CROWLEY: McCain is getting reinforcement from the Republican National Committee, which set up a website...
...Incidentally, I was able to track down a DNC press release issued earlier today that outlines what it calls McCain's "Top 10 misstatements and outright deceptions."
1. McCain doesn't even know who is in charge in Iran.
2. Iraq/Iran, Sunni/Shia: McCain doesn't know the difference.
3. McCain still thinks Czechoslovakia (which split into two countries in 1993) exists.
4. McCain wrongly claimed that Baghdad was mostly normal.
5. McCain called Baghdad market safe.
6. McCain can't even remember how little he knows about the economy
7. McCain falsely claimed he never requested pork.
8. McCain falsely claimed that tax cuts increased government revenues.
9. McCain's claim to be untainted by special interest money is false.
10. McCain wrongly claimed he never supported amnesty.
7. McCain falsely claimed he never requested pork.
There's an explanation for that... McCain had dinner with Joe Lieberman and became confused about what each of them had ordered. ;>)
Gee, I missed the 10 point laundry list of attacks Governor that she laid out by the RNC, which you expected her to do with the DNC's list.
In any event, we disagree again. Period. I will muddle through.
However, neither Crowley nor Rosen mentioned any of the misstatements McCain has made that have raised questions about whether McCain himself "know[s] what's happening" in Iraq.
Exactly, this media myth that McCain is Mr Foreign Policy , yet he has shown clear examples in the past of misunderstanding Iraqi history, Sunni vs Shite. We also remember his famous Marketplace visit where Troops had to clear out the market. The Media can not and must not be allowed to let McCain get away with this. Or else the Bush third term will gain ground.
J,
So you support Rev.Wright's parishioner's candidacy? ;-)
People respect gays and accept them as valued members of society. That is good. We don't need to tear down heterosexual institutions just to appease gays-AnotherAmerican
This is also the person who believes the Swift Boat Liars told the truth. Just a frame of reference for who you're dealing with.
Going to a few sites in Iraq a couple of times a year doesn't make you an expert on all the ins and outs of what is going on in Iraq.
Going to Iraq makes for great publicity for the candidate. It endears you to the soldiers you visit there. It makes shallow people think you're actually doing something. You don't need to visit Iraq to be well-informed about what's going on there.
Top that off with McCain's distortions of reality about what's going on in Iraq, basing those distortions on his visits, and you get an even better idea of how hypocritical this guy really is. The only reason the market he visited was safe was because of the incredible American military firepower surrounding him the whole time he was there, yet he tried to claim that the market was safe.
The market wasn't safe, but he said it was. We're supposed to be convinced that Obama would have a better idea of what's going on in Iraq if he visited Iraq like McCain has done?
Good thing you're not a candidate for President! "It endears you to the soldiers you visit there. It makes shallow people think you're actually doing something" - wouldn't MSM have a field day with this? Asking why you are calling our soldiers "shallow"?
And that's how it's done folks...cherrypick the statements...then deliberately misinterpret them, and voila! Another "gaffe"
And BB - please don't think I'm criticizing YOU. Just using what you said as an example of how the Democratic candidate get caught in false "aha" moments.
Perhaps if Obama spokesman Bill Burton, when responding, instead of repeating the McCain bought the original flawed rationale so readily all those years ago, he would better serve his candidate to mention the laundry list of far more recent McCain gaffes with regards to his knowledge of Iraq.
You can't blame the media entirely when the opposing campaign doesn't even note McCain's misstatements in their media response.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/28/1072286.aspx
Now can we?
I figured it was pretty easy to figure out I was speaking either of Crowley or Rosen, and when I italicized what was essentially in Crowley's report as to what Bill Burton responded with, also in Crowley's report, it was only common sense and elementary to follow.
I can't help it if that confuses you Governor, better to post elsewhere.
Perhaps Crowley could have provided the full response which she cropped and misstated:
"John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer."
We're supposed to be convinced that Obama would have a better idea of what's going on in Iraq if he visited Iraq like McCain has done?
Not only that...we're also supposed to believe that if Obama supported our troops, and if he and his wife didn't hate America, and if he didn't want to surrender to the terrorists, that he'd be over in Iraq visiting eight times like McCain. That may only be the subtext...but it's there, too.
The terrorists in Iraq are proabbly hidingright underneath those weapons of mass destruction. I hope McCain finds them both soon, or GOD KNOWS what could happen...
(my God these people are so mind-bogglingly stupid)
We're supposed to be convinced that Obama would have a better idea of what's going on in Iraq if he visited Iraq like McCain has done?
Not only that...we're also supposed to believe that if Obama supported our troops, and if he and his wife didn't hate America, and if he didn't want to surrender to the terrorists, that he'd be over in Iraq visiting eight times like McCain. That may only be the subtext...but it's there, too.
Nothing going on here concerning conservative misinformation.
Both Crowley and Rosen reported on McCain's critism of Obama with a rebuttal from the Obama campaign.
The only way to meet mmfa's laughable journalism standards is to report nothing...unless it supports the liberal agenda. This thread is nothing more than thinly veiled political campaigning.
It's not the media's place to trumpet the false credentials of one candidate over the other!!! How can you guys not recognize that that's what's happening here!!! Once again they are doing all the PR work for McCain, without calling him out on his BS!!!
"an Obama spokesman called the whole thing a publicity stunt"
Well DUH! THAT'S your idea of posting the other sides rebuttal?
Why should the other side even have point out the misstaments and false assertions of the speaker?! That would seem to me to be the job of the press: If someone (anyone now, this guoes for "my guy" as well) makes a false statement, or blows their own horn, right after taking their foot out of their mouth, it is the press's job to put this information out there. If Johnny Mac mentions the marketplace, the press should remind everybody of the heavily armed escort. If he claims vast knowlegde of the Middel East, it is important to remind people that he apparently thinks Al-Quaeda is in IRAN (not Afganistan) and that Shiites and Sunni's are apparently interchangable. THIS IS IMPORTANT. PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THIS! Our collective ignorance of the middle east in general, ENABLED BY THE MEIDA (thank you Scotty Mc!) is what got us W. and this pointless, counterproductive and cripplingly expensive war in the first place. So yes, SHAME ON THE MEDIA for continuing to enable public ignorance when it is their job to dispell it.
She did provide Burton's quote, not just the "publicity stunt" comment.
Objectivity vs. subjectivity is the real issue here. If it's Bush saying that the aluminum tubes were evidence to justify his war, then it should be pointed out that scientists said the tubes couldn't be used for any WMD-related purposes. If McCain said something like "I've been consistently right about the war and have proven my knowledge..." then these things can come out. Objectively it can be shown that McCain has been wrong and corrected in the past, so a reporter can legitimately mention that.
But what we have here is McCain's opinion about Obama. It's not a matter of factual accuracy in that regard, it's subjective. And in that case it's appropriate to get the opposing viewpoint, not to evaluate the degree of hypocrisy by oneself. That is outside the realm of an objective reporter.
Not to mention that she cropped and missated the Obama campaign's reply:
"John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer."
Crowley's reporting on McCain's remarks about Obama, and Obama's lack of response. There's no suggestion that she misrepresented what Maverick said, or what Obama said. In this context, she remains objective by reporting the comments of the respective campaigns, not advocating the substantive flaws in either candidate's message. That's Obama's job. Had she reported the Maverick's criticism but not Obama's response, that would be misrepresentation. As a political reporter, she should let the campaigns fight it out and accurately report on their messages.
Well said Steve.
MMFA, and many here, have such a difficult time differentiating between fact and opinion, as evidenced here. McCain's "suggestions" here are not facts, they are merely his spin and his opinion, his suggestions, his view - so there is no fact check correction that needs to be addressed by anyone. What does need to be addressed is the response, their opinion on McCain's comments, from the opposing campaign and that should, and was, reported accurately and fairly by Crowley.
Another WITH by MMFA.
Okay.
It is here becuase it is another example of media bias toward McCain .
-- many here, have such a difficult time differentiating between fact and opinion -- Tommy
Correctamundo...
McCain has his own opinions about the abilities of Obama. Crowley and Rosen presented those opinions with the opportunity for Obama to respond. Both reports were reasonably balanced. If one cares to disagree with the opinions of McCain or Obama...great.
But, this article has NOTHING to do with reporting conservative misinformation...just electioneering and pandering by mmfa...per normal.
Sometimes the one side vs. another side quotes aren't sufficient, when dealing with a matter of verifiable fact. McCain says X, Obama says Y, and that's the end of the story when it's easily verifiable that Y is objectively true. That is lazy journalism and encourages dishonesty.
However, in this case it does seem like Crowley would be doing Burton's homework for him by bringing these things up. While one can draw a reasonable conclusion that McCain's grasp of what's going on in Iraq is shaky, it's more subjective than the example I gave above. She would basically be determining that McCain's criticism was wrong or hypocritical on her own judgment, which would clearly be inappropriate. Burton could have very easily said "From the beginning of the war to his comments about...it is obvious McCain is in no position to question anyone else's understanding of the situation". Then if she didn't report what he said or truncated it, that would be a valid concern.
Good points. If McCain says X-fact that is objectively or verifiably untrue, then there is a real responsibility for the journalist to correct the record before putting it out there for public consumption - irrespective of what McCain's opponent says or doesn't say.
However, if McCain says X-opinion, then the responsibility of the journalist would be to at least give the other side a chance to respond, as Crowley did in this instance. To go beyond that, as you say, would be inappropriate.
I see nothing wrong with her report.
However, if McCain says X-opinion, then the responsibility of the journalist would be to at least give the other side a chance to respond, as Crowley did in this instance. To go beyond that, as you say, would be inappropriate.
tommy, the reporting was unbalanced, that is the real issue here. I am not sure if she meant to be biased, but she is and was.
J,
She gave McCain's opinion on Obama, and she reported Obama's opinion on McCain. Exactly how is that unbalanced? Each campaign's response was represented by their own opinions, if Obama did not effectively challenge McCain's opinion with their response, that is not Crowley's fault, as I have said.
Tommy she talked about the RNC and the web site, that was free air time for a propaganda site, she should have not mentioned that . The best balanced thing would to of had a McCain spokesman and then the Obama spokesman instead she acted as a commercial for McCain.
inexcuseable and deplorable journalism.
So a reporter is supposed to make the declaration that McCain is being disingenuous?
Yes.
So an objective reporter is required to insert subjective judgment into a report.
I see.
An opinion that being away from Iraq makes a difference in understanding is still an opinion. "Nonsense" is not the same as factually false. Reaching a conclusion about the rationality or intellectual honesty of a comment is absolutely subjective, no matter how justifiable that conclusion is.
Here's a test for you, just hypothetical of course:I think being in Iraq gives one the best means of fully understanding the situation. Can you provide a fact that proves me wrong? Or do you have to try to persuade me that it's not a reasonable statement on my part through argument?
There are countless examples of eyewitness testimony that's been totally off the mark. I could link to numerous examples of eyewitness testimony that has been disproven by DNA testing. Other links would show professors proving to their class that eyewitness testimony is almost always suspect.
In a group of people looking at any incident, they all take their personal biases into that experience.
A much better way to examine an activity is to read and research the views of many people and not to get personally involved in the event. You can be much more objective that way.
But you can get different perspectives from what we get here by going over there. Now we're trying to determine what the best method is for learning about things, which is debatable. The word "better" here is demonstrative of subjectivity.
If McCain said he was growing a beanstalk that reaches his heaven should that be reported on without the reporter calling him a nutcase?
Are you seriously comparing an opinion to a claim of something impossible?
I am completely serious. That's how ludicrous McCain's charge is.
Brabantio, you are one of the best posters around here. I find your objectivity in these matters to be a refreshing read. Keep up the good work!
Obama knows what's going on in Iraq; I know what's going on in Iraq; and I assume both you and Crowley know too. Therefore, what McCain said is utter nonsense.
The point is that knowledge of the situation in Iraq is not based on whether or not a person goes there.
No matter how you cut it, McCain's opinion about going to Iraq being more informative than what you can get at home is still an opinion. To say that Obama needs different perspectives to effectively judge the situation is an opinion. You can analyze it and judge it based on its merits all you like, and I certainly agree with your conclusion. A reporter, on the other hand, doesn't analyze, criticize or make arguments for either side. That is why we have commentators, analysts, strategists and spokespeople. There is a thick, flashing, neon-green line separating objectivity and subjectivity.
I think also something you should consider is that if you think it's appropriate for someone like Crowley to make arguments for a side, you're validating the "liberal media" myth. The entire thing is based on a poll which showed that most reporters voted for Democrats. Now, the response has always been that as long as they do their jobs properly then whatever bias they hold doesn't manifest itself.
But, if you think it's appropriate...no, not just that, if you think it's wrong to fail to criticize someone's opinion as a reporter, then you must want everyone to be able to do that. If I'm a reporter and Bush says something hypocritical, my personal insights on it should be broadcast. And even though I try to be as fair and objective as humanly possible, I'm simply not as likely to make the same sort of observation if it's a Democrat being hypocritical or dumb or intellectually dishonest, because I support that side. So if you really think this is how reporters should work, then you validate the concept that reporters are expressing their bias, and so conservatives can dismiss them on that basis.
Something to think about.
No matter how you cut it, McCain's opinion about going to Iraq being more informative than what you can get at home is still an opinion.
It's not an opinion; its fantasy and it should be called out as such. Do you want to continue arguing with me (It looks like I'm not going to your mind and you're certainly not going to change my mind)?
Is there a documented fact that asserts that being in Iraq doesn't help such understanding? No. You can point to incidents of him being wrong about Iraq, but that doesn't prove any fact, because there are alternate explanations. Maybe he's lying, maybe he's a confused old man, maybe some of both. You could get the best idea of what's going on by going there and then misrepresent what you learned one way or another. For all we know, McCain might have gotten tons of information and viewpoints that bolster Obama's arguments about Iraq. Since we haven't been there, we just don't know.
Do you see the point of the challenge earlier? There's nothing to objectively refute any of that, there are no facts involved. It's theory, logic, debate. Can you make a better argument to counter it? I'm sure you can, but the point should be clear that anything in this realm is inappropriate for reporters to judge. They don't make subjective determinations, period, no matter how good the argument is.
If you can address this, I'd like to hear it. You can change my mind by presenting a relevant opposing argument instead of bolstering my point with your subjective conclusions of "fantasy" and "nonsense". And I really am curious what you have to say about your perceived role of reporters and how it relates to "liberal bias".
but also, in an attack on one of Obama's chief selling points, intellectually incurious, because the Illinois senator has only been to Iraq once -- back in January 2006. McCain noted pointedly that he has visited the Iraqi theater many times, eight, in fact, since the war began.
LOL
Yet McCain still can't tell the difference between Al Qaeda and Iran.
Rosen should have added that McCain's previous visits involved lying about the current conditions, "[t]here are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods today." doesn't know that Al Qaeda doesn't get training in Iran, "As you know, there are al-Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq." and doesn't know there are two spellings for flack jacket "By the way, Senator Obama, it's a 'flak' jacket, not a 'flack' jacket.".
If Rosen is going to continue to report Obama's lack of foreign policy experience and lack of visits to Iraq he should also report the constant mistakes made the the man who claims to be a foreign policy expert. If you're going to brag about the number of visits the press should at least report how many times McCain screwed up the facts in his visits.