Miami Herald uncritically repeated RNC attack on Obama over military spending
SUMMARY: A Miami Herald article uncritically repeated a claim by the Republican National Committee that Sen. Barack Obama "vot[ed] against $120 billion for the war last year." In fact, Obama has repeatedly voted to provide funds for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and said he voted against a troop funding bill in May 2007 because it did not include a timeline for withdrawal.
In an August 20 article, Miami Herald reporters Joseph Goodman and Beth Reinhard uncritically repeated the Republican National Committee's charge that Sen. Barack Obama "vot[ed] against $120 billion for the war last year." In fact, Obama said he voted against a troop funding bill in May 2007 because it did not include a timeline for withdrawal. Moreover, Obama has repeatedly voted in the past to provide funds for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote, "Obama has frequently voted to finance the war but was one of 14 Senate Democrats to oppose a war-funding bill last year -- after Republicans removed troop withdrawal deadlines -- saying he did not want to be 'validating the same failed policy in Iraq.' "
The article also did not point out that McCain himself has voted against legislation to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
From the August 20 Miami Herald article:
''I have never suggested or never will that Sen. McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition,'' Obama said. ``I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America's national interest. Now, it's time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.''
The McCain campaign did respond officially to the speech. The Republican National Committee issued a statement that said Obama ''has not led'' on veterans issues. The GOP criticized Obama, a member of the veterans services committee, for voting against $120 billion for the war last year and for exaggerating his role in extending health benefits for wounded veterans.
Well.... I don't know enough about the Miami Herald, so I won't speculate if they are now a rightwing smear machine or they simply want to be one or that the reporters were just to damn lazy to find out the full truth of this issue?
Since the state of the media is to further the corporate taglines, I'll just assume that they are only playing along until it becomes obvious that Obama will be the next prez and the Dems take full control of the Congress and they want to try and be with the 'in' crowd?
Dawuss,
1. You made an excuse even though you didn't want to.
2. We aren't on the local level. It is about the Miami Herald.
3. How many local talk show hosts spread misinformation? While we're on local issues, in Pittsburgh every, EVERY Conservative talk show host spreads mis-information..Every one of them.
Wuss, I'm posting like you now. Changed in the same post..Questioned the topic...Went off topic and then return to topic?
Do you think the Miami article is correct or misinformation??
It doesn't matter whether their emphasis is on local matters or not, they should still be accurate in their reporting, it is called fact checking and more importantly it is their job.
This is always a point of contention here. This "uncritical" slap that MMFA takes on articles that are sourced, as in this example The Miami Herald clearly sources the RNC as making the claim, yet MMFA labels it misinformation because they don't give the DNC's or the other sides story.
It's an arguable criticism I suppose, but to call the article inaccurate or assert they aren't checking their facts is unfair. Could they have listed McCain's votes here as well?, yes they could have. But they repeat verbatim Obama's statments without noting one from McCain, then they source the RNC as "giving the other side", leaving the reader to consider it's coming from the RNC so it's inherently biased, people should at least be able to figure that out and don't take it as fact.
This is nitpicking, in my opinion.
"That the RNC lied"
THEY DID?! Governor, you've uncovered quite the scoop, this is not just breaking news, it's earth shattering.
Nothing shocking about it. Also not shocking that a corportate rag would report it as truth. And it's not shocking that MM would post an item about it. Is threre a malfunctioning 'neck' massager in your pocket or something?
"The RNC didn't lie."
I think you just electrocuted Tommy.
"That the RNC lied?"
Ahhh, ok....
Just votes... by McCain... against the troops....
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00098
But, if I understand correctly, isn't it only the "commentary and opinion" section that's allowed to be biased in any way?
I know, I'm probably referring to journalism ethics, a forgotten code...
Tommy,
" as in this example The Miami Herald clearly sources the RNC as making the claim"
Since the RNC has proven itself unworthy of truth telling.... I think its a safe bet that MMfA is correct to assume that the information being cited is a lie, distoration, inuendo, a falsehood.... take your pick!
Perhaps id the MH would have cited a more credible source or heck, any source not already proven to be useless.... it wouldnt be an issue?
Tommy,
You say that "they" repeat Obama's statements without including a response from McCain. Two questions about that:
1. Do you have an instance in mind wherein the Miami Herald has done that?
b. Is it necessary for the reporter to get a response from the Obama campaign? Or should the reporter simply check the record and report that McCain's record includes similar votes?
Since the reporter had more than one means to get both sides of the story (a basic element of professional journalism), it's clear that, in this case, the Herald's reporter didn't do the job and promoted a narrative favored by the McCain campaign. Good call, MMfA.
TIME is making up for it. At current count, it's 7 covers for Obama this year, 2 for McCain.
I can objectively say that it is absolutely earth shattering that there's a candidate for President of the US who truthfully does not know how many homes he owns. Never before a candidate been so out of touch with the real world.
It's really no different than someone who invests in mutual funds and the stock market to not know exactly how many shares they own. McCain owns condos that are considered homes and they are clearly 1. investment properties and 2. items that are bought/sold with McCain never setting foot in them, so you can make a big deal out of it if you want, but it's really not. It would've been much worse for McCain to guess and get it wrong.
Wealth envy much? Or is it just because he's a Republican? Most posters here had a heart attack when Edward's wealth was questioned, and McCain is no champion of public charity like he is.
I didn't write or mean that at all. I certainly acknowledge that McCain and Cindy are doing much better than most of us, and perhaps by analogy was innappropriate. The point was that if McCain "owns" those properties but they are bought/sold frequently and managed by someone else completely, it's not so crazy that he didn't know how many at the very time he was asked. A good question by the reporter who's really concerned about the issues, btw.
And remember, Edwards wasn't out of touch just because he was rich. Remember that.
Probably not Mary, but then the other side will bellyache how McCain's votes against are taken out of context and then back and forth again, this is inherent in all bills voted on by Congress, their circumstances and provisions.
So as long as the source is clear as being the RNC, in this case, then that is all I need to judge it as suspect. It's not misinformation to me.
So as long as the source is clear as being the RNC, in this case, then that is all I need to judge it as suspect. It's not misinformation to me.
The Herald did not quote the RNC, perhaps it they had it would appear more informative.
"The Republican National Committee issued a statement that said Obama ''has not led'' on veterans issues"
It doesn't matter whether they directly quoted them or not, actually. But, ahh, yes, they did.
I was talking about the vote(s) in question. "[H]as not led" is empty rhetoric.