Spinonymous: Chicago Tribune inexplicably provides "senior McCain adviser" anonymity to attack Obama
SUMMARY: A Chicago Tribune article uncritically and repeatedly quoted a "senior McCain adviser" attacking Sen. Barack Obama and asserted that the adviser "spoke on condition that he not be identified in order to discuss strategy." But the authors gave no explanation of why they would agree to anonymity for a source who proceeded to attack and to foreshadow further attacks on the opposing candidate.
In an August 22 Chicago Tribune article, correspondents John McCormick and Jill Zuckman uncritically and repeatedly quoted a "senior McCain adviser" attacking Sen. Barack Obama and asserted that the adviser "spoke on condition that he not be identified in order to discuss strategy." The article quoted the anonymous source stating: "The Barack Obama of hope and change and new politics is now running his campaign based on who owns the most houses. ... This is the venomous, nasty Barack Obama the country is seeing." But the authors gave no explanation of why they would agree to anonymity for a source who proceeded to attack and to foreshadow further attacks on the opposing candidate.
In a February 14 Chicago Tribune article (accessed via the Nexis database), reporters Jodi S. Cohen and Tara Malone wrote of the Tribune's policy on anonymous sourcing: "The Tribune 'discourages' the use of unnamed sources, according to the newspaper's stylebook, with exceptions made to protect the safety of a source or other extenuating circumstances." McCormick and Zuckman gave no indication that the grant of anonymity might be necessary "to protect the safety of a source," and they discussed no "other extenuating circumstances."
In a June 27 column, Chicago Tribune public editor Timothy J. McNulty wrote: "There are plenty of good reasons, of course, that reporters are willing to trade the truth in exchange for not naming the source of the information. Some sources may fear criticism; others face retaliation and even physical danger for speaking out. Anonymity is a shield to protect them." McCormick and Zuckman gave no indication that the source feared criticism or retaliation for talking to them about what the source reportedly said were the McCain campaign's planned attacks against Obama.
From the February 14 Tribune article:
U.S. newspapers have varying policies on anonymous sources.
The Tribune "discourages" the use of unnamed sources, according to the newspaper's stylebook, with exceptions made to protect the safety of a source or other extenuating circumstances.
"The Tribune will not print anonymously sourced material that adds only supplemental or trivial material to stories, such as a zippy but unattributed quote that might enliven a prosaic narrative but that also might lead the reader to wonder about the validity of the material," reads one part of the stylebook's discussion of the topic.
In the August 22 Tribune article, McCormick and Zuckman wrote:
A senior McCain adviser said the attack provides license to raise more questions about Obama and his relationships with Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., [Antoin "Tony"] Rezko and William Ayers, a former '60s radical. A new television ad about Obama and Rezko was to start running Thursday night.
"Rev. Wright is in the game, in bounds," the adviser said. "We will educate the American people about Barack's judgment through his association with Rev. Wright. It won't be this week. It won't be next week."
The source insisted Obama made a mistake in trying to question McCain's wealth. He spoke on condition that he not be identified in order to discuss strategy.
"The Barack Obama of hope and change and new politics is now running his campaign based on who owns the most houses," he said. "This is the venomous, nasty Barack Obama the country is seeing. They're looking at the polls and they're just panicking."
"He spoke on condition that he not be identified in order to discuss strategy"
I would imagine if his or her identity was revealed he would be reamed upside and down the other by the McCain campaign, who publicly promises an uplifting and proud campaign on issues and policy. Ya right.
It's obvious that McCain has no problem sliming down in the mud and throwing everything but the kitchen sink at Obama in order to win, all the while acting above it all. Hypocrite.
The rightwing of Rove is still alive and well, apparently. Pitiful.
How about just admitting that the Right cannot win on the issues and that it has no real plan?
Well done Tommy...
McCain is the one who decided to go down the low road. Nothing could be more clear than this.
Once the floodgate is opened--and Grampah opened it--Obama has no choice but to go there too. You've gotta get into the gutter with these conservatives. McCain has proven himself to be a liar and dirtbag of epic proportions.
If one man goes in the gutter, the other must follow him in. Why? Because the American people are too damn stupid and disaffected to sort fact from fiction. in other words, going negative works with stupid, disaffected people. McCain chose the gutter, and Obama has to get in the gutter and slug it out. He's got no choice.
I want to know how many $500 pairs of shoes Grampy has?
But, Tommy...You are aware that John McCain is a former POW, aren't you? He doesn't like to talk about it...
Tommy,
It is not the low road to attack a presidential candidate who has incontrovertible links to an unapologetic, anti-American, terrorist bomber.
For argument's sake, lets say McCain started his political career in the home of David Duke? What would you think if he served on the same board as Duke?
You have to purposefully put blinders on to ignore Obama's radical left connections.
Whoops,
AA forgot to tell us what those "incontrovertible links" are?
And a sermon by Rush Limboob is not proof.
8,
I hope you were joking. "Incontrovertible links" was used in a figurative manner. Thanks for the laugh.
ps. Are you denying that Obama does not have any association to Ayers and Dohrn?
Yes Another American,
I second Pyrr's notion. Please tell us what you think the association is? Tell us what is swirling around your tiny little mind?
We need a good laugh.
Wow. Now there are 2 people who actually care about Ayres (AA and scienceyguy). You two should get together and swap lies.
Wow. Now there are 2 people who actually care about Ayres (AA and scienceyguy). Foghorn
Don't forget Sean Hannity. He's just as scared as those two pansies.There's 3 votes for McCain.
I'll deny it until I see the evidence, since I believe in the burden of proof being on the accuser.
that would be "MY FRIEND" Ronald Reagan, mastermind of the Southern speak for racist whites.
And, btw, a "celebrity" like Paris and Britney.
Still running with that one, I see...
If that is all you have then your side will lose pathetically.
AA,
Because it's all a ridiculous smokescreen, done to perfection by the right in recent elections to smear their opponents and scare voters. If you condone that all under the guise of setting the record straight on some associations these candidates have had, then so be it.
I don't believe any reasonable person thinks Obama endorses, or condones or is plotting to blow up buildings, and that is the real crux. Why not just say it? Why dance around it by saying it's all about judgment and associations when that is all a bunch of crap. I have heard Obama's statements on Ayers and Wright, I am satisfied with his explanations. Of course the rightwing slime machine can't say that because due to the pathetic nature of their party, and their candidate, they always default to slime and smear and scare tactics to win, and they do it damn good. It's about time it doesn't work, I am sick of it. Aren't you?
If I were a Republican I would be ashamed.
Why dance around it by saying it's all about judgment and associations when that is all a bunch of crap.
That's well put, Tommy. And, no, AA is not sick of it. He can't get sick, he's a carrier.He is the target audience for this nonsense, and he's far gone enough to think he's going to convince people here to regress to where he is.
"Incontrovertible links" used figuratively? Talk about your alternate reality.
I've talked to several people who have been suckered into thinking Ayres/Wright etc are issues to be considered, and I ask them all the same thing; How do you think this "association" will manifest itself as far as Obama's ability to lead the country?
I haven't heard an answer yet. It's Just chum for the bedwetters, and will only be effective if huge numbers of frightened and gullible people vote..
They'll think you're talking about an exhaust system on a car or some kind of man on man sex festival.
Worrierking, I don't actually use the word "manifest" when asking them. I can't even pronounce it, I just copy and paste from an online dictionary when I use it here.I use hieroglyphics and grunts when asking the question, something like;
"ugh... Obama... no repent terror bomb man...president... how make do bad..?"
BTW, did you buy tickets to ManiFest '08 yet? I've got an extra, if you want to earn it.
At first I thought you might think of me as some Cadillac driving, welfare King.
Tommy,
I believe Obama is simply trying to deny his background.
Would you hang out with Ayers and Dohrn if you knew their terrorist past?
You see nothing wrong with associating with terrorists bombers?
It is not that Obama believes in bombing like the Ayers do, (maybe he does, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.) It is that he doesn't see it as a big deal. He felt it was okay to associate with Ayers and Dohrn, who are still unrepentant, and to start his political career in their house! Obama's judgement comes into question about what he believes about the United States. Add to it his 20 year association with the rabid anti-American pastor and black liberation theology, then look at his very limited record and you'll see he is about as radical left as one can get. I wonder what other skeletons are in his closet?
He said he'd go talk to our enemies without preconditions. His call for defeat in Iraq and his views on abortion all put him on the radical left fringe in my opinion.
It reminds me of Gary Hart and his association with that little cutie. His association with her cost him his candidacy. Same would have happened to Edwards had he not already been defeated. Associations do count.
I think McCain should bring this issue up. Obama cannot hide from his past and calling it dirty politics is an avoidance technique to overlook the elephant in the room.
You can complain about it till election day, but I believe McCain will hammer it home again and again. It is fair game. Obama can do the same to McCain.
It reminds me of Gary Hart and his association with that little cutie. His association with her cost him his candidacy. Same would have happened to Edwards had he not already been defeated. Associations do count.
THAT wasn't an association AA, IT WAS SEX!!!!
AA, you are a class-A moron.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041703910_2.html
Here's the part you need to pay close attention to:
Under fire on Wednesday, Obama questioned the relevance of Ayers's past to his candidacy: "The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense."
Now what say you on that?
AA,
Obviously we disagree. I would like the election to be about real issues and policy and direction and vision. I have no interest in who can slime who the best, and who wins by bringing down their opponent. I find it incredibly arrogant of McCain, or any candidate who can sit there and tell me what I should be focusing on when voting for anyone.
I don't need John McCain, or Barack Obama, to tell me why I shouldn't vote for someone, who the hell do they think they are? For McCain to tell me that I am not being prudent or thoughtful if I accept Obama's statements on his past associations, is so incredibly arrogant and self serving, it makes me gag.
Tell me why I should vote for you, give me reasons why you deserve my vote, if you want to differentiate policy fine, do it on issues. Don't grab your mike and stand on some stage and wag your finger at me and tell me I am stupid, or misguided if I don't accept your slimy politicking, or I shouldn't vote for your opponent because I am too blind to see he is a liar, or a terrorist, or a baby killer, or that he hates America.
I am frankly insulted by that condescending style of campaigning, and I reject it outright. I don't care who it is. If McCain really feels he would be the better choice, then he should have no problem telling me why - he needn't resort to this transparent baloney just to pimp for a vote.
AA, you wouldn't know an actual radical left fringist from a left leaning centrist if you were given captioned pictures and 3 free guesses at it.
The Weathermen were, without a doubt, a violent radical group. Their activities were disapproved of by many other groups on the same side of a lot of issues they were on. They also pretty much ceased to exist in the mid70s. Obama would have been in his teens at the time. By the time he began his political career they would have been nothing more than a name associated with the turbulence of the sixties and it is unlikely he would have known what they actually did or who any individual members were. It is also fairly likely that most Americans wouldn't really know who the Weathermen were or what individuals belonged to the group if it were not considered a key talking point among the screeching chorus on the right.
Most of the former members of the Weathermen are still involved in either political or social causes, but, like many former radicals of that decade, they have moved away from the revolutionary ideals of the sixties to working within the system and creating committees and trusts with missions of improvement rather than destruction.
Maybe it's just me but I think there's something admirable about not holding a person's past against them when it is clear that they are working towards a better future, not just for themselves, but for those around them.
But then, I'm not Sean Hannity trying to make sure my piece of the pie keeps getting bigger and I'm not one of his drones that somehow think that listening to him will guarantee me riches and fame if only I can help stomp out the wretched and evil forces of liberalism that seek to destroy us all.
"It is not that Obama believes in bombing like the Ayers do"
I don't know if Ayers believed in bombing 40 years ago. He told the NY Times that he wished the group had done more to stop the Vietnam War and the newspaper assumed (on its own) that this meant bombing.
He said he'd go talk to our enemies without preconditions
Like Condi recently did with Iran? Like Bush recently did with N. Korea. You are indeed a simpleton, blinded by the hate and lies of your wingnut media heroes.
Oh - and did you hear - Obama's killing babies again. Film at 11.
It is not the low road to attack a presidential candidate who has incontrovertible links to an unapologetic, anti-American, terrorist bomber.
Jesus AA, how many points did McCain give you for spreading THAT lie. Are you really so far up the a** of the GOP that you've given up ANY common sense you ever had, if you had any?
For argument's sake, lets say McCain started his political career in the home of David Duke? What would you think if he served on the same board as Duke?
NO comparison, AGAIN! David Duke has dedicated his ENTIRE life to furthering the stupidity that African American are inferior to White Americans. David Duke has dedicated his ENTIRE life to HATE against African Americans simply becuase they're BLACK! David Duke has NEVER apologized for HIS crimes NOR has he EVER said that he was wrong!
You have to purposefully put blinders on to ignore Obama's radical left connections.
You definitely have blinders on AA, because most common sense folks have the ability to reason thoughtfully, you're just a walking, talking repeat of ANY and ever talking point the lunatic fringe give you.
By the way, how many homes do you and your wife have?
terrorist bomber.
What did he bomb?
Since you are into associations, AA, what if Obama had an association (he actually called him a friend) with a man who said this:
"If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head."
and this:
When he listened to Hitler on the radio, it "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before," he explains. "Hitler's sheer animal confidence and power of will [entranced me]. He sent an electric current through my body."
The man who said those things (advocating the murder of Federal agents and that Hitler inspired him) hosted a fundraiser for McCain and has given him over $5,000.
"Last November, McCain went on his radio show. ____greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
This man I am speaking about is G. Gordon Liddy, AA. Can we say that since McCain went on his radio show that McCain shares these views? After all, Liddy hosted a fundraiser for McCain and gave him money which McCain has not returned. Both Liddy and Ayers killed the same amount of people.
McCain went on this nut's radio show and PRAISED him, AA. How do you rationalize that?
Forgot the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/g-gordon-liddy-john-mccai_n_100134.html
And our friend on the right should ask himself who was the bigger threat to our democracy and Constitution, Ayers or Liddy? Ayers or North?
Not to defend Ayers, but both Gordon and Oliver worked to subvert our rights. Both are convicted felons, both are regulars on Fox News.
Saying he has a right-wing would imply he's able to fly.
So far he's only been seen dragging himself around the ground and leaving a very visible slime trail.
ANONYMOUS: "This is the venomous, nasty Barack Obama the country is seeing."
How dare that little black man-child, Obama, attack a former POW!
And that's why he cheated on his first wife and why he failed to know how many houses he has.
Yeah, just blame the VC, Johnny.
I guess we aren't allowed to ask the wealthy about their wealth, even if made off the back of taxpayers or by wielding the power that we've given them by voting them into office, huh?
There are a hell of a lot more of us poor and middle-class than wealthy. I think the McCains should remember the lessons taught to say... the French aristocracy by the masses.
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- Abraham Lincoln