In an article on Mitt Romney's decision to reclassify loans to his failed presidential campaign as contributions, The Boston Globe quoted Stuart Rothenberg's assertion that if Sen. John McCain were to pick Romney as his running mate, "Democrats would use" Romney's decision "to undermine his [McCain's] reputation as 'Mr. Reformer.' " But Kranish did not note that McCain himself has attempted to "reject public financing" for the primary election in a manner that could "undermine his reputation as 'Mr. Reformer.' "
The Boston Globe reported in an article that Sen. John McCain has "accus[ed] [Sen. Barack] Obama of going back on his word to take part in the public system" without noting that the Obama campaign has also criticized McCain on public financing or that the FEC chairman has taken the position that McCain cannot legally opt out of public financing during the primary season without FEC approval.
In asserting that Sen. John McCain "appears to delight in defying his fellow Republicans on matters ranging from taxes to the environment," Boston Globe reporter Susan Milligan cited "McCain's support for immigration reform" and his "opposition to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2002." But Milligan made no mention of the fact that McCain has reversed his position on taxes and immigration to more closely align himself with the base of his party.
The Boston Globe's Peter S. Canellos reported that Sen. John McCain's "opposition to Bush on a range of issues, combined with his nonideological voting record, gives him an image of moderation." In fact, McCain himself has stated, "My record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstream conservative," and has said that he will "offer Americans ... a clearly conservative approach to governing." Furthermore, academic studies of McCain's voting record have ranked him among the most conservative members of the Senate.
A Washington Times article and a Boston Globe column both discussed a statement from the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women that criticized Sen. Edward M. Kennedy for endorsing Sen. Barack Obama and not Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, but both omitted the Clinton campaign's reported disavowal of NOW New York's statement. In a New York Daily News column, Bill Hammond reported that "her [Clinton's] campaign quickly disavowed [NOW New York president Marcia] Pappas' attack on Kennedy. 'This statement does not at all reflect her views or the opinion of the Clinton campaign,' spokesman Howard Wolfson said."
A Boston Globe article suggested that Sens. Chuck Hagel and Hillary Rodham Clinton took different positions on the 2002 resolution that authorized the use of force against Iraq. But the article did not mention that Hagel, like Clinton, voted in favor of the resolution, nor that he praised the "substantially similar" Senate version and its sponsors.
Newspaper editorial boards have responded with a variety of opinions to the Mark Foley scandal, from calling for -- or opposing -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert's resignation to noting the "rank hypocrisy" of Republican leaders to referring to the Republicans' attempt to use a "gay scapegoat."
Media outlets have uncritically reported the comments of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who, during interviews, have asserted that U.S. laws on detaining suspected terrorists should be modeled after British laws that allow the United Kingdom to detain a suspected terrorist for up to 28 days without charges. However, none of the media outlets noted the administration's expanded use of material witness warrants to detain people for indefinite periods.
In response to the reports describing a Treasury Department program designed to monitor international financial transactions for terrorist activity, President Bush and other White House officials lashed out at the media -- and The New York Times in particular -- for purportedly undermining the government's antiterrorism efforts. But as with the disclosure of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance and domestic call-tracking programs, the administration and its supporters in the media have relied on numerous false and misleading claims to support their arguments.
February 28 articles in The New York Times and The Boston Globe falsely reported that a bill introduced by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Robert Menendez, and other Democratic senators would bar "foreign-owned companies" from controlling operations at U.S. ports. In fact, the bill would prohibit companies owned by foreign governments -- not all foreign-owned companies -- from controlling U.S. port operations.