I had it in mind to write something about this McCain quote from today:
“Look, we don’t care about an old washed-up terrorist and his wife, who still, at least on Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. That’s not the point here. The point is Sen. Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We know that’s just not true. We need to know the full extent of the relationship because of whether Sen. Obama is telling the truth to the American people or not. That’s the question.”
But The New Republic’s Michael Crowley has beaten me to it, and done the work of pointing out that Ayers’s quotes, published on September 11, 2001, weren’t in reaction to the attacks. The original piece was an Arts section write-up pegged to the publication of Ayers’s memoir of his Weather Underground years, that just happened to run that fateful morning. The interview clearly took place, at the latest, on September 10, and given that there was no hard news rush for the story, it likely took place earlier than that.
Here’s Crowley:
If Ayers is self-evidently loathsome enough so to call Obama’s fundamental judgment into question, surely McCain, once corrected on this point, won’t feel the need to keep stretching the facts as a way of connecting Ayers to something more emotionally salient and politically relevant than the Vietnam War.Right?
Bueller?
To which I’d add only one more thing. Ayres didn’t say that he “still wanted to bomb more,” as McCain suggests. Here’s the original quote from the Times:
”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.”
Quotes are a tricky thing, and where to slip the attribution in is a matter of style. But that “Bill Ayers said” put between “I don’t regret setting bombs” and “I feel we didn’t do enough” probably means that Ayers said some other stuff, now excised, between the two phrases. And who knows what was there?



"Who knows?!"
For the sake of Sweet Jeebus, this kind of crap is straight out of Pravda. Old School Pravda, that is.
So now, according to the CJR junior-league pundits, the "professional" journalistic standard requires assuming that an unrepentant terrorist-bomber "probably" said some exculpatory "other stuff" in the middle of things he definitely said about his lack of bombing remorse.
Because... Why?
Because it's not convenient to have a friend of the Obamessiah actually talk about his lack of remorse over his bombing/terrorism?
Let's see if we can fill in the blanks here, in a CJR-approved manner:
"I don’t regret setting bombs aside to live a life of patriotic peace and harmony although I feel we didn’t do enough to repent for the terror and violence we espoused in our youths when Obama was only eight years old"
I suppose that CJR will demand that we creatively insert a "who knows?" phrase into every problematic quote, right? (Unless a Republican gets quoted, of course)
How in the Hell does this kind of ridiculous idiocy make it past any self-respecting editor at the "premier" journalistic "watchdog" publication?
Posted by padikiller on Thu 9 Oct 2008 at 10:59 PM
Quotes are a tricky thing, and where to slip the attribution in is a matter of style. But that “Bill Ayers said” put between “I don’t regret setting bombs” and “I feel we didn’t do enough” probably means that Ayers said some other stuff, now excised, between the two phrases. And who knows what was there?i>
DEFCON 5!!!! BULLSHIT ALERT!!!! BULLSHIT ALERT!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQsYzBlXK6M&eurl=http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
Clint, it took me all of 45 seconds on google to find that Connie Chung clip (hint its even on McCain's website). How can you call yourself a "journalist" when an amature sitting at his desk can do better?
Posted by Carl Stevens on Fri 10 Oct 2008 at 12:52 PM
How 'bout: "Guilty as sin, free as a bird, ain't America great."
Guilty of bombings and other such stuff, I presume.
Posted by PG on Fri 10 Oct 2008 at 01:18 PM
Carl:
Are Dorhn and Ayres the same person? No. And are 1998 and 2001 the same year? No.
I'm not trying to claim that Ayres has ever offered an apology--as far as I know he hasn't. All I'm saying is that his comments weren't in response to September 11th, and that it's not clear those comments meant he wanted to set more bombs. McCain said something, based on the Times's article, that was misleading.
That doesn't seem debatable.
Posted by Clint Hendler on Fri 10 Oct 2008 at 01:29 PM
Are Dorhn and Ayres the same person?
Clint did you even watch the whole thing? What part of the following Ayers quote is so hard for you to process:
We were young, we were idealistic, we were romantic, we were foolish, we made mistakes, and I would do it again.
Seriously, what’s so difficult about that? And for the record, Dorhn and Ayres are not the same person …. Dorhn was actually able to murder one San Francisco cop and cripple another.
are 1998 and 2001 the same year
Shit man, that’s like an eon’s difference, and its clear that their views changed so much in three years!
McCain said something, based on the Times's article, that was misleading.
But as has been demonstrated, it wasn’t misleading. When put into context with all the other stupid shit Ayers has said, you are the one who is misleading.
But I suppose this is what passes for journalism these days.
I hope that one day when you all have succeeded in destroying your professions credibility and you find yourselves in the unemployment line because the public has abandoned the “professional” journalist you will get it.
Posted by Carl Stevens on Fri 10 Oct 2008 at 04:02 PM
Mr. Hendler,
How about justifying your new standard here; namely that "professional journalism" somehow requires supposing that unrepentant terrorists "probably" said "other stuff" that the NY Times missed, and the since "who knows" what the "other stuff" "probably" was, that we should give the repentant terrorist a free pass?
Are we going to apply this new standard universally?
Huh?
Posted by padikiller on Fri 10 Oct 2008 at 05:50 PM
padikiller:
It seems to me that Mr. Hendler's standard is not new in any sense; the issue he raises is of providing context for quotation, not of giving "free passes." Not much to get worked up about here.
Carl:
I find the populist vitriol for the so-called MSM unsettling and somewhat frightening. What do you propose we substitute for news? Journalism has problems, as it always has and always will, but blogs and the internet won't make it disappear. Blogs seem appealing mainly because there's no need to bother with facts or verification. Responsible journalism might confront ones' conception of reality instead of reinforcing it. So. You can keep Glenn Reynolds is what I guess I'm saying.
Posted by jimson wade on Fri 10 Oct 2008 at 07:16 PM
jimson wrote:
It seems to me that Mr. Hendler's standard is not new in any sense; the issue he raises is of providing context for quotation, not of giving "free passes." Not much to get worked up about here.
padikiller responds:
The "context" to which you refer is entirely fabricated. It is a fiction entirely engendered in Mr. Hendler's mind.
What Mr. Hendler is proposing is a political p-o-l-i-c-y of assuming (without a single shred of evidence, of course) that the New York Times has deliberately excised a quote in order to misrepresent the position of the subject of a story.
There is indeed much to "get worked up" about in supporting such a stupid policy.
Are we to assume that the Times (or any other source), in every quote in every one of its articles, deliberately omits substantial information that "probably" was spoken about some unknown "other stuff" in order to create a "context" that doesn't offend liberal sensibilities?
Huh?
Posted by padikiller on Fri 10 Oct 2008 at 07:58 PM
I find the populist vitriol for the so-called MSM unsettling and somewhat frightening.
I specifically recall a few MSM favorites uttering phrase …. Something about “chickens coming home to roost”.
What do you propose we substitute for news?
Let the people figure that out … oh wait they are and papers and the nightly news are going down the tubes.
Journalism has problems, as it always has and always will
And they have been getting worse. Journalists have been seen as less trustworthy nearly every single years since Watergate … that aint a coincidence.
Blogs seem appealing mainly because there's no need to bother with facts or verification.
Seems to be that blog readers have a higher degree of confidence in blogs than they do the MSM.
Responsible journalism might confront ones' conception of reality instead of reinforcing it.
Yeah … to bad we wont be seeing any of that.
So. You can keep Glenn Reynolds is what I guess I'm saying.
Oh I will. And you keep telling yourself that the reason you are playing like crap is because the filed is covered in snow … all the while forgetting that the snow is effecting both teams.
Posted by Carl Stevens on Fri 10 Oct 2008 at 08:20 PM
I'm puking at the thought that I an ex-con, in and out of prison, 15 years ...still not able to be a Realtor..and This...Avitar/puppet of the Leftist MedioCracy can be President...
The Executive Office of this great country can be had just by accumalating enough green stamps?
It’s the culture stupid!. Thank you!
Tony Venuti experiential, social philospher InPolitically Correct and BEYOND PUKE KFNX, NewsTalk Radio - Phoenix 1100am,
streamed live Monday’s 10am - 11am
http:www.beyondpuke.com
Posted by beyondpuke on Sun 12 Oct 2008 at 11:45 PM
Carl, I think you misunderstood my point.
Blogs do not offer news. Bloggers write opinion pieces and post about how the establishment media is decadent/corrupt/biased/whatever. They are nihilistic. Bloggers' biggest success is Memogate, an admirable debunking of certain credulous journalists. But that's the problem - it is media criticism, not news creation. Bloggers rely on the establishment they claim to despise in order to have content to react to and pick apart.
From my pseudo-scientific perusal of blog archives, the veracity of one's predictions has no bearing on the future utterance of new claims. It doesn't matter if you are right. What matters is your picture of the world. So the higher degree of confidence you state readers hold in blogs is illusory. It is an artifact of political identification. I want to believe I am right; I would rather not be told I am wrong. Commitment to the truth is HARD.
This is not to say that the newsmedia represents an objective truth or even that it always aspires to. What I mean to say is that in the past century give or take journalism as a profession has aquired certain normative features that biases it in favor of factual universality. I think that is a healthy concept to have in an open society.
Posted by jimson wade on Mon 13 Oct 2008 at 10:54 PM
When professionals look at the work that the average journalist cranks out, its embarrassing. You can almost hear the “science” or “technology” journalist thinking “who I am going to get to help me with this story on dry cask storage….. I know, I’ll ask my old roommate Jerry whose degree in comparative literature and daddy’s connections landed him that job at the Sierra Club … yeah .. that’l do”.
Everyday experts now have access to every person with an internet connection. Thousands of blogs from real experts talk intimately about subject they know far better than any journalist. Several energy related blogs Its easier to teach someone how to write than it is to teach a writer the ins and outs of aviation, or dry cask storage, or what really goes into developing an offshore deep water gas field.
The more popular ones explain their expertise with a degree of credibility and knowledge than no journalist can touch quite frankly.
This combined with the public’s erosion of trust in the press have led to a real alternative source for information. The public now sees that most journalists not only have an agenda, they really don’t know what the hell they are talking about.
That you believe only “journalist” can create stories ignores the fact that thousands of everyday average people when combined have access to the same sources as journalists, can relay stories without agendas, and can do it with the credibility of someone who not just writes about XYZ for a living but lives XYZ for a living.
Posted by Carl Stevens on Mon 13 Oct 2008 at 11:26 PM
You're confused, Carl. I'm not sure if you are purposely trying to misinterpret my argument. I'm not interested in subject matter reportage. Obviously technology and science journalism is usually poor. Even in those cases, the internet is far behind professional journals. As far as mainstream news goes, I'm interested in the institutional resources available to journalists and the issue of institutional prestige. At the moment there isn't a real model of credibility in the "blogosphere." Until that changes drastically, print or institute-affiliated electronic media will be superior. It's because of the investment they represent. You can squander your trust online with no real consequences, but offline there are large costs.
Major news organizations can put up large amounts of money, time, and resources that individuals can't. I guess I just think they mostly have their hearts in the right places. So that's why I think the process is a negative one. I don't think journalism should be the exclusive province of anyone, just that citizen journalism isn't an entire replacement for what remains.
Posted by jimson wade on Tue 14 Oct 2008 at 03:05 AM
Except that Ayers ADDRESSED THIS POINT SPECIFICALLY and stated that he was referring to his anti-war activism not specifically to setting bombs. Facts have a liberal bias, don't you know.
Posted by T on Wed 15 Oct 2008 at 01:31 AM
The quote by Ayers is continually taken out of context to support the false argument he was in support of even more destruction on 9/11.
McCain even repeated the misquotation on David Letterman's show last night. If Republicans don't have an argument in support of Obama "paling around with terrorists," they don't have much else they can thow up to distract the low information voters away from the continuation of the worst presidential administration in U.S. history. That's just the way it is. You are all simply wasting your time, and my time.
Posted by Jim Spriggs on Fri 17 Oct 2008 at 01:18 PM