ABC Mischaracterizes Obama's Alleged "Testy Exchange" With Reporter
As promised below, here's our longer post, with video, about ABC's report yesterday on Obama's allegedly "testy" exchange with a reporter in South Carolina.
Comments (66)
stlounick wrote on January 23, 2008 10:41 AM:Greg, thanks for your honesty.
Southpaw wrote on January 23, 2008 10:42 AM:Are you kidding me?!?
Is this your idea of a correction/retraction, referring to the "testy" exchange as "alleged" or "allegedly"? And may I point out once again that it was YOU, TPM-EC, who chose the word "tussle," not ABC.
APOLOGIZE.
Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 10:43 AM:Damn, THAT was the video? I could barely understand it. And it certainly wasn't testy.....
Greg wrote on January 23, 2008 10:43 AM:you're welcome.
Greg wrote on January 23, 2008 10:45 AM:Southpaw, stop being a nut.
Our headline was based on ABC's reporting. We acknowledged that the headline mischaracterized what happened.
We posted the video, and said that it showed that both our characterization and ABC's was wrong.
bawbie wrote on January 23, 2008 10:47 AM:Isn't this exactly what the Clinton campaign has been begging the media to do for months?
Isn't this what they refer to as "vetting"?
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 10:47 AM:Thats right Greg.....stay on the good side of the Obamamites. It's easier to stay loved.
Audacious_One wrote on January 23, 2008 10:49 AM:I have always held TPM in very high regards. I could always count on being able to come here and see "BULLSHIT!" being called where merited.
I wish this same type of mentality would cover this primary campaign rather than a place for us to get up to date on whatever the MSM is touting as the next big news story.
We can see that tripe everywhere else. It's actually somewhat hard to avoid.
I'd say, TPMEC needs to go back to it's roots. Focus on the muck. Focus on clearing up and explaining the truths behind the stories. Get down and dirty on analyzing why other sites are being shills, or shitty journalists.
When you act like another RSS feed to the abc/cnn/fnn race blogs, crap like this will happen and you will cause supporters to leave in disgust, and more importantly, some of those supporters may not come back to see the corrections.
Southpaw wrote on January 23, 2008 10:49 AM:To be clear, while I see that you apologize as an afterthought on the Horse's Mouth entry, what I do not understand is how you can justify not making the apology HERE, at TPM-EC, where the offense occurred (and REMAINS on the list of recent headlines). It is quite clearly an attempt to minimize the impact of the correction, and to do so w/o any retraction at the original source. It'd be akin to, say, Olbermann making a misrepresentation on his TV show, and then issuing a correction *only* on his weblog. Anyone could see that it would not be reasonably calculated to reach the necessary audience, namely, those who watch Olbermann on TV each night. Which is why, of course, Olbermann (a man of unquestionable journalistic integrity) issues his apologies for on-the-air mistakes ON THE AIR.
This is sad.
Southpaw, did you miss the update on the post below, where we said that we mischaracterized this?
JoeCHI wrote on January 23, 2008 10:58 AM:I'm a Clinton supporter, yet nothing in that exchange looks, at all, testy.
Obama handled himself just fine.
Southpaw wrote on January 23, 2008 11:01 AM:Greg,
I've been here for months. This is far from Exhibit A in your and Kleefeld's irresponsible and Hillary-biased reporting of the democratic primary. You know this.
And that's some apology, since you're now calling the very person who linked to the video you didn't bother to watch, and who called you on what (you're claiming, at least) you have *admitted* was your own failure to follow rules of journalistic ethics, a "nut."
So, just as Obama was forced to confront Hillary head on, after weeks of enduring her and her campaign's despicable voter suppression tactics, racial slurs, and outright lies about both his and her records, I am now apparently going to have to take a similar course with you.
Gloves are off now. You just messed with the wrong lawyer.
grover_rover wrote on January 23, 2008 11:02 AM:Gosh, you mean that "rabidly anti-Hillary, pro-Obama" media mischaracterized something Obama did? No way! (saarrcasssmmm)
Anyone who thinks that the media has hurt Hillary more than it has helped her needs to pay a little more attention to the press. Everything the Clintons say is echoed all over the press, and not fact checked, while Obama's rebuttals typically only barely squeak through the noise, if heard at all.
The media can kiss my ass. All the big corporate media giants benefited greatly from Bill Clinton's media deregulation in the 90s, of course they want another corporate tool in the White House. And secondly, they know that Hillary is a losing bet for the Democrats, so of course they want us to nominate her so they can deal with President McCain when he is elected.
Critical media my ass..
Michael wrote on January 23, 2008 11:06 AM:Greg, of course it was "testy"! Don't you know that Obama is "frustrated"? The media told me so!
Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 11:06 AM:Agreed grover_rover. By the way the new theme pressed by the clintons and the right-wing media is to try to portray obama as an angry african-american man similar to jesse jackson. They have done everything possible to provoke him and he has avoided the trap to date. That's the game plan to belittle the south carolina victory and his campaign. Hopefully people will see through this. I guess we'll find out on 2/5.
Greg wrote on January 23, 2008 11:06 AM:Southpaw, you're embarrassing yourself. As soon as we heard about the vid this morning, we watched it and did an update.
Please cut the canned outrage. It's just boring at this point. Just stop already.
Bernard HP Gilroy wrote on January 23, 2008 11:10 AM:I have to side with those saying this was a no-apology apology. Why isn't the headline, here and on Horse's Mouth, more like "TPM Election Central Badly Mischaracterizes Obama's Alleged "Testy Exchange" With Reporter"? Or better, "ABC News Badly Mischaracterizes Obama's Alleged "Testy Exchange" With Reporter -- and We Fall for It"? Why in heaven's name did you post any commentary at all before the video was available? (Which, by the way, was pretty darn quickly.)
Is the maturation of the blogosphere going to be marked by its degeneration into just another part of the echo chamber? That's not why people come here. We have expectations of a higher discourse than that.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 11:11 AM:Oh for pity's sake, here we go again. The dichotomy between the rational Obama supporters (like St Louis Nick and Angry Vet) and the unhinged gets put on display front and center. Strangely, though, no one will notice the rational ones. Instead, we will all of us get tarred with the broad brush of "whiny," "cult-like," "childish." Why is that? Many reasons, but right at the top of the list is that so many of my fellow Obama supporters are whiny, childish, cult-like obsessives.
Please, please get some perspective. Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld run a very good blog. If it were not, why would we all come here? Not every story, headline, concluding paragraph, etc needs be read as media bias. Mr Sargent made an honest mistake and, like the gentleman that he is, has apologized and corrected it. Could we please not continue to act in ways that merely perpetuate the idea that Obama's campaign is a XXI childrens crusade?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 23, 2008 11:12 AM:Whoops, I meant "XXI century." Sorry for that omission.
IMPORTANT DETAILS wrote on January 23, 2008 11:12 AM:Greg wrote on January 22, 2008 7:07 PM:
just clarified that he was meeting with supporters at the time. it is an important detail.
one wrote on January 22, 2008 7:09 PM:
Picking are slim! It seems your readers are getting fewer! Soon, the choir will preach to itself! ABC has reported at least one other non stories today. Also, the selective rendering of the State newspaper article. Editorial discretion is a great idea but TPM's approach is getting to be a bit too much!!!
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 11:13 AM:
As soon as we heard about the vid this morning, we watched it and did an update.
Yes, who could ever have known that over-the-air broadcast material would somehow make to the Internets and be available in short order? I mean, that never happens... it would have been silly to wait for the video and do actual fact-checking on our election fact-checking site...
Southpaw isn't the one who's being embarrassing.
bob wrote on January 23, 2008 11:13 AM:Greg,
Thanks for the update! I appreciate that you posted it. I knew something smelled fishy about that ABC report yesterday. Unbelievable. Glad you guys are keeping an eye on them and following up when appropriate.
Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 11:14 AM:Greg-
You guys are doing a pretty good job. I don't think you are supporting any candidate, though I do believe I have seen in the past an admittance on Josh's part that he is leaning Obama. Whatever.
In the end, I think y'all are trying to remain objective. Hell, we all make mistakes, and you guys did your best to correct it when you found it. I'm sure, also, that you have learned a little something out of this that even patient observers tend to forget at times:
The MSM is not to be 100% trusted.
Surprise surprise. That's precisely the reason why we give y'all our support.
From this Obama supporter- no worries, little harm, smaller foul. Who gives? You spent your two minutes in the penalty box, now get back out there and skate!
(sorry for the hockey metaphor, I'm a Minnesotan)
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 11:15 AM:Sunlen Miller of ABC News needs to be placed on a watch list!
Michael wrote on January 23, 2008 11:16 AM:I'd also add that I too am tired of my fellow Obama supporters crying "bias!" all the time, just as I was tired of Clinton supporters doing the same for months in 2007, and Edwards supporters doing the same for the entire campaign.
It gets old. If everyone's supporters are complaining about bias at some point in time, then there's probably no bias. Just consider that.
Bernard HP Gilroy wrote on January 23, 2008 11:16 AM:Maybe I'm alone but I don't think it was media bias. I think it was simple incompetence. And the apology doesn't really count when buried at the end of a story on a different blog. If he wants credit for correcting his mistake, he needs to do it in the same forum and with the same prominence as the original erroneous story.
Yeah, it's hard admitting one's mistakes in a public and prominent matter. You know that? That's why it's the hallmark of a respectable professional.
Southpaw wrote on January 23, 2008 11:17 AM:Canned outrage? I assure you it is authentic. The racial undertones to your prior headline's characterization that Obama got into a "tussle" with a reporter, particularly in advance of the SC primary, make it absolutely inexcusable. Yet nowhere on this site do you retract or apologize for the headline. And the headline remains, for the benefit of anyone who might be browsing your site for brief updates on campaign news, but who might be too busy (or attention-deficient) to read through to your "Late Update," or to follow your link to a separate website, where, again, you bury the lede (the apology for your own misleading headline) and instead choose to point the finger at ABC, abdicating your own responsibility as a journalist to not merely regurgitate, but to REPORT.
Canned outrage this isn't. And you may find it boring, but I'm not writing to entertain you. Not even to educate you (you're beyond help). Rather, to shine the light on what this site has become. You see, I have no problem with Taylor Marsh, at least not from a journalistic perspective. She shills for Hillary just as you do. But at least she is up front about it. TPM-EC owes its readers more than this. It's fine if you want to endorse Hillary. Then your articles can be evaluated in that light. To publish these same articles while operating under the guise of neutrality, however, is far more insidious, and almost Orwellian.
So I will not stop. We've been asking *you* to stop for months. We're no longer asking.
JC wrote on January 23, 2008 11:19 AM:Yeah I was wondering about this. Smith was up with the video first. But it makes me wonder how can you report on something when you never saw the video for it? Don't you care about credibility? The same thing happened to Hillary--everyone said she cried. But look at the video, it never happened. The sad part is that you missed the real interesting part of the exchange: Zeleny's followup (I think it was his since for anyone else it would have been a nonsequitur): He starts asking about the 2000 NY senate race where Clinton tried to get in Guiliani's head and paint him as an angry spiteful pol. Nagourey wrote about this back in Nov. how Clinton succeeded in getting in Guiliani's head. I think Zeleny is trying to draw comparisons between the tactics the Clinton's used then and now. But that story was buried by the mischaracterization of the exchange. Instead we get, look at Obama he is rattled. In fact he seems to get the better of Zeleny. It reminds me of the story where in the Senate race he introduced the kid who his opponent had tail him all over Chicago with a video camera to the press. "Ladies and Gentleman, this is Justin, he has been hired to follow me whereever I go with a camera, he is here to answer you questions." The kid got swarmed and Obama walked away, needless to say Ryan called him off. This is the kind of thing Obama excels at. So this story of him getting rattled may help him because Hillary seems to consistently underestimate him. The story has less flattering implications for the press, I think the press has to be careful in the video age because now who is going to believe ABC or you anymore when you post a story on this kind of thing. We would have to see for outselves. God bless digital video. It is to your credit that you posted a correction, but next time check the video first.
AJM wrote on January 23, 2008 11:20 AM:Having watched the video, it appears ABC misquoted Obama. What I hear Obama saying is that he wants to ASK the reporter a question off the record not answer and then promising to sit down with the reporter later to do so. Anybody else hear ask rather than answer?
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 11:21 AM:While I think you're being fair, I don't understand why the original story is on this page while the correction is on the Horse's Mouth. If you fix that, no problem.
Dave C wrote on January 23, 2008 11:24 AM:Thanks for setting the record straight, Greg.
roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 11:26 AM:Greg,
For what it is worth, I think this is fine as a retraction although I think it that at this level of severity, "mischaracterisation" seems like a mild word to me (but different words mean different things to people.) "Complete distortion" and "breach of journalistic ethic" would be more in line with what I saw. This stuff needs to be called out so that the MSM will stop pulling it before the General starts.
I do not think you guys realise the power of the headline, either! That is what my main problem with the original piece was. The headline was way off what the post itself said, even before the fact-checking update. While it is a reasonable assumption that people actually read the posts and watch the videos to make sure they have all the facts, I have to tell you that "reasoned," "informed" and "fact-based" have not exactly been dominating traits in "discussions" on here recently if you have not noticed. And we are supposedly the "intellectual elite" being on lefty blogs and everything. How do you think the average person is going to respond?
"ABC reporter blatantly lies" is what I am looking at here. You have to call them out. No-one can mistake Obama's response as "angry" so the piece is clearly attempting to enforce or initiate the "frustrated" narrative (to be clear, I do not the reporter is a Clinton conspiracist, just another MSM journo.)
I would have been happy with "Jeff Zelany Makes an Ass out of Himself (Again)" too.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 23, 2008 11:26 AM:*yawn*
As non-stories go, this ranks near the top. When I saw the sensationalized headline regarding this "testy" exchange, I immediately watched the video. As I watched the video, it became abundantly clear that the headline and the characterization were completely baseless. The question that came to mind was, "Is the reporter or editor simply trying to create a spicy narrative to attract readers, or is there something more nefarious afoot?"
I don't endorse conspiracy theories, but I see clearly what Bill/Hill Clinton's latest strategy is vis-a-vis Obama. It's a two pronged strategy:
1. Get Obama off message of Hope, and
2. Create the impression in the electorate that Obama doesn't have the temperament to be President. (See GOP attack of McCain in SC in 2000). The Clinton's for all their demagoguery of Karl Rove, sure approve of his tactics.
Hence during the press conference yesterday, Hillary characterized Obama's performance as "frustrated". Using the word "angry" would have backfired because it would have been interpreted as racist, as in the whole "angry black man" trope.
This so-called story plays into the Clinton narrative for number two quite nicely.
Like you Greg, I didn't see anything remotely angry, temperamental, or "testy" about the exchange. It's much ado about nothing. How it's attracted the coverage it has beats me.
Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 11:28 AM:Geez, guys, let it drop. Ok? Where does this get us? If you want an Obama-only talking shop, go to his blogs on his homepage.
Now, if you want a view of what is going on in the campaign in a semi-objective matter, with critique, come here, but beware the trolls.
Attacking the purveyors credibility, in rather unfounded terms, is not the way to solve the problems. Discussing what happened to cause the error is, instead, a constructive approach.
Southpaw, you claim to be an attorney, but I don't see the problem-solving nature we (believe, at least( are imbued with. Instead, you are arguing to everyone else to turn TPM off if they do not "apologize," which was done. Not only that, they provided a friendly link that you can utilize which is rarely given in most mainstream outlets. Usually they bury their retractions in Page 36, underneath the lottery numbers, or in rarely read ombudsman columns.
What good comes from that?
Why I bother engaging trolls is beyond me, but I guess I am particularly offended when trolls are speaking and they come from my team.
I'm with southpaw wrote on January 23, 2008 11:30 AM:This latest headline and blurb is not much better than the last one. ABC "mischaracterizes," okay, I'm with you so far (though I'm a bit baffled as to why you're not owning up to your own mischaracterizations, at least not here on the site where you made them). But then, why is the exchange with the reporter still referred to as "allegedly" testy? That implies that whether or not it was testy is still a matter subject to dispute. When an allegation has been proven false, as this one clearly has been via the video (which ABC posted *along* with its initial story... http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/is-bill-clinton.html ... and yes, Greg, you did miss it, it was there from the beginning) it is no longer in dispute, right? It should no longer be referred to as "alleged." By failing to identify an outright falsehood as such, you give implied credence to it. This is what the MSM does every day. We can do better.
Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 11:32 AM:CNB-
I like your analysis, very much. The question then becomes, how does Obama fire back? "Stay on message?"
I think that message works. Your analysis suggests that "staying on message" subverts the tactical play of HRC.
wwjb wrote on January 23, 2008 11:34 AM:Gotta love how the Hillbots took the opportunity on the original post to try to talk shit about Obama, gotta love 'em. Of course you'll never hear a mea culpa from them. Kinda like their leader, "I was wrong" isn't in their vocab, they just become uncharacteristically silent.
Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 11:36 AM:WWJB-
Good point. I guess this is a circular Obama firing squad.
Fred App wrote on January 23, 2008 11:36 AM:Greg, you can blame ABC all you want, and they are certainly culpable. But ...
1) Your headline stated flat-out that Obama got into a verbal tussle with reporters. There was no attribution to ABC.
2) You used the word tussle. There were no quotes around it.
3) The lede states flat out that he got into an argument. There's no hedging, there's no "allegedly," there's no attribution. You state it as fact.
4) As you admit, you printed the piece without having the video to verify. So basically you were repeating something that you did not know to be true, but you wrote it as if you did.
It's nice that you corrected yourself today. You deserve some props for that. But you should never have run the piece to begin with, or you should have been more circumspect in writing it. I don't think it betrays any bias on your part. I think it was just downright shoddy journalism -- by both you and ABC.
As Obama said, "Don't pull a cheap stunt like that. You're better than that."
hello_world wrote on January 23, 2008 11:37 AM:AJM, listening to it again, I think you might be right. It sounded like Obama said that he wanted to ask the reporter a question, off the record.
I'll be honest. I'd wouldn't mind hearing what it was that was asked off the record. :)
ChrisNBama wrote on January 23, 2008 11:39 AM:Angry Vet:
Precisely. Obama wins on his message. It's that simple. The story that didn't get much play due to the aforementioned manufactured tripe (ABC story), is the inspiring speech Obama made at the Ebenezer Baptist Church just this past Sunday.
Obama made an impassioned plea for unity, and specifically mentioned politically dangerous problems like antisemitism and homophobia. How often do you hear such lofty rhetoric from any other political candidate? It's *gasp* down right Presidential. At least in the best tradition of that word in the spirit of JFK and FDR.
Obama needs to remain above the fray, while letting surrogates deal directly with his opponents.
NCSteve wrote on January 23, 2008 11:41 AM:This is a long one, so it will probably be OBE (overcome by events) by the time I hit "post."
Southpaw, you are, in fact, embarassing yourself and you're not helping the cause.
For every poster her screaming "Hillary Bias!" there's another screaming "Obama Bias!" In both cases, they're acting under what's known as "hostile media effect," an ideologically driven form of selective perception.
In one classic study on this subject related to the hostile media effect (which is itself an excellent example of selective perception), viewers watched a filmstrip of a particularly violent Princeton-Dartmouth American football game. Princeton viewers reported seeing nearly twice as many rule infractions committed by the Dartmouth team than did Dartmouth viewers. One Dartmouth alumnus did not see any infractions committed by the Dartmouth side and erroneously assumed he had been sent only part of the film, sending word requesting the rest.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_perception
Anyone here finding that that shoe to a good fit, perchance?
This is also, by the way, the exact same pheonomona behind the increasingly unhelpful caricatures of "Obamaniacs" and "Hillbots" around here, lately. We see the posters who live the stereotype and filter out the ones who don't. It's all good fun 'til someone gets hurt.
Angry Vet wrote on January 23, 2008 11:46 AM:NCS-
YAY! I love returning to my psychological roots (10 years ago). Like old soldiers, psycho-dynamicists never die, they just fade away.......
CNB-
Mmmmmaybe....... Now, the question is, how to wrest the media away from the Clintons?
roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 11:47 AM:ChrisNBama, Angry Vet,
Agreed, and that is exactly what the tactic is. Fortunately Obama has now stepped beyond the "Bill is lying" stage (which was originally meant to be a very short step back to examine the race) and he is, from what I understand, back "on" the normal message.
The "frustrated" == "angry negro" implications coming from Clinton seem to be a result of the campaign's gross incompetence (since they definitely are not race-baiting.) I wonder how it would play out if one of the reporters asked them how the campaign keeps making such amateurish mistakes?
example.com wrote on January 23, 2008 11:48 AM:I'm an Obama supporter, I won't vote for Hillary in the general, etc, etc, etc.
HOWEVER
Some of the Obama supporters around here need to calm down. The post could have been better written, but to scream outrage at TPM is over the top. We ought to act more like our candidate here.
Southpaw wrote on January 23, 2008 11:50 AM:Greg, I love how your big excuse for why your reporting was inaccurate was that you failed to follow ABC's link to the video, and yet you now apparently presume that all of TPM-EC's readers will follow *your* link to read your apology and pseudo-retraction (even when your link itself makes *no* reference to the fact that you will be apologizing).
In any case, Greg, maybe you can follow this link:
http://www.uta.fi/ethicnet/sweden.html
In particular, you may want to focus on the following:
"Provide accurate news
1. The role played by the mass media in society and the confidence of the general public in these media call for accurate and objective news reports.
2. Be critical of news sources. Check facts as carefully as possible in the light of the circumstances *even if they have been published earlier*. Allow the reader/ listener/ viewer the possibility of distinguishing between statements of fact and comments.
3. Newsbills, *headlines* and introductory sections must be supported by the text."
In other words:
(1) Don't reprint what ABC prints without checking facts "as carefully as possible." While the exact amount of diligence required here may be up for debate, there can be no argument that it should not have included watching the video that was linked by the ABC story itself.
(2) When it becomes clear that your headline "Obama Gets Into Tussle With Reporter" is no longer "supported by the text" (i.e., when your "Late Update" concedes the inaccuracy of the original post), you should *change* the headline, so as not to mislead more casual readers of this site.
southpaw: now there are "racial" overtones to the word "tussle"? that's a good one.
To others: The reason this correction ran at Horses Mouth is because thats where we do media criticism at TPM. We linked to it from EC here, and in an update to the original EC post, repeated the point that the original post had mischaracterized what happened.
Also, I'd say "badly mischaracterized" is a pretty fair description.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 23, 2008 11:52 AM:Angry Vet:
It's impossible to get the media away from the Clinton's. In fact, it's their achilles heel. How many positive stories have you read lately about Bill for instance? Virtually everything I've read is negative. My response is, let it be. It only raises all the old questions that just won't go away, and reminds people that Hillary doesn't represent change, but the status quo. Moreover, the more over the top Bill becomes, the more it distract's from Hillary's message, which benefits Obama. I see it as a win win.
What doesn't benefit Obama is the incessant subtext of anger, frustration, or anything that is antithetical to his message of a new kind of politics. Hillary knows this, and is feeding it to the best of her ability.
The question remains, can Obama remain above the fray?
Smith wrote on January 23, 2008 11:56 AM:Greg,
I read TPM almost every day. I find your work consistently accurate and honest. In a hot campaign it's difficult to get everything right. I've got to say, though, that yesterday I came away from this site thinking that Obama had lost it on the campaign trail when dealing with the press. I didn't find out differently until this morning. I probably never would have known if I hadn't come back here until tomorrow.
And yes, in this case, I do think you should try to do more to set the record straight - and you do come across somewhat defensive.
On the whole you are doing an excellent job and I will keep coming back here without reservation.
stlounick wrote on January 23, 2008 12:02 PM:I don't think Obama should remain "above the fray". I support providing facts and humor in each response to the mud slinging.
Hopefully, the new Obama Truth Squad will send out their fact checks in a humorous way and we'll see ads that are humorous and not so damned serious.
Face it. Negative stuff WORKS. And it just can't stay dangling out there unanswered. So use the facts and use humor and answer them. That's a positive way to handle this mud slinging.
Obama does humor well. Remember the "have to see Bill dancing" from the last debate. It was funny and to the point.
But they do have to be answered.
Southpaw wrote on January 23, 2008 12:05 PM:Headline Writing 101:
ABC MISCHARACTERIZES OBAMA EXCHANGE WITH REPORTER AS "TESTY"
Maybe this is what you *meant* to write, Greg. But you didn't. And as I and others have noted, it's what you should have written. Your headline as written still implies that there is some "allegation" about the nature of the exchange the veracity of which remains to be tested. Not to mention the fact that it fails to point out that TPM-EC itself mischaracterized the Obama exchange with the reporter as a "tussle."
Furthermore, if you really do not see how the "tussle"/"testy"/"angrily"/"frustrated" meme that has been advanced by Hillary, her campaign, the MSM (ABC), and now you, has racial undertones (namely, painting Obama out as the "angry black man"... or as -- and I hesitate to put it in these terms, but in advance of the SC primary, it is unavoidable -- the "uppity negro"), even if unintended (on your part, at least, I will give you that benefit of the doubt), then I submit that you're just not paying careful enough attention to the dynamics of this race. Most Obama supporters will even acknowledge that part of the reason he has not hit back even when directly and unfairly attacked by Hillary and Co. over much of the course of this campaign is that he is trying to avoid being portrayed in this manner, something which will rightly or wrongly (and of course it is wrongly) cost him votes among whites, not simply the overtly racist whites, but also whites who are not in touch with their own latent and mild (but nonetheless extant) racial prejudices.
So I fail to see how you can use words like "nut" and "canned outrage" to refer to those who view your non-retraction retraction with skepticism. Particularly in light of your own failings here.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:06 PM:"To others: The reason this correction ran at Horses Mouth is because thats where we do media criticism at TPM. We linked to it from EC here, and in an update to the original EC post, repeated the point that the original post had mischaracterized what happened."
Greg-
Even so, that makes it pretty easy for the MSM to twist things, if that's your method of operation. Talk some trash, you post it up here, then when it's proven wrong, you write about it elsewhere and link to it. I understand its minimal, but that's election news as much as it is media criticism. I think you've covered the incident fairly, but this makes you look bad, no matter what the reasons behind it.
I didn't realize the video was up with the original post. The question for Greg is: did he look at the video before posting? And if not , why not? Did he not see it? Honest mistake. No problem. But I think it is important that once these stories get out the gate, it is hard to put em back in the barn. Which is why it is doubly important to 2x check. Of course we commenters have the luxury of shooting our mouth off about any old thing, and, as a result, we are for the most part ignored. But sourcing matters. Also there is a real story that got missed because the press is so ready to fit stories into existing narratives. Obama (and his crew) really got to move on to something else. He has such a great message, he should just keep on keepin on. Talking about concrete things and how a new unity can make concrete differences. That was the beauty of the Ebenezer speech, it all came down to his supporters and how they were remaking the face of American politics. I for one argue that Obama supporters ought to give Greg the benefit of the doubt on this one. He does great stuff, this was just a mistake--he has admitted it.
La Wanda wrote on January 23, 2008 12:28 PM:for those of you not from my bloc..."off the record" is a direct physical threat...listen to you NWA or 50 cent......naive bunch....
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 12:42 PM:so you guys really ARE just stenographers who copy down what others write without actually, you know, VERIFYING it...
hello_world wrote on January 23, 2008 12:50 PM:"La Wanda", I think Huffington Post is good for another good experienced wingnut troll. If you keep working at it, you might just make the big-leagues.
Like many others here, I appreciate the correction. Like many others here, I think "mischaracterization" is a somewhat inadequate word to use in this context, especially in light of the original post, but it's water under the bridge. Good of you to own up to the mistake. Now, lets get the folks at MediaMatters on this one stat.
blackstar wrote on January 23, 2008 1:06 PM:even if Obama had gotten as "testy" as the report describes (he didn't), this still IS NOT NEWS.
that being said, Greg, you should probably do the journalistic busy work to validate a story's veracity before taking time to post it here. obviously yesterday you did not do that. i won't give you credit for the correction because that is what's expected if you want to assume the mantle of a responsible journalist.
though on the same topic: in light of the video, has there been any mention of ABC retracting or altering a story that now appears to be false?
sally wrote on January 23, 2008 1:10 PM:People, come on. I don't think I have ever seen a democratic primary turn so ugly so fast. Do you really think that any of the Republicans would be better than either Obama or Clinton? Would you really rather Mitt Romney or John McCain win? How about another 8 years of war and tax breaks for the rich? How about no healthcare for another 8 years. I really can't believe we are turning on each other this way. Everybody needs to grow up.
mediathreat wrote on January 23, 2008 1:32 PM:damage done.
oh well
mftalbot wrote on January 23, 2008 2:22 PM:"No evidence that Obama molested 30 preschoolers."
See? No libel, but you've managed to put "Obama" and "Child Molester" together in people's minds.
"Opponents digging for evidence that Hillary helped Bin Laden plan the 9/11 attacks."
Nonsense, but not technically a "lie".
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to apply for a pundit job at various media outlets. Wish me luck.
Helter wrote on January 23, 2008 3:02 PM:
Good job on the recant, Greg. It's a shame we won't see anything like that out of ABC. They hate when bloggers call them on their bullshit.
jamois wrote on January 23, 2008 3:34 PM:Greg - I had meant to come over earlier and say thanks, not only for the clarification, but for the original post. Eric's original link (and let's be fair, the ABC piece was linked to from multiple sites) was the only one which actually ended with a semi-disclaimer, stating that he wanted to see tape before really firming the story up. As opposed to HuffPo, which had a headline about "Obama Angrily" attacking a reporter. You are unfairly being blasted here for the original post. (And I'm a long-time Obama supporter who has questioned your bias in the past.)
;)
Of course, my good intentions have been more than watered down by the likes of Southpaw. People. Take a breath. It's a blog. If you want to complain, write a letter ABC News, as I did, demanding a retraction. They are the offending party, here. This isn't Greg or Eric's fault. They just linked to it, and did so responsibly. Yeesh.
DancingBear wrote on January 23, 2008 3:48 PM:AJM wrote: "Having watched the video, it appears ABC misquoted Obama. What I hear Obama saying is that he wants to ASK the reporter a question off the record not answer and then promising to sit down with the reporter later to do so. Anybody else hear ask rather than answer?"
I think you're right. And asking the reporter something off the record has a lot different connotations than answering questions off the record.
Chris wrote on January 23, 2008 4:29 PM:Greg,
This post is pretty far down the page, but I hope you read it. The general point I'd like to make is this: the whole reason I read TPM is because it tends to provide more critical and reasoned analysis than the MSM. Obama v. Clinton aside, I don't read TPM in order to see blind repetitions of ABC News stories bent on stirring up controversy with no additional critical input. There are enough news outlets competing for attention in that game (in the case of this particular story, namely, Fox News!). While I appreciate your attempted correction, the initial 'journalistic' practice is what I find most disturbing.
mg wrote on January 23, 2008 5:39 PM:I have not been an avid reader of this site and so I don't know the backstory to the infighting but I appreciate the correction. I wish it were in larger font but ocnsidering how many outright falsehoods I have seen spread about Barack on various blogs, I'll take an apology where I can get it. By the way, thanks for including the video and alleviating all doubt.
thepoliticalpost wrote on January 23, 2008 11:35 PM:I had to post an update in which I linked to this site for corrective purposes regarding the take on the exchange between Obama and the reporter.
I still hold to my two-on-one theme that the Clintons hold an unfair advantage against Obama and may experience backlash among voters post SC.
http://thepoliticalpost.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/do-the-clintons-have-obama-rattled/
