Note To Media: Calling To Confirm Stuff About Obama's Transition Isn't Hard To Do
Readers: You'll be reading lots and lots of unconfirmed reports about whom Obama supposedly is appointing to this or that position. Some advice: Take these reports with an ocean's worth of salt.
Fox News, MSNBC, and Time magazine all reported that Rahm Emanuel had accepted the job as White House chief of staff. MSNBC and Time have now both retracted these reports.
Which raises a question: What is so hard about calling Emanuel's office to confirm this kind of thing before running with it? That's what we did yesterday, and Emanuel's spokesperson kindly told us that, no, he hadn't taken the gig. So we reported that.
This is one of those cases where the competition between media outlets paradoxically produces worse journalism. It's a major pain in the butt for folks like me who want to keep their readers accurately informed.
It's true that sometimes the major players keep their flacks in the dark about accepting this or that gig while they work inside angles. Still, can't we all stick to reporting what we know to be true? It's important, because the reams of mis-information just make it harder for Obama to manage this transition. And getting this transition right is kind of a big deal.
Okay. End of rant.
Well give yourself a gold star and good for you for calling them out on their sloppy bullshit.
I can't believe they didn't confirm it first. Jesus.
November 6, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn right!!!!
November 6, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
So now you're expecting the MSM to act like *journalists*?? Ha!
November 6, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a note, MSNBC quoted Josh Marshall and TPM as their source for this whole Rahm Emmanuel thing.
November 6, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I thought it was a glaring omission that Greg did not address this aspect of the story...
November 6, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then they went with it and added to it. I don't remember anyone here at TPM saying that it was a sure thing.
November 6, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess they still need to catch up on their sleep.
OT: I hope Samantha Power come back. Any word on that?
November 6, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone just has to be the first one to report the big story - screw verification! We're the first!
i.e. Dewey Defeats Truman!
November 6, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of sloppy journalism: did anyone else hear Mara Liasson's hit piece on NPR this morning? She was interviewing a bunch of right-wing hacks about how impossible it's going to be for Obama to accomplish anything. Basically already grading Obama's presidency as a failure before he's even sworn in.
November 6, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP will do nothing but fillibuster their asses off for the next four years trying to show off the Democrats as do nothing/accomplish nothing - same shit they've been pulling for the last two years!
Only thing, though - we voters know they're doing that!
November 6, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know it they can do that. I agree that they will filibuster, but they are going to have to pick their battles. If they filibuster everything, then they reduce their chances of controlling a house of Congress any time soon. It will just look bad.
I think a lot of what we want done will get accomplished. Of course it may take awhile until we are out of crisis mode.
November 6, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
NPR can quit talking to the losers, AFAIC.
They didn't come talk to us in '04, did they? They weren't asking progressives these last 8 years what we thought about things - they told us what to think.
Fucking media - get your heads out of your asses. Sheesh!
November 6, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
We kicked the conservative movement in the gut, rolled it and left it in the alley.
I don't care what they think. They have screamed, rammed shit down our throats and been obnoxious for the last 12 to 15 years and I don't care if their world is falling apart - they can either deal or shut the fuck up. Now!
November 6, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
No...you kicked the Republican's asses (not quite as severely as anticipated) the Conservative movement wasn't on the ballot.
November 6, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the map Wallace.
Yes we did kick the conservative movement in the gut - the map is different and the conservative movement and the GOP are in ruins, Wallace.
November 6, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't understand Tena, it's not the fact that the American populace has roundly rejected modern conservatism, no no, it's just that it's never been properly implemented. Much the same way that neo-conservatism has never been properly implemented. You see how that works?
November 6, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Constitutional Amendments against same-sex marraige were approved in CA, AZ and FL (CA and FL went for Obama). Amendments baring the use of "race, gender and ethnicity when handing out contracts, hiring employees and awarding scholarships" were approved in NE and CO (another Obama state). The only thing Conservative about McCain was his running mate and without her on the ticket he'd have gone down farther and faster.
November 6, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
So "conservatism" is defined by a grouping of social issues? ergo. Palin was a "true" conservative and not McCain? Even though McCain supported the same "conservative" social issues? Hmmmmm....
November 6, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh...Dude, if you don't want to participate just don't.
November 6, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just going by your statement of "The only thing Conservative about McCain was his running mate" If you can't back-up the claim, don't blame me.
The only difference I could tell between Palin and McCain was that Palin seemed to enjoy flirting with the more extreme elements of the right. I don't believe that she expressed any social views that McCain disagreed with. So with that being the case, I ask again, what makes Palin a "real" conservative and McCain not?
November 6, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain is for Cap and Trade, his immigration bill was not conservative, his campaign finance wasn't either, he voted against the Bush tax cuts (you know the ones Obama will let expire, thereby raising taxes on you if you make $42,000 a year like we tried to warn you). He's against most drilling (even though he like to say "drill baby drill"). He was the least conservative of the candidates during the primary.
November 6, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm about as liberal as they come, but I strongly support the measures passed in NE and CO there Wallace. Jobs, scholarships and the like should always go to the most qualified, regardless of any other factors. Affirmative action is tokenism, and its frankly racist and sexist in its most basic underpinnings (it assumes that Women and minorities need a free ride). NE and CO made the right choice
November 6, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I gotta agree with you to a point. Recently it's been the 2 'big government' parties. I have no idea where the Conservative Movement's been, but I've not seen it for some time....
November 6, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
But as far as the current Republican, the cut taxes but also spend more money, party goes, it did get its ass knocked down a lot of pegs.
November 6, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the map on HuffPo - you will see what I mean. We fucking kicked the stuffing out of the GOP and the conservative movement.
God, look at Nevada, look at Texas - the red is concentrated in one relatively small area now.
November 6, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will say this we have some work to do on gay issues, namely tolerance.
November 6, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry about that, Joseph.
I think the hangup is stupid - it's on the word "marriage". If that hadn't been put in those terms, it might not have been defeated. The proposition is unconstitutional - it totally violates Equal Protection.
But the conservative movement got resoundingly defeated otherwise - women's issues did well. Your rights are tied to women's rights and I believe we'll advance from here.
But I agree that Prop 8 was a heartbreak.
November 6, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not gay rights - it's all about the word - marriage. That's what the problem is, stupid as that may be.
November 6, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with both of your statements. A disappoint for sure on Prop 8. So it goes...this too shall pass and we will overcome.
We're not going away, we're not going to shut up, and we're not going to stop loving each other. :)
November 6, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course not and we all have your backs on this - it will happen, Joseph.
I do not believe a majority of Americans really give a shit. I'll tell you though - y'all need to realize that people are hung-up on the damn word. You may have to compromise with civil unions, which is just a euphamism for legal marriage. People hear "marriage" they think church and that's the problem. They are lied to by their leaders who convinced them that if same sex marriage is legalized, their churches will be forced to perform them which is not true.
But you can't fight that kind of fear - you have to work around it, IMO. You have to change the frame - that's what the Right did with choice = they made it about something else.
November 6, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't there a state somewhere in the south that already has two classifications for marriage (i.e., done in a church and done before a Justice of the Peace). I seem to remember years ago that they passed a law saying that you couldn't get married in a church without pre-marital counseling; if you didn't get the counseling you got married in a "civil" ceremony. Did that quietly go away or is it still hanging around, anybody know? 'Cause that could be a way to start framing an argument.
November 6, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know. If it just said 'union', then it may have worked. Language is far more important than some people realize. The word "marriage" has probably reams of images in everyone of our heads that's put there since we are children. But if it had just said "union" and then all of those images aren't attached.
That said, I'm sorry and it sucks what happened in California.
November 6, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're on the right track with that thought. The argument in CA was framed specifically around the biblical definition of marriage and teaching about same-sex parents in grade schools. The fundamentalists got their undies knotted up about God's law not being followed and the social nazis got all paranoid about teaching second graders about Heather's parents.
Neither argument shines any light on the actual issue of equal protection under the law which is at the core of the debate. The fact that the political and social left in CA allowed the discussion to drift so far off the mark is on them. I'm pissed they let themselves be distracted by the small shiny objects of religion and education and didn't re-focus the conversation back on equal protection. That's where the battle should be fought and that's (legally) where it can be won. Many people who will support you in an equal protection argument will fight you on a religious or social-political argument.
November 6, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The fundamentalists got their undies knotted up about God's law not being followed and the social nazis got all paranoid about teaching second graders about Heather's parents"
Prop 8 got ove 1.5 million more votes than McCain. Somehow I don't see "bunched up" fundamentalists and social nazis voting for Obama...I wonder where the other votes came from?
November 6, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re-read the last sentence of my comment. I think a large number of constitutional conservatives who would support an equal protection argument voted for Prop 8 on social and religious grounds.
November 6, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
I have had this marriage discussion with a lot of laymen who do not understand what marriage is and I cannot seem to get it through to some people who don't know much about the law.
Marriage only became a church sacriment after the fact of its existence was established. It's not really a religious thing - it's really only a legal contract. That's all it is.
The converse is equally demonstrable - my nephew and his same sex spouse had a real church wedding - all the trimmings. But they aren't legally married. So it's all for nothing as far as the law is concerned. My mother and father were married by a JP - no church, no religious anything. They were legally married.
And that's the only important part -really. The word is symbolic. The actual relationship is PURELY LEGAL. It's a contract between the couple and the state -
it's a contract between the couple and the state. It's about property rights. That's the only reason it exists. It's a legal property rights contract with each other and the state.
November 6, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, that's some map.
November 6, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right or wrong, the GOP and the conservative movement are tied to one another in the minds of most voters. The economic meltdown was blamed by most people on the Republicans by themselves, because of their conservative policies, primarily in the areas of deregulation and oversight. This facet of the blame game was a primary reason for the result in the second consecutive election that the GOP lost seats in Congress.
November 6, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
there are already many impeach obama websites..
November 6, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Figures. Time to let loose the howler monkeys.
November 6, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the prototypical race to the bottom.
November 6, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rant well worth it! Just proves what a quality news organization TPM is!
Good going guys!
November 6, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or you could think up some really wild rumor and put it on your blog just to see how far it could get!
November 6, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would say change is not off to the greatest start:
egomaniac reptile for chief of staff.. 'pondering the offer..'
neo-liberal, pro-corporate, deregulating, middle-class crushing economist for treasuy secretary...
November 6, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say the bitching is way way premature.
November 6, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is premature, and I'll probably be the first to hold Obama's ass to the flame when it's warranted. Now it's simply not and it won't be until after January 20.
November 6, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would say change is not off to the greatest start:
egomaniac reptile for chief of staff.. 'pondering the offer..'
neo-liberal, pro-corporate, deregulating, middle-class crushing economist for treasuy secretary...
November 6, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I'd say you're a crabby little person.
We got your message - you don't need to post it repeatedly.
November 6, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg come give them a chance I mean they have only just recovered from a candidate lacerating all their false premises
November 6, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good rant.
And for all the speculation frenzy in the media and elsewhere, I'll repeat the line from that great Obama photo that came out before the election: "Everyone chill the fuck out."
November 6, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word up!
November 6, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rant was well deserved.
And everyone who was commenting on how disappointed they were with Obama's first steps in the transition, just STFU already. You all jumped on the bandwagon without even considering whether the source had been verified.
"Democratic sources" my ass.
November 6, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you thank you thank you.
I'm all about STFU right now - I want to enjoy this moment and it's too damn soon to start yelling about what Obama has or hasn't done right yet.
Goddamn!
November 6, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know a president is capable of doing more than one thing at once, but doesn't Obama have a funeral to attend? The press needs to come down from its content-free, speculation-driven saturation election coverage and just chill.
November 6, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No shit.
And thanks to you too for that comment. Whew - we just fought off an entire movement.
Give us a moment to catch our breaths please.
Half the country or more still cannot believe we elected him and that's just the people who voted for him!
I hate to speak for a community I'm not part of but I heard yesterday on XM radio, one of the hip hop stations, how very confused this has cause some African Americans to feel - they believed so strongly this would never happen that a number called in and told Miss Kitty they were terribly confused.
We need to get used to it - 15 years almost of Repug rule.
November 6, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM this crap about Raaaaahhhhhm is coming out of the AP - who also pushed Rahm as Obama's VP - and the AP gives it directly to Halperin.
This is wishful thinking by party insiders/hard liners.
While Obama is sharp to keep his enemies close- Rahms's hesitation would indicate he won't have both eyes on Obamas roadmap.
November 6, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Your rant makes you look silly, when the story you ran with just prior to this one without apparently calling Gibbs first, has late updates reversing the original story.
November 6, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink