The Washington Post has weighed in, in its “Fact Checker” column, on a John McCain ad and manages to make a hash of the whole thing. Whoever wrote this didn’t pay much attention to McCain’s ad and seems completely oblivious to the fact that they effectively proved the reporter who wrote the original Raines article was wrong.
Which is pretty much what I said yesterday.
The column calls John McCain’s ad “particularly dubious”, the evidence for the connection between Obama and Franklin Raines “flimsy”, and accuses the campaign of “exaggerating wildly”.
Strong words. Does it have the proof to back them up? Well, no. Actually, Fact Checker makes some dubious and exaggerated claims of its own. As it happens, Fact Checker requires some fact-checking of its own.
First, Fact Checker says the Raines profile was in the Style section. It wasn’t. It was on the front page of the Financial section. There’s a decided difference between a profile in the Style section and one in the Financial section.
Second, Fact Checker claims that the McCain ad calls Raines a “close adviser” of Barack Obama. It doesn’t. You can check that for yourself by reading the transcript of the ad that sits right on top of the Fact Checker article. Take a look for yourself. The word “close” never appears in the ad.
Third, Fact Checker checked with the reporter who wrote the Raines profile who said she asked “if he was engaged at all with the Democrats’ quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said ‘oh, general housing, economy issues.’ (‘Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,’ I asked, and he said ‘no.’)”
So even though, according to the reporter, Raines never mentioned mortgages, she saw fit to put that in the article. She also conflated “a couple calls” to “seeking his [Obama's] advice”. The reporter got it wrong, not John McCain. You can hardly blame him for trusting the reporting of a professional journalist with an article on the front page of the business section of one of the most-read newspapers in the world.
Well, the Fact Checker folks certainly can blame him for it. But they are wrong to do so, just as they were wrong in other details of their supposed fact-check. I’d say a rather large correction and an apology are in order, both to Raines for misrepresenting what he said, and to John McCain, for lying about his ad and for betraying his trust with a shabby news article.
I don’t think you’ll see either one, which is a sign of how far the Washington Post has sunk as a reliable news source.
Tags: Barack Obama, Economics, John McCain, Media Bias, Washington Post
J: “Second, Fact Checker claims that the McCain ad calls Raines a “close adviser” of Barack Obama. It doesn’t.”
You’re damn it doesn’t. By which I mean that Fact Checker does not, in fact, ever claim that the McCain ad CALLS Raines, with these exact words, [QUOTE] “a close advisor” [UNQUOTE]. Here is what FC says, right in your link:
“The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama…”
The ad did say that Raines spoke to Obama himself, person to person, which would imply a certain degree of closeness, when in fact it was only one or 2 people involved in O’s campaign– not O himself– who called Raines, and he/she/they only called “a couple times” in total. Clearly not **as close** as the ad would have us believe, not by a country mile.
Oh, and that poor older white lady, mugged by the 2 black guys!
“She also conflated “a couple calls” to “seeking his [Obama's] advice”.”
Do you mean “inflated”? Cuz that’s the wrong usage of “conflate”. Who was seeking Obama’s advice?! Are you drunk? Don’t drink and post!
“You can hardly blame him for trusting the reporting of a professional journalist”
Of course I can. You and all of Rush’s Children are always talking about the evils of the MSM. When you bow down to its infallibility like you’re doing now, you creep me out. Who are you? Well, maybe just the drink talking, eh?
“how far the Washington Post has sunk as a reliable news source”
That’s more like it! Just make up your mind!
spoots, there’s a transcript right in front of you and you even misquote that. Are you sure you’re not reading my blog translated in a couple different languages?
Fact is, John McCain’s ad did not call Franklin Raines a “close adviser” of Barack Obama. Fact is that any error in the McCain ad can be laid entirely at the feet of the Washington Post at this point.
You’re wrong. Again. Don’t you ever get tired?
J: “you even misquote that”
I misquoted nothing. Please show exactly where you believe I misquoted anything.
“Fact is, John McCain’s ad did not call Franklin Raines a “close adviser” of Barack Obama.”
I know that! McCain’s ad does not use the 2 words “close advisor” together, and no one is arguiung that it did. It did, however, clearly imply that that they were close, which they are obviously not.
Compare and contrast the 2 following sentences to get at the heart of your (probably willful) misunderstanding:
1) FC says that McM’s ad calls R a “close advisor” to O.
2) FC says that McM’s ad calls R a close advisor to O.
See, one “close advisor” is in quotes and the other is not. You are defending only against #1, but not against #2.
I meant McC (for McCain), not McM, sorry.