The press is partisan and candidates' ads are not strictly accurate and objective.

"Joe, tell me it ain't so!"

I tend to approach their reporting on either candidate with a healthy skepticism. We're quick to label the media "liberal" if your on the right or "corporate" if your on the left, but the truth is they write with one interest in mind: their own.

It doesn't take a GMU graduate to recognize what happens when you cut back the news staff. Reporters will obtain their information from the most quickly available source, and then will recycle that information as necessary.

Oh look, Jay Sekulow's calling me again. Tell him to hold on 'til I'm finished with Kagan. No, not that one, the other one.

To this day, not one fact cited by the SWVFT has been credibly refuted.

You're going to have to be a lot more clever than that. There are word parsers at this site.

Due to the overwhelming number of attorneys who have been reported for unethical behavior to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (which regulates conduct of attorneys licensed to practice in Illinois), I no longer trust lawyers.

Due to the number of stock brokers who have been found liable for insider trading by the SEC, I no longer trust stock brokers.

Due to the number of doctors who have been found by a jury of their peers to have committed medical malpractice, I no longer trust doctors.

Due to the fact that I knew no less than two, and possibly five professors in law school who at one time slept with one of their students, I no longer trust law professors.

Due to the fact that there often are people who post and comment on the Volokh Conspiracy blog whom I find not credible, I no longer trust the posters and bloggers on this blog.

[OK, I retract the last one. But I don't trust anyone else!!]

"eminently fair and nonpartisan"

I've only ever read his opinion items in the National Law Journal, and they have struck me as anything but. Calling for a plague on both houses when the sins of one far outweigh the sins of the other is neither fair nor nonpartisan.

This is supposed to be worse than the "sex-ed for kindergarteners" ad?

Anderson, this probably won't convince you, but some people think the sex-ed ad was not a complete lie.

On one of Justin's points

d) Obama's mischaracterization is hardly less interesting or relevant (or damaging) news than McCain's numerous flipflops or his Spain gaffe, or Palin's multiple energy gaffes, in recent weeks. But since they ALSO don't fit the media memes, they've also been ignored.

I was intrigued by the Spanish gaffe.
For those who have not heard, in a radio interview, McCain was asked if he would meet with Prime Minister Zapatero of Spain. It was asked after questions about latin America.
McCain gave a stock answer: he'd meet with our friends, stand up to our enemies and then branched off to mention the Mexican President. The reporter asked again; same response; reporter asked again- response implied McCain talking about a country in this hemisphere. She tried to ask again - she used the word Europe- McCain heard "you" gave same answer. Alternative explanations- McCain didn't recognize who "President [all his names] Zapatero was. Thinks Spain is in Latin America; didn't understand the reporter because of accent or difficulty hearing; was deliberately wishing to continue snubbing NATO ally for pulling out of Iraq.

Listened to coverage on CNN's The situation room. The item was covered but so briefly and shallowly that it would have been heard for anyone to tell what the problem was.
Was it a deliberate distortion? Hard to believe the reporter who was "doing a good job" covering the story didn't understand the alternative possibilities.

was it: doesn't fit into our image of McCain

was it: the new national secret (replacing misoverestimating Bush's intelligence and intellectual curiosity) will be that McCain is either hard of hearing, having additional senior's moments, or has an enemies list.

Rather than having a reporter convey all the facts, CNN usually has two advocates of the opposing camps spin, demonstrating an almost perfect ability to ignore any shortcoming of their own candidate or change the topic to some past sin of the other side.

As to Mr Taylor, I would be skeptical about calling anyone who relied on York and the National review for his objective take on the facts of an issue "as eminently fair and nonpartisan".

Justin - Look, the Media is FAR from perfect. But looking at it through a left-right lens (Fox News and Drudge excluded) is going to paint you a *very* incomplete picture of the media's actual flaws and biases.

More on the hyperpartisan Drudge - link

Anderson: This is supposed to be worse than the "sex-ed for kindergarteners" ad?

SG: Yes. Race-baiting is absolutely worse.

I'm an extremely reluctant Obama supporter at this point, but I agree. Obama would never have even dared to run a similar ad in English.

Serenity,

You do realize that the finding that Drudge is liberally biased only, in at least my mind, undermines the methodology of the study, right? If the hypothesis is that the media is biased becaues they are liberals intentionally or unintentionally helping liberal causes through their liberal worldview, the finding that Drudge, a conservative who doesn't even argue that he's unbiased, is ALSO liberal, tends to DISPROVE the hypothesis (nor does the UCLA's point, that a collection of links is reflected by the bias of the linked, given that the overall bias of Drudge comes from the choice, the placement, and the spin GIVEN to his links).

Oren gives us the solution (to the problem bias) in the least amount of words. Well done, Sir.

SG:

Not meaning to defend "the press," and I also don't know who's going to win the election, but I'm pretty sure whoever loses will blame the press. And honestly, both sides will have some valid complaints.

It's been a very long time since I looked to the major newspapers and TV networks for information. At best, they serve to state prevailing Democrat orthodoxies.

My belief is that his level of honesty is unchanged - only the targets of his rhetoric. When he was attacking Republicans he was a "straight talker, new he's attacking Dems so he's a liar.

I think what's more disturbing than his attacks on Obama is his massive intellectual dishonesty on the economy. Every time he speaks on it, it's just, "people are really greedy on Wall Street, they treated it like a casino, but I'll clean it up somehow because I'm a tough guy. And I'll start by cracking down on huge severance packages, which has virtually nothing to do with the problem, but it sounds good in an idiotic populist sort of way. I also would like to blame this problem on naked short selling, even though that has nothing to do with our problems here. And, let's fire the SEC Chairman, who hasn't done anything wrong, and appoint a 9/11 Commission, as that will solve everything." Now Obama's response ("let's over-regulate stuff in mysterious ways that I haven't yet even begun to think out") isn't much better, but at least it's a view that a reasonable person can take.

One thing interesting here is that Stewart Taylor was fairly even handed, if not a little harsher on McCain than Obama. He kept saying that McCain was leading the race to the bottom, but that Obama was maybe trying to catch up. Yet, there are many here who read his article as aimed at Obama.

I did like that he deconstructed a number of attacks from both sides, showing their biases and mischaracterizations.

I did like that he deconstructed a number of attacks from both sides, showing their biases and mischaracterizations.

Or at least one perspective as to "bias and mischaracterization".

I listened to Palin in the church, and i understood it to be a "task from God" as I listened to it. It would be interesting as to what percentage of the audience understood it that way. (I am not disputing that it is possible to understand her words as "pray that it is").

Maybe Gibson, or his research assistant- not through wilful attempt to distort- but honestly listened to it and heard it as "task from God".

It would be interesting to extract from Gibson his true intent and his understanding of the question he asked.

Similarly the famous Bush Doctrine. Gibson "knew" what it meant to him- he had used the phrase - defining it before he asked the Republican candidates earlier in the primaries (none of them told him he hadn't used it correctly or that it had multiple other meanings)

When he asked Palin the first time- he was either giving her a softball so that she could show how well she had studied, or a gotcha- I can't tell. ( I understood he was chosen as the kindest of the MSM)

By the time he asked her the fourth time having explained the way he understood it, it was clear she didn't really wasn't up on the subtletly between preemptive war (common policy in international world) and preventive war (Bush's idea that the US could attack any country Bush thought might be a threat to US at sometime in the future)

Commenters and analysts on Obama's side focus on the totality of the incident.

Commenter and analysts, (I want to say apologists for Palin) focus on the perceived unfairness or ambiguity of the initial question and ignore everything thereafter. the

the rush limbaugh ad was a flat out lie. there was no nuance in the lie, it was bald faced.

will the press pick up the baton on the egregious lie-you know it won't. wrong party, wrong candidate. any takers for the bet out there?

Scott Lemieux is less impressed by Taylor than is EV:

As one would expect, Stuart Taylor's article about the campaigns is a masterpiece of false equivalence, using such tricks as balancing lies and smears from John McCain's campaign with stupid articles in the New York Times that the Obama campaign had nothing to do with. He also somehow gets through an article about campaign lies without mentioning McCain and Palin's constantly repeated howlers about the "bridge to nowhere." He approvingly cites Byron York's defense of the McCain campaign's claim that Obama "wanted to teach kindergartners about sex" while failing to notice that the "age-appropriate" proviso completely destroys York's argument. But I especially enjoyed this one ....

Click for the rest.

Try googling "Obama lashes" vs. "McCain lashes" at Google News &see whatcha get.

I dare say it would be difficult to ever find a candidate elected to office that didn't fire his friends and hire his enemies.

Actually, I think it would be pretty easy to find such a candidate. It might be hard to find one who did the opposite, though.

To make a more substantive point, of course we expect candidates to hire their political allies, but only up to a point. We expect those hired to be qualified for the position; we expect that nepotism (RFK) won't be practiced; we expect that generally technical and non-partisan positions will be exempt from this practice; and we expect that the new hires will be outside the victor's close circle of personal friends (with tolerance for some exceptions). It's all a matter of degree.

DIM -- your initials, dude, I didn't pick 'em -- you want to argue that the headline is unfair, and to do so, you argue that the behavior it describes is commonplace and unremarkable.

I need that one explained to me a bit more.

By the time he asked her the fourth time having explained the way he understood it, it was clear she didn't really wasn't up on the subtletly between preemptive war (common policy in international world) and preventive war (Bush's idea that the US could attack any country Bush thought might be a threat to US at sometime in the future)

Is that what Gibson was asking? How is it that you are the only one to figure that out?

If you ask a politician an incoherent question, then she is free to answer it however she wants.b Talk to a lawyer who does depositions. You have to ask a clear question if you want the question answered.

Roger Schlafly:

By the time he asked her the fourth time having explained the way he understood it, it was clear she didn't really understand or wasn't up on the subtletly between preemptive war (common policy in international world) and preventive war (Bush's idea that the US could attack any country Bush thought might be a threat to US at sometime in the future)

Is that what Gibson was asking? How is it that you are the only one to figure that out?

I don't think i was the only one.
1. many didn't really want to look at the dialogue as a whole.
2. It took gibson 4 times to ask the coherent question. It is her answer to the fourth that I think is relevant. Her answer was responsive to the question; just demonstrated that she didn't understand the development from preemptive to preventive; or that she disagreed with McCain and wanted to revert to the much more moderate preemptive.



3. Perhaps

3. Perhaps if she had said already asked and answered before her stab at #4 you could score points in a court room, but i don't think that's the rule for winning an election

Here is the fourth question:

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

I say that Gibson showed a severe misunderstanding of Bush's policies, and the question is incoherent. Nevertheless, Palin gave a completely reasonable reply. Gibson didn't ask about "the development from preemptive to preventive, and there was no reason for Palin to address whatever subtlety you have in mind.

Some comments on this thread make the case for Taylor's tilt to the right, others his tilt to the left. Can we all agree that by calling him "eminently fair and nonpartisan" Eugene exposes his own cheap hackery and bias against everyone? Then we might finish the week off with a few choruses of "Kumbaya," and roast marshmallows over the glowing embers of our former economy.

Pretty funny, LM (in a sad way). Got to go redistribute the remnants of my 401(k) ...

"This is supposed to be worse than the "sex-ed for kindergarteners" ad?"

The Illinois bill in question called for education on how AIDS is transmitted for k-12. The old law called for education for 6-12.

Obama said the bill dealt with teaching the kids how to identify and report unwanted touching.

AIDS education doesn't have anything to do with unwanted touching.

(I am not disputing that it is possible to understand her words as "pray that it is").

Especially if you don't cut those words out of the quotation used.

Charlie:
(I am not disputing that it is possible to understand her words as "pray that it is").
Especially if you don't cut those words out of the quotation used.

What I was trying to say, however inarticulately, is that people could hear the message differently. I know nothing about Gibson and his religiosity.but perhaps he didn't understand the difference,


I believe the actual words were
“That's what we have to make sure that we are praying for: that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.”

Seems to me you could understand this as our plan is God's plan. I am not saying Sarah Palin meant it that way, but interesting.

Shouldn't one also be praying for all the combatants on both sides?

LM,

Some comments on this thread make the case for Taylor's tilt to the right, others his tilt to the left. Can we all agree that by calling him "eminently fair and nonpartisan" Eugene exposes his own cheap hackery and bias against everyone? Then we might finish the week off with a few choruses of "Kumbaya," and roast marshmallows over the glowing embers of our former economy.

Does that mean we have to trash Taylor's VRWC membership card and cancel the welcome basket. I only ask because I've got dibs on the Toblerone if we're not sending the basket.

Isn't it pretty obvious that this is just an infelicitously drafted statute, and that, while it could be read to provide for kindergarten sex-ed, that wasn't the intent of the people who wrote it or who voted for it?

This could be true(*) but I don't expect either candidate to give their opponent the benefit of the doubt during campaign season.

See also: 100 years in Iraq, how many houses do you have, rich is $5million

(*) There was a 2007 ABC News Story entitled
Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do,' Says Obama, so this more charitable reading seems unfounded.

Although given that the Washington Post has just criticized as "dubious" a McCain ad that relied upon "three items in the Washington Post in July and August", perhaps we are supposed to discount any reporting that can be used against Obama.

I only ask because I've got dibs on the Toblerone if we're not sending the basket.

Go for it. More marshmallows for me.

SG: I assumed that Obama was allowed to tweak McCain on these two points until McCain committed himself to a serious answer.

Fortunately, since violence is down so dramatically in Iraq, whether as a result of the surge or the other factors, McCain will probably not have to address the first question. Maybe the new populist McCain will have an answer for the second.

Although given that the Washington Post has just criticized as "dubious" a McCain ad that relied upon "three items in the Washington Post in July and August", perhaps we are supposed to discount any reporting that can be used against Obama.

I do love that, the WaPo is too bust fact checking McCain to bother fact checking the WaPo. Perhaps if instead of trying to catch McCain in distorting the truth the WaPo were to put the same effort into keeping the WaPo from distorting the truth then Taylor might trust them.

Isn't it pretty obvious that this is just an infelicitously drafted statute, and that, while it could be read to provide for kindergarten sex-ed, that wasn't the intent of the people who wrote it or who voted for it?

And this is reassuring why?

LM,

Any chance of you getting together with Justin for a few beers to expand his horizons a bit? He's in imminent danger of flunking the Turing test, despite the VC's lenient grading policy.

As for "trusting" the press, I think Taylor's brush is a little too broad. Like a great liberal once said, "Trust, but verify."

Asher - I'm perfectly willing to accept that it was bad drafting and that no one in the legislature realized that they had included STD avoidance education in the list of things to be taught in an age-appropriate fashion to kindergardeners. In fact, I expect that is the case.

But, the accepted practice in political ads and in media coverage of those ads has been that it's a legitimate hit to point out some minor provision of some bill that someone voted for [or against], and say how awful it is that they supported [or opposed] that.

McCain's sex ed ad is being held to a different and tougher standard.

Nick