Step Away from the Agenda

Politico is doing a truly appalling job on coverage of the reaction to President Obama's remarks about the New York Islamic center. (I'm sick to death of hearing it called the Ground Zero mosque, because a. it's a lot more than a mosque b. It's not at Ground Zero. If you know anything about New York at all, you know that two blocks is a great distance in defining neighborhoods and distances. )


But that's not the main point. Josh Marshall flagged this first issue a little while ago and I was struck nearly dumb by the idea that Politico was trying to pass off as a "middle American" someone who reaches back into history to discuss the changeover of the Hagia Sophia church into a mosque after the Islamic conquering of Istanbul. Seriously.


In a country where far too many people don't know what the branches of government are, can't tell the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, don't now what the Bill of Rights is and can't name any member of Congress (not even their own, too often), are we really to believe that this "middle American" knows Ottoman/Crusader era history?


That led me to read this really dubious second story by Politico, claiming Obama had backed off his Friday night speech, endorsing the right of Muslim Americans to build on private property. You know, he relied on that pesky First Amendment.


Here's what Politico wrote, and my challenge starts with the headline:

Obama's comments take mosque story national

Really? I thought it went national and international when people like Sarah Palin and Fox News, with their references to the "9/11 mosque" started hurling accusations and demanding "peaceful" Muslims "refudiate" the plan?

With criticism mounting of his support for the construction of an Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan, President Barack Obama on Saturday defended his decision to wade into the controversy the night before, but backed off from his previous stance. "In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion," Obama said when asked about his remarks at a White House dinner Friday marking the start of Ramadan. He did, however, emphasize that he was not endorsing the project, just the organizers' right to build it.

Again, really? He backed off? On Friday he said, 

"But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."

In an effort to head off criticism, widely interpreted as a gutless CYA move*, Politico added this:

But his comments Friday night were widely interpreted as an endorsement of plans to build a mosque a few blocks away from where nearly 3,000 Americans perished at the hands of Islamic terrorists on 9/11 - an interpretation the White House hadn't disputed, up until Obama's comments in Florida.

*Not really. I made up the "widely interpreted" part.


As long as cable and occasionally the networks put these people on TV as "experts," they will continue to shape the political conversation into a he said/she said battle, with no one taking responsibility for anything they say. 

Update: The New York Times, too, hints, very carefully, that Obama somehow is backing off. But read the Friday night Times story very carefully. 

Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site

President Obama delivered a strong defense on Friday night of a proposed Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, using a White House dinner celebrating Ramadan to proclaim that “as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.” 

It, including the headline, seems to go beyond Obama's words. Today, it's not Obama backing off. It's the reporters scrambling to get it right, and missing. 

 Update: Media Matters concurs.

Update 2: On the matter of calling it the "Ground Zero mosque,"  a Testy Copy Editor weighs in.

In Need of Revelation

I've been in the news biz for quite awhile so I don't think I'm naive.

But could someone please explain to me the value of beat reporters, especially in Washington, DC,  "having access" to key players if it doesn't help them, you know, break stories? I keep reading that reporters do what they can to maintain their access but I'm failing to see the benefit to the people they serve. That would be readers.

As usual, Jay Rosen doesn't pull his punches, even when others are. And Jay is not the enemy. Crappy reporting and editing, failure to do our jobs,  are the enemy.

Politico wrote this before pulling it later, as Jay notes:

McChrystal, an expert on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, has long been thought to be uniquely qualified to lead in Afghanistan. But he is not known for being media savvy. Hastings, who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for two years, according to the magazine, is not well-known within the Defense Department. And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.

From Howard Kurtz.

Close Enough Isn't Good Enough

Words matter. When paraphrasing, it's never a good idea to get ahead of the facts, as this Politico story about Ted Kennedy does in describing his efforts to get a successor chosen.

In his final days, he focused on a narrow political goal, pleading with state to change state law to posthumously fill his Senate seat with an interim appointee who would be a vote in favor of the health care legislation he championed.


Not really. The letter urged a replacement, certainly, but made no mention of health care. Kennedy definitely didn't ask anyone to "fill his Senate seat with an interim appointee who would be a vote in favor of the health care legislation" he supported. The problem with sloppy paraphrasing is that it creeps into the conversation. Someone else picks up this language, writes the same thing, and then pretty soon you have the dying Kennedy trying to skew the law and selection process for one goal only. Not true, as you can see from this WashPost story.

The letter, first obtained by the Boston Globe, asks the state's Democratic-controlled legislature to allow Gov. Deval L. Patrick (D) to select a temporary replacement should a vacancy occur. Such a move would reverse a provision in state law that says a vacant U.S. Senate seat can be filled only through a special election held at least 145 days after the seat comes open, which would leave Massachusetts with just one senator for several months.

Left unsaid in the letter is the fact that the change could ensure that Democrats do not miss a key Senate vote should Kennedy die amid the debate on health-care reform, long one of his passions. Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate with Kennedy present, and they might need every one of them if the chamber's 40 Republicans are united in opposing a reform bill.

"I strongly support that law and the principle that the people should elect their senator," Kennedy wrote in the letter, dated July 2 but sent to state officials this week, referring to the provision calling for elections to fill vacancies. "I also believe it is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election."

And on a related note, I wonder why so many really sickening Photoshopped pictures of Kennedy appear in the top Google search returns.

Lots of Words on Politics

Politico outlines some words that can get politicians into trouble. And. separately, Glenn Greenwald excoriates Politico and much of mainstream political coverage of trivial issues. And don't forget about
Electoral-Vote, which does a great job of assembling, assessing and illustrating all kinds of political data.

'The Politico' and Coverage

Now if they'd just stop referring to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others as "thoroughbreds," I might believe they mean to stop the fact-free punditry (Or, as many seem to be saying, "pundints".)

Why reporters get it wrong
By: John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei
New Hampshire sealed it. The winner was Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the loser — not just of Tuesday's primary but of the 2008 campaign cycle so far — was us.

"Us" is the community of reporters, pundits and prognosticators who so confidently — and so rashly — stake our reputations on the illusion that we understand politics and have special insight that allows us to predict the behavior of voters.

If journalists were candidates, there would be insurmountable pressure for us to leave the race. If the court of public opinion were a real court, the best a defense lawyer could do is plea bargain out of a charge that reporters are frauds in exchange for a signed confession that reporters are fools.