Washingtonpost.com's Cillizza mischaracterized Kerry statement about McCain's Swift Boat connection

[rox63]

From Media Matters:

Summary: Washingtonpost.com's Chris Cillizza falsely suggested that Sen. John Kerry's call for Sen. John McCain to "cut ties" with retired Col. George "Bud" Day stemmed from Day's defense of McCain's military service in Vietnam. In fact, Kerry's statement called for McCain to sever ties with Day after Day described the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks on Kerry in 2004 -- attacks Cillizza noted McCain denounced at the time -- as "revelation of the truth."

Read the whole thing here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200807100007?f=h_latest

[karynnj]

1. This is such poor writing on the part of Cillizza , that it has to be intentional

It does not say that it was Day's defense of McCain's service record. It says that Day was
"part of a conference call defending McCain's military record." That is technically true. It does not explain what Day's comments were, making Kerry's reaction seem based just on Day being a SBVT.

As not defing the comments, when they are important is something that would result in a bad composition grade in fifth grade, this is likely not accidental. The only thing I can thing is they want to label Kerry's response as excessive and unwarranted. (Kerry's not McCain's opponent, so it's not parallel, but is this less bad than Samantha Powers calling Hillary a monster? THe accusations that Day referred to were disproven and they are far worse than a characterization of "monster". Not to mention that was an interview with one reporter. This was an official McCain press convference where Day, as a McCain surrogate said this - and not one person objected. (and for Obama or other delegates to do it would be a tar baby as Day is an extremely highly decorated veteran which means something to the media - unless the vet is Kerry.

[beachmom]

2. Maybe I am being too charitable, but it kind of looks like an editing problem.

It looks like Chris wrote more, but it was put on the chopping block, thereby making the meaning too vague. Of course, I missed this, because I knew the whole story already. Obviously, not all WP readers will.

[karynnj]

3. Actually you are very likely right - just because it seems unlikely

a profeesional writer (jouranlist) would refernce "comments" had he not referred to them. If you think of it, if the intent was to make that deception, they could do it by not mentioning the comments at all - leaving it that Kerry said he needed to break his tie with Day.

As you posted awhile back, the WP editor said something like it was not their job to judge who was telling the truth in 2004. (this may be off - I couldn't find post)

[Mass]

4. My guess is more likely that it is ignorance. People like Cillizza more and more write about things

they have not seen, but that were reported to them through wire. Remember how many people still report what Kerry supposedly said about Nascar, even after it was proven that Maureen Dowd intentionally misled people on what he said. People do not bother checking. They have the quote. They use it. My guess is that it is what we are seeing here: sloppiness. The problem is that sloppiness is as much (and may be even more) a problem than intentional misleading.

[beachmom]

5. Yeah, let's face it. We probably all know more than the typical WP writer about Kerry.

Call us "Kerry experts", if you will. But OTOH, they have to write about a wide variety of topics and politicians, so they are expected to know vastly more than us.