The liberal blogosphere slants a story (to create more hostility?)

[hfojvt]

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0404/kyl-threatens-filibuster-supreme-court/

Kyl is asked by Chris Wallace if he would rule out a filibuster of an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court. Kyl says no, he would not rule it out, although he does not think it will happen. Rawstory converts that exchange into "Republican threatens filibuster ..."

That does not seem like a very raw story. That story is coming with a ton of spin. Spin seemingly designed to increase partisan hostility. Readers can be expected to react to a 'threat' or Republicans "planning a strategy" even though Kyl neither makes a threat or talks about any plan or strategy.

Over at Huffpo, Sam Stein also puts some spin on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/04/stevens-supreme-court-ret_n_524619.html

The title says "GOP willing to filibuster Obama's next Supreme Court Nominee"

That also does not seem factual. What Kyl implied is they "might" whereas Stein's title leads one to believe that they "will". In fact, in his first paragraph, Stein says that Republicans "would" filibuster. (although two lines later he includes the word "if") I think there is a huge difference between "might" and "will". Yet, Stein in his headline and first paragraph makes what MIGHT happen look more like something that WILL happen.

ThinkProgress goes with the same headline as Stein "GOP willing" as if they WILL, not "they will IF ..." The fact that they might filibuster under certain circumstances is not really that controversial. Or it shouldn't be. What if, for example, Obama nominated Jeremiah Wright or Mumia abu Jamal to the Supreme Court? (to pick some ridiculous examples that would presumably never happen, although Obama legally could make such a nomination. The point being that there obviously are potential nominees that Republicans would take every measure to prevent their confirmation.)

However, saying that the "GOP is willing" makes it sound like they will filibuster even if Obama appoints some very well qualified left-leaning moderate. That there is nobody even like Ruth Bader Ginsburg that they would approve. Ginsburg was a name that President Clinton got from the Republican Senator Orrin Hatch - a liberal judge that Hatch would not block. Are we unhappy with her somehow? Was it a disaster to reach across the aisle?

ThinkProgress, however, does include a partial transcript as well as the actual video. They conclude, though, with a paragraph saying that Kyl "threatened" a filibuster of a SCOTUS pick way back in November of 2008. And Kyl did make some harsh statements to a meeting of the Federalist Society in Phoenix (duh, he was playing to his own base) but he also said this
"Kyl said Obama needs to appoint judges that look at the merits of each case and said filibusters were not inevitable, even for more liberal judges if their decisions have a sound legal basis."

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/othercities/phoenix/stories/2008/11/03/daily77.html

Meaning that, again, Kyl was threatening to filibuster SOME appointments, but not necessarily all, and he even made that disclaimer to the Federalist Society (although that too might play to their bias as they might think of themselves as "conservatives, but principled" even though in practice they never think that liberal judges make decisions on a 'sound legal basis'.)

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/kyl-threatens-use-filibuster-next-supreme-co

Crooks and liars(above) includes a video, of course, but also uses the same slanted phrasing as Raw Story - they say Kyl was "threatening" and that he was "planning" that Republicans "were prepared". They almost seem to be quoting Raw Story or vice versa.

RS "Jon Kyl (R-Az) told Fox News' Chris Wallace that Republicans are prepared to fight a nominee who might stick up for the little guy, a position he called "overly ideological."

C&L "Jon Kyl told Fox News' Chris Wallace that Republicans were prepared a nominee (sic) that was "overly ideological."

In neither case was that exactly what Kyl said. But the statements as presented seem like statements guaranteed to generate partisan rancor. The Republicans "prepared" to fight us. That certainly makes them sound more hostile and more dangerous. It seems to me that Kyl was on TV explaining his point of view - where he is coming from, but the liberal blogosphere is reporting it as Kyl making "threats" and talking about plans that are prepared.

I find that to be curious. Rather than reporting what was actually said, these sites seem to be spinning it, as if they are trying to play us. And it's playing to applause on DU as well. They ring the bell and we apparently salivate or (snarl and howl.)

[jaxx]

1. I have noticed the same thing.

A headline, read the article, and that isn't what was said. It seems like they are attempting to make a big deal out of everything said, and then you wonder why. There is enough real stuff going on that we don't need hype.

[hfojvt]

2. not just the headline though

the articles continue paraphrasing and slanting the story. I went google searching for Kyl's exact quotes which is how I found a number of these stories which seem to be creating more "tribal hostility." And it is like they are designed that way. Perhaps that creates more journalistic drama which generates readership. I don't like the idea of being played myself. Give me facts. Give me educated and reasonable and progressive opinion, but don't give me "news with a slant".

[pinboy3niner]

3. You're right--I noticed this, too.

And for me, when I catch them mischaracterizing what someone says, it undermines my trust and confidence that I'll get accurate information when I turn to these sources. If I want to be conned, I can tune in to Faux News . . .

[jaxx]

4. Creating tribal hostility is a good way to describe the spin.

A 24/7 'news' channel or online blog has got to create interest. If there isn't any, they create that too by turning up the fire. Do I think they do it for any good reasons, no. And the people it sways are the uninformed....and inflames the ones mad anyway. I'm with you, give it to me straight, I can take it.

[hfojvt]

9. I am probably getting the tribe metaphor from Somerby

who has been writing about it for a long time http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032403.shtml

"What do we learn from the Frums and the Coulters? That American values—indeed, that all post-Enlightenment, western-world values—are a very recent overlay, superimposed on much older impulses. These impulses undermine the western values we commonly claim to hold dear. These impulses were selected for millions of years ago, in the distant, pre-human past. They promote ancestral, pre-western thinking. The Frums and the Coulters give them voice.

What do these impulses tell us to think? They tell us that our own specific tribe must be right—and that all other tribes must be evil and wrong. These impulses say that those who disagree with our views must disagree out of evil. They tell us to stamp out those who disagree—to brand them Enemies of the State. And remember: These impulses are lodged in the human soul. Right up to this very day, these ancient impulses will persuade all those who don’t choose to resist them."

[foundingmother]

5. The conservative blogs are interpreting it the same way...

At least Freepers are...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2486581/posts

[hfojvt]

8. there are probably times when paranoia on the left

and wishful thinking on the right, meet at the same place.

I did not read very far there. They do seem convinced that Obama will nominate Mumia, perhaps after he pardons him. They have their own paranoia.

[Toots]

6. How much are you willing to bet that Republicans won't filibuster?

Let the Truth set you free...Republicans have sworn to try and make Obama and therefor America fail.....When any Republican says might, we know exactly what they mean..

[hfojvt]

7. I don't put lots of stock in anybody's prediction of the future

predicting the future is never the "truth" although some educated guesses may turn out to be correct. Kyl supposedly threatened a filibuster in November of 2008 by basically saying the same thing he is saying now, but that filibuster never happened, did it?

And Obama is not America any more that George Bush was. Presidents push for policies. Bush pushed for tax cuts aimed at the rich and for a war in Iraq. Democrats tried to make him fail in that regard, as I did. I would have been happy to see them try harder, although Republicans passed the 2003 tax cuts using reconciliation and thus avoided the possibility of a filibuster.

I also do not think it is fair to attack somebody based on our mind-reading skills. If Kyl says "X" then it is dishonest and unfair to turn that into "Y" because we "know" he really means "Y". Either he said "X" or he said "Y". Either he said "I will not rule out a filibuster" or he made a threat and talked about some nefarious plan. Raw Story makes it sound like Kyl gave a press conference where he thundered "We shall filibuster on the beaches, we shall filibuster on the landing grounds, we shall filibuster in the fields and in the streets, we shall filibuster in the hills. We will never surrender!"