Now that’s a fisking
February 25th, 2008 at 8:07 pm by David FarrarPaul Sheehan in the Sydney Morning Herald does the mother of all fiskings on the New York Times’ story on John McCain.
I won’t even quote from it, because you need to read the whole thing. But it really is a template for all future fiskings.
It is also an important lesson in how subtle bias can be. They find the article:
- had 13 negative and anonymous attributions
- undermined a positive fact seven times with “but”
- repeatedly turns ethical actions of McCain into innuendo of hypocrisy
It is a classic case of twisting the facts to fit the story.
Tags: fisking, John McCain, Media, media bias, New York Times, Paul Sheehan, Sydney Morning Herald
February 25th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Just another ordinary day at the VDS then?
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Hat tip Alces, thanks Dave.
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Yes I did see it from your comment
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I would have thought the Federal Election Commission story about the possibility of capping McCain’s election spending at $50m, when he’s already spent $49.36m as at 31 January, was of more concern.
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Of course it is.
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
As for Election spending the question is will McCain follow the law with his name on it ?
The answer is no.
But remember the spending is only up to the time of the conventions. The meter is set to zero again, for both parties.
[DPF: Actually it is Obama who has reneged on his word to use capped public funding instead of unlimited private funding]
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Sheehan is not usual Fairfax fare.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/times-back-making-up-the-news/2008/02/24/1203788142795.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Too good not to quote;
“And this by the same newspaper that has published more fabrications than any other mainstream newspaper in America – courtesy of one Jayson Blair – yet has still not addressed the underlying flaw in the paper’s culture – a sly partisanship that permeates the appearance of scrupulous journalism.”
Any NZ media come to mind?
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
The Standard?
Actually that quote reminds me of a Goebbel’s quote: he said the purpose of propaganda is to “present ostensible diversity behind which lies an actual uniformity.”
The left-right punch and judy show still distracts.
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I’m sure the usual coterie of Labour bloggers, press secretaries, and mouthpieces will be studying this for instructions on how the experts manage a smear without saying anything concrete at all.
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Without fact checking Sheehan I’d exercise caution David. He’s an appallingly inconsistent journalist, as likely to have based his article on lazy right wing blogs as on sound journalistic practise.
An interesting story for sure and all things are pointing to the NYT being off the mark here, something they are acknowledging themselves but I’d wait until it’s been properly investigated if was you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24pubed.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
BTW, don’t you just hate the term to fisk. If half the morons who used it had an ounce of his integity the world would be smarter place.
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
why not read the article lloyd, i’ve read them both, the fisking is incredibly sound. The fact that Sheehan quotes the bit he takes issue with is a bit of a telltale don’t you think.
It was a nasty shabby little hit by the NYT and even their own readers ombudsman has refused to support it.
but i do love your ” sound journalistic process” its right up there with robert fisk’s “integrity” oxymoron isnt it?
Fisk was last on the NZ media pretending the last terrorist knocked over in syria was somehow retired and therefore not important coup. Guess the 10,000 marching hezbollah “mourners” chanting death to the great satan begged to differ, hey bobby?
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
That’s spooky, IIoy points out the origin of the Fisk without meaning to.
“If half the morons who used it had an ounce of his integity the world would be smarter place.”
The dishonest Robert Fisk is the accepted baseline of zero “integrity” journalism.
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
As expected the morons creep out of the woodwork.
Vote:February 25th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Withering reply from IIoy.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Not really – the story makes pretty clear that there are two sorts of people – those who don’t know the answer, and those who know that the answer is that McCain isn’t spending capped pre-convention.
He promised to accept federal matching funds if his Republican opponent did – that hasn’t come up yet, and if it does, he may: hasn’t reneged on that yet. $85m post-convention may well be enough, with his donors giving money post-convention to the DNC instead, and his donors giving him a massive war-chest to spend pre-convention.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Actually, affair or not isn’t the point (regardless of what the NY Times is trying to say)
What was happening was that the lobbyist was going around telling people she had special access to McCain, which seemed to be substantiated because she was seen around town with McCain a lot. Whether they were having sex or not is a distraction. That his aides met with her and told her to stop saying she had access was perfectly natural and appropriate.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 4:28 am
Lloydois
“As expected the morons creep out of the woodwork” – typical lefty response, attack the writer personally and fail to address the topic at hand.
Martin English
Vote:Like all hit pieces, the secret to a smear is the selective reporting of material. You infer that the NYT was onto something vis a vis the influence the lobbyist is alleged to have had on McCain. So what do you make of the fact that, in the run up to writing this article, Times reporters put a series of questions to McCain’s campaign which they answered in great detail. The most significant material that the campaign gave to the Times was a lengthy list of votes on various pieces of legislation that came before the Senate on telecommunications issues that went completely against the direction Iseman was seeking to influence the Senator towards. Do you not think that publishing this information (that was fully known to the Times reporters and editors before their decision to proceed) was important given that it answered in large measure the substantive claim at the heart of the article – that of improper lobbying influence? What motivated the Times to leave this rather crucial part of the their investigative fact finding out Martin?
February 26th, 2008 at 6:58 am
i see lloyd struggles with comprehension as well as reading. With surprise i note that he also supports the left.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Graeme, the funding issue is this:
Last year McCain applied for public match funding, but instead got a loan from a bank. After receiving that loan he rejected the public funding but the FEC Chairman’s letter recently sent to McCain which raised the issue, says that the FEC, not McCain, decides if the regime applies. Anyway after receiving the first loan McCain then applied for another, and in that new loan agreement, he said that if he lost badly in NH, he would re-apply for matching funds. It’s that second agreement that is the sticking point, because it used the promise of public funding as collateral for the loan.
The complicating factor is that the FEC currently has four vacancies and only two members, so they can’t vote on it, and the nominations have been deadlocked in the Senate for months.
As someone said above, this only applies to funding for his nomination campaign, but if the outcome is unfavourable, he has to run for the next six months without any funding whatsover (well, $0.35m, virtually nothing).
Now I think the eventual outcome will be favourable to McCain, but that doesn’t change the fact that at this point, it’s got potential to become a significant problem.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 9:05 am
But wait, there’s more:
“In late 1998, Senator John McCain sent an unusually blunt letter to the head of the Federal Communications Commission, warning that he would try to overhaul the agency if it closed a broadcast ownership loophole.
The letter, and two later ones signed by Mr. McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged the commission to abandon plans to close a loophole vitally important to Glencairn Ltd., a client of Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist. The provision enabled one of the nation’s largest broadcasting companies, Sinclair, to use a marketing agreement with Glencairn, a far smaller broadcaster, to get around a restriction barring single ownership of two television stations in the same city.”
“For its part, Glencairn appeared to have been getting little support in Congress until it retained Ms. Iseman in 1998.
“Edwin Edwards, who was the president of the company at the time, said in a recent interview that after retaining Ms. Iseman, he was able to get heard by Mr. McCain.”
Five years later, when Sinclair used its concentration to smear a military hero (Kerry), McCain blamed that smear not on the motivations of the family running Sinclair or those bankrolling the propaganda, but on the concentration of Sinclair’s company.
“I do have an opinion that this is an issue that results when you have media concentration, which I have been opposed to,” he said at a fund-raiser for Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.). “When you have media concentration – this is the largest TV owner with 62 stations – this is something that happens.” [my emphasis]
As the NYT shows, Sinclair only achieved that concentration thanks to McCain’s inappropriate intervention.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/02/23/mccains-favors-for-iseman-involved-allowing-far-right-wing-families-to-sustain-their-shell-companies/
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Trouble with the NYTs is that it’s so shot to bits with political spin as news
that not even its classifieds are believable.
Without the net 25 years ago, their crap went unanswered.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 11:40 am
You’re right Alces
Spoff-you post as if the NYT was a neutral non-partisan professional entity. It’s actions over the last 5 – 10 years clearly mark them as unashamed partisan shills for the Democrats. They routinely ignore (or barely report) newsworthy incidents involving questionable activities by Dems (Rep Jefferson’s FBI fraud indictment in LA, Clinton’s crooked fundraiser Norman Hu to name but a few) and yet publish distorted and often unsubstantiated hit pieces on Republicans.
The full story you post (from a left wing blog site I might add) will likely be missing as many crucial mitigating facts as their original story.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
What a pity there is so little chance of any of OUR sycophant MSM organs getting so comprehensively “called” as the NYT has been on this. And not only this, either.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Ummm….let’s see.
McCain won’t talk to Broadcaster who wants media concentration. Broadcaster hires pretty girl to lobby McCain. McCain writes letter supporting media concentration. Broadcaster swift-boats Kerry. McCain blames media concentration.
-typical Washington influence peddler or just a dumbf**k?
What am I missing?
All media is partisan.
WTF is this “from a left wing blog site I might add” – you in the messenger shooting business or just a shill?
I will post from Godzilla’s website if she’s got her facts right – OK?.
Vote:February 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
And another huge mistake from McCain.
Vote: