Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (Why Does David Sanger Still have a Job? Edition)

Bob Somerby writes:

Brit admits that Bush is 'stretching.' But at the great Times, he's just "shrewd": SPINNING NUANCE: John Kerry? He’s much too “nuanced.” It’s a standard RNC talking-point—and there it is, nicely placed in a headline in today’s New York Times:

NEW YORK TIMES HEADLINE For Now, Bush's Mocking Drowns Out Kerry's Nuanced Explanation of His War Vote

No, it doesn’t get better than that—to get your spin-point right in a headline. But how dumb is your press corps willing to be? The new flap over Kerry’s stance on Iraq provides a brilliant example.

What is Kerry’s stand on Iraq? Readers, get ready for some real brain-work! Here goes: Kerry says Bush should have had the authority to go to war, but then went to war prematurely. Wow! Have you finished scratching your heads about all the nuance involved in that statement? It’s hard to believe that any grown person could pretend that this is complex or confusing. But that’s the official RNC line—Kerry is simply filled with nuance—and obliging scribes are typing it up, pretending this claim makes good sense. One of those puzzled scribes is Sanger, who scratches his head in today’s piece about Kerry’s “nuanced explanation.”

The catalyst for this latest show is a statement Kerry made on Monday. Here’s what the solon actually said. Try to keep yourselves awake—you’ve heard this a thousand times previously:

KERRY (8/9/04): Yes, I would have voted for the authority [to go to war]. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.

And my question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth? Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve and relieve a pressure from the American people?

Readers, there it is again, that deeply “nuanced explanation!” Bush deserved to have the authority, but he used it unwisely! Readers, are you scratching your heads, burdened and baffled by all the complexity? If so, you just may have a future writing for the great New York Times.

Why has Kerry’s statement produced a flap, since he has said the same thing many times in the past? In large part, it’s because of the way this statement has been framed in the press. In particular, the flap seems to turn, not on what Kerry said, but on what question he was answering. And depending on what news org you read, you seem to get a wide array of explanations of that.

To what question was Kerry responding when he made this familiar statement? Amazingly, no—we can’t find a transcript of the question Kerry was asked. And you know what happens in situations like that—inventive journalists start embellishing! What was Kerry asked that day? Every news org seems to spell it out differently. Here’s what Candy Crowley said in real time on CNN:

CROWLEY (4/9/04): Welcome back to Inside Politics. As we reported earlier, John Kerry, traversing the countryside, is in the Grand Canyon in Arizona. He was stopped by reporters and talked a bit. He was asked the question that George Bush put out there, which is, If you knew then what you now know, would you still have voted for the war on Iraq resolution?

Was Crowley quoting the actual question? There’s no way to tell from this report. But according to Crowley, Kerry said he still would have favored the resolution if he knew then what he knows now. But in the next day’s Washington Post, Jim VandeHei improved on that framing:

VANDEHEI (8/10/04): Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

Of course, Kerry didn’t actually say that, as we have seen—and VandeHei didn’t quote the question. But he told readers that Kerry would have voted for the resolution even if he had known there were no WMD. Meanwhile, at the New York Times, Jodi Wilgoren spun it up even further:

WILGOREN (8/10/04): Senator John Kerry said Monday that he would have voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq even if he had known all he does now about the apparent dearth of unconventional weapons or a close connection to Al Qaeda.

According to Wilgoren, Kerry said he would have voted the resolution if he knew there were no WMD and no al Qaeda connection! Again, Kerry didn’t actually say this—this is Wilgoren’s assessment of what he meant. But you can’t determine if that’s what he meant unless you’re shown the actual question. And we can’t find a single source that does that.

Today, David Sanger feigns confusion about John Kerry’s “nuanced explanations.” Our view? If he wants to see the work of jumbled minds, he ought to look around on the bus. Or take a good look in the mirror.

WHAT SHOULD NEWS ORGS ACTUALLY DO: Duh! They should try to clarify what Kerry said. Did Kerry really mean he would have voted for the resolution if he knew there were no WMD and no Iraqi tie to al Qaeda? No, that isn’t what Kerry said (quote above)—but is that what he actually meant? Such a statement would be a bit strange; after all, it’s hard to imagine holding a vote if we knew those things in 2002. But is that what Kerry actually meant? As matters stand, there’s no way to tell. Would it kill these “reporters” to ask? Or would that just be far too nuanced?

A DIRTY LITTLE SECRET: This morning, Sanger admits a dirty little secret. But he does so very late in his article:

SANGER (pgh 20 of 24): In fact, in interviews since the start of the year, Mr. Kerry has been relatively consistent in explaining his position.

No shit, Sherlock! Indeed, Kerry has said the same thing again and again. And if one simply goes by his quote, he said the same thing again Monday.

OUTSPINNING HUME: The Times panders to Bush throughout Sanger’s piece, from the headline right down to the expert who is quoted. Only one savant is cited. We think you can spot the key word:

SANGER (8/12/04): “'Kerry has always had this vulnerability of looking flip-floppy on the issue and Bush is using this very shrewdly,” said Walter Russell Mead, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. He added “Being silent on the question makes him look evasive, and saying something, anything, gets him in trouble with one side of his party or another.”

How many ways can a newspaper pander? The Times puts the word “nuanced” right in its headline. And Sanger gets “flip-flop” into his piece by quoting an expert who said it.

Yes, Sanger just happened to choose an expert who thought Kerry looked “floppy” and Bush looked “shrewd.” But over at Fox, in striking contrast, a Big Scribe was honest about Bush’s latest clowning. On Tuesday, Bush was out playing the rubes, pretending that Kerry had said things he didn’t on Monday. Indeed, Brit Hume just flat-out said so, chatting last night with the all-stars:

BUSH (shown on videotape): [Kerry] now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq. Knowing everything we know today, he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that up.

HUME (8/11/04): Well that line got a big cheer, as you saw yesterday when the president said it. But what Senator Kerry has said is not quite as the president has characterized it...Basically what Kerry has said, correct me if I'm wrong, is, Look, I would have wanted the authority if I'd been president. That's why I voted to grant this authority to go to war to the president...But he said he would have used it differently. He would have used it to as more of a lever for diplomacy. He would have used it to bring more allies aboard. He would have used it to as a threat behind inspections, to leave them going longer.

But the question is, the Bush camp knows what it's doing here. They know that they're stretching what the senator has said in trying to keep this the subject for the day. What about all this?

Hume acknowledged the obvious—Bush has been “stretching.” (And note: He explained Kerry’s “nuanced” stance rather easily.) But in the Times, we learned something quite different. George Bush? He’s not “stretching”—he’s “shrewd!”