« Pics and Video: Reception for State Senator-Elect Tim Keller | Main | 1st Annual ABQ Urban Farm and Harvest Festival: 9/27 »

Monday, September 15, 2008

Calling a Lie a Lie


Witness some of McCain's lies

A common practice with some reporters in the trad media today (and especially with local media) is to present a fact and a lie as equivalent -- as merely two sides of an argument -- and in that way demonstrate what they claim is "balance" or "neutrality" in reporting. However, in real life and politics a lie is often just that -- a statement clearly refuted by well documented facts. Thus, the "other side" attempting to pretend that the lie is true (or the fact is a lie) is WRONG and needs to be called on it by what used to be called The Press.

At one time, fact-checking was considered to be one of the most important functions of The Press. Today, however, too many who view themselves as journalists apparently find it too much work or too dangerous to dig out and report the facts, especially if they don't jibe with their biases or the editorial bent of the owners of the newspaper or media outlet where they work. And even if they eventually have to admit someone -- like McCain or Palin -- has clearly been lying, they have a habit of using less accusatory terms like "untruths" or "less than accurate" or "misleading" for what should surely be called lies, plain and simple.

Michael Coleman Provides an Example
There's an excellent example of this kind of weaseling by Michael Coleman in today's Albuquerque Journal. In an article examining the views of New Mexico's Senators and Reps on McCain's simplistic and broadbrush yowling about earmarks and his unrealistic pledge to veto every single earmark request if he becomes president, Coleman slips in this inaccuracy:

The Bridge to Nowhere controversy has been resurrected in this year's presidential race. At the Republican National Convention this month, vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said as governor of Alaska she shunned the money. Democrats contend she first welcomed it but later denounced it for political reasons.

Hey Michael, if you had bothered to read the news lately, talk to honest sources in Washington -- where you're based -- or even Googled half-heartedly, you would have discovered that it's not just Dems who are "contending" that Palin was for the bridge before she was agin' it. In FACT, Palin's dishonesty about the bridge has been widely reported and well documented by highly respected news and fact-checking organizations across the political spectrum. There's not a shred of doubt left that Palin pushed hard for the porky Bridge to Nowhere earmarks until it was clear that the political environment in Washington made federal funding impossible. At this point in time, even media sources that don't like to report the FACTS about GOP sleaziness have had to admit McCain and his VP choice have been less than honest about the bridge. Check out just a few of the outfits that say so:

Wall Street Journal Headline: "Record Contradicts Palin's 'Bridge' Claims." "The Bridge to Nowhere argument isn't going much of anywhere. Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government 'thanks but no thanks' to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state... But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere." [Wall Street Journal, 9/9/08]

Chicago Tribune Blog: "The McCain-Palin Campaign Keeps Up the Misleading Line That She Was the Main Palyer in Taking Out the Bridge." "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin keeps saying she stopped the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere' in an attempt to burnish her credentials as a pork-fighting reformer. And reporters keep pointing out that her claim is exaggerated. Still, the McCain-Palin campaign keeps up the misleading line that she was the main player in taking out the bridge. And still reporters keep shedding light on the inexactness, to put it politely, of that claim. One of the latest journalistic efforts to separate fact from fiction comes from PolitFact, a service of the St. Pete Times and CQ. Yet, the McCain campaign has cut a TV ad that pushes the line that Palin stopped the bridge. It's as if they've decided to go with that first two parts of that famous Lincoln quote: 'You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time...'" [Chicago Tribune Blog, 9/9/08]

Factcheck.org: Congress Had All But Killed Bridge to Nowhere When Palin Killed It, Was Sharp Turnaround From Position During Gubernatorial Campaign. "Palin may have said "Thanks, but no thanks" on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure." [FactCheck.org, 9/4/08]

Politifact: Palin's Stance On "The Bridge To Nowhere" Is "A Full Flop." Politfact, a service of CQ and the St. Petersburg Times wrote, "McCain said Palin has 'stopped government from wasting taxpayers' money on things they don't want or need. And when we in Congress decided to build a bridge in Alaska to nowhere for $233-million of yours, she said, we don't want it. If we need it, we'll build our own in Alaska. She's the one that stood up to them.' Nevermind that Alaska didn't give the money back. It spent the money on other transportation projects. The context of Palin's and McCain's recent statements suggest Palin flagged the so-called Bridge to Nowhere project as wasteful spending. But that's not the tune she was singing when she was running for governor, particularly not when she was standing before the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce asking for their vote. And so, we rate Palin's position a Full Flop." [Politifact]

AP FACT CHECK: Palin's Broader Story on the Bridge to Nowhere is "Misleading," Her Self-Description as a Champion of Earmark Reform "Is Harder to Square With the Facts." "Palin did abandon plans to build the nearly $400 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport. But she made her decision after the project had become an embarrassment to the state, after federal dollars for the project were pulled back and diverted to other uses in Alaska, and after she had appeared to support the bridge during her campaign for governor. McCain and Palin together have told a broader story about the bridge that is misleading. She is portrayed as a crusader for the thrifty use of tax dollars who turned down an offer from Washington to build an expensive bridge of little value to the state. 'I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere,' she said in her convention speech last week. That's not what she told Alaskans when she announced a year ago that she was ordering state transportation officials to ditch the project. Her explanation then was that it would be fruitless to try to persuade Congress to come up with the money... Her self-description as a leader who 'championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress' is harder to square with the facts." [AP, 9/8/08]

USA Today Adwatch Headline: "A Disconnect on Palin's Bridge Claim." "It's the claim that Palin 'stopped the 'Bridge to Nowhere' that sparked the dispute. The reference is to a proposed bridge to a remote Alaskan community that would have cost the U.S. government more than $200 million. Palin has said repeatedly that she told the federal government: 'Thanks, but no thanks.' As a candidate for governor, however, Palin supported the bridge." [USA Today, 9/8/08]

Anchorage Daily News Headline: "Palin Touts Stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' Doesn't Note Flip Flop." "When John McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate Friday, her reputation as a tough-minded budget-cutter was front and center. 'I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere,' Palin told the cheering McCain crowd, referring to Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. But Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them 'nowhere.' They're still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin's subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects -- and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines. 'I think that's when the campaign for national office began,' said Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein on Saturday." [Anchorage Daily News, 8/31/08]

Daily News Miner: Palin Supported Bridge to Nowhere, Later Kept the Money -- "That Was Hardly 'Thanks, But No Thanks.'" "In her introductory speech Friday as McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin picked up on the Ketchikan bridge that was never built as a symbol of bad federal policy... That is not how Palin described her position on the Gravina Island bridge when she ran for governor in 2006. On Oct. 22, 2006, the Anchorage Daily News asked Palin and the other candidates, 'Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?' Her response: 'Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now — while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.' Palin's support of the earmark for the bridge was applauded by the late Lew Williams Jr., the retired Ketchikan Daily News publisher who wrote columns on the topic... The money was not sent back to the federal government, but spent on other projects. That was hardly 'Thanks but no thanks.'" [Daily News Miner, 8/31/08]

TIME: "Palin Has Continued to Repeat the Already Exposed Lie" About Her Opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere. "Palin has continued to repeat the already exposed lie that she said, 'No, thanks,' to the famous 'bridge to nowhere' (McCain's favorite example of wasteful federal spending). In fact, she said, 'Yes, please,' until this project became a symbol and political albatross." [TIME Magazine, 9/9/08]

AP: Palin Supported Bridge, Later Abandoned Project But Used the Federal Money for Other Alaska Projects. "Palin voiced support for the bridge during her campaign to become Alaska's governor, although she was critical of the size, and later abandoned plans for the project. She used the federal dollars for other projects in Alaska." [AP, 9/9/08]

Washington Post's Kurtz: Palin's Assertion on Bridge to Nowhere a "Whopper." "The senator from Arizona has made a crusade of battling pork-barrel 'earmarks,' but the whopper here is the assertion that Palin opposed her state's notorious Bridge to Nowhere. She endorsed the remote project while running for governor in 2006, claimed to be an opponent only after Congress killed its funding the next year, and has used the $223 million provided for it for other state ventures." [Washington Post, Kurtz Column, 9/9/08]
*********

Clearly, a well-documented consensus has been reached that MCain-Palin lied about this, and yet the GOP candidates keep parroting the LIE on the campaign trail and in ads. And reporters like Michael Cole still refuse to call them on it. If you used the Journal as your primary news source (heaven forbid), you'd never know that the McCain-Palin claim about the bridge had been thoroughly debunked. I guess certain media owners want to keep it that way.

Technorati Tags:

September 15, 2008 at 08:55 AM in 2008 General Presidential Election, John McCain, Media | Permalink

Comments

And, she does not mention the "I told Washington, 'Thanks, but no thanks on that bridge,'" when she is campaigning in Alaska. They know it is not true in Alaska, so it won't play there. Nevertheless, she will repeat it today.

Because if you repeat a lie often enough, heck, people believe it.

Posted by: bg | Sep 15, 2008 9:46:31 AM

Palin has proved beyond a doubt that she is a liar, McSame is also a liar, together those two have managed to out lie the Bu$h Admin and thats just in their campaigning. What can we expect should they manage to steal and lie their way into the White House? More cronyism, more vindictiveness and more disdain for the needs and well being of the American people and a theocratic lean that quite frankly is scary.

Posted by: VP | Sep 15, 2008 10:25:38 AM

The way I heard it, she was for the bridge when it was supposed to be 100% financed by Federal dollars. When Alaska was required to make a contribution, she switched. But she did get the Federal $$ anyway, and spent them elsewhere.

Posted by: | Sep 15, 2008 2:50:47 PM

Post a comment