Jimmy Akin

COLUMBIA HOUSE STARTS PORN CLUB.

It’s this kind of thing that makes me wish I had something to do with Columbia House just so I could call and cancel my account.

May still call them, though, and tell them that because of their new porn club I will never have anything to do with them in the future.

HERE’S A STORY IN WHICH THE ASSOCIATED PRESS CLAIMS THAT A "CARDINAL SAYS BUSH BROKE IRAQ PROMISE."

Trouble is, the article shows the cardinal (Pio Laghi) saying nothing of the kind.

It quotes him as saying:

"When I went to Washington as the pope’s envoy just before the outbreak of the war in Iraq, he (Bush) told me: `Don’t worry, your eminence. We’ll be quick and do well in Iraq,’"

"Unfortunately, the facts have demonstrated afterward that things took a different course — not rapid and not favorable."

"Bush was wrong."

I’m sorry, but "Bush was wrong" does not mean "Bush broke a promise." The first statement attributes to the President a misperception of fact (how things would go), while the second attributes to him a moral failure to perform actions that were reasonably within his power to bring about–or a moral failure by making promises regarding something that one unreasonably believed to be within one’s power to bring about.

The Cardinal attributes neither of the latter to President Bush.

Opponents of the President might wish to attribute these to him, though based on what the Cardinal says I severely doubt that Bush was understood to promise a specific outcome. It would be more natural to understand the President as making a commitment to act expeditiously and making a prediction (not a promise) that things would go well. The first (commitment to act expeditiously) is a promise. The second (things will go well) is not.

In any event, but the Cardinal does not say that Bush broke a promise, and by headlining the article the way it did, the Associated Press misportrayed the Cardinal’s remarks–and simultaneously portrayed itself as a petulant organization willing to spout Democratic Party spin as if it were a pouting child suffering a disappointing loss.

Since the AP says it subscribes to the Associated Press Managing Editors’ ethics statement, it’s interesting to note that this statement says:

The newspaper should guard against inaccuracies, carelessness, bias
or distortion through emphasis, omission or technological manipulation.

The newspaper should deal honestly with readers and newsmakers. It should keep its promises [SOURCE].

Well, the AP didn’t sufficiently do these things in crafting the headline of this story. It therefore is also interesting to note that the APME ethics statement also says:

It should acknowledge substantive errors and correct them promptly and prominently.

Somehow, I doubt the AP will issue a retraction.

Now, someone might nitpick that I haven’t demonstrated that the AP broke a promise because the ethics statement only says a paper should guard against inaccuracies, not that it is committed to preventing them.

Fair enough. If the AP is not committed to preventing inaccuracies then it has not broken one of its commitments.

But my headline is at least as accurate as the AP’s.

COLUMBIA HOUSE STARTS PORN CLUB.

It’s this kind of thing that makes me wish I had something to do with Columbia House just so I could call and cancel my account.

May still call them, though, and tell them that because of their new porn club I will never have anything to do with them in the future.

. . . that there are two guys running for president. Call them Candidate X and Candidate Y.

Suppose further that there are parties attacking the military records of Candidate X and Y and bringing up all kinds of allegations about what they did or didn’t do during the Vietnam War.

Suppose that there is a TV network that at first refuses to cover the allegations made against Candidate X by a large number of sources and then, when the story becomes too big to ignore, heaps scorn on those making the allegations, trying its best to shoot holes in their account.

Suppose finally that the same TV network eagerly hops on the allegations made against Candidate Y by a single source and, when virtually the entire blogosphere shoots holes in the allegations, the network stiffly and rigidly defends the allegations.

Could you fairly conclude that the TV network and the people at it who were involved in these stories were biased against Candidate Y in favor of Candidate X?

How then can the CBS Ra^thergate pannel say something like this?

The question of whether a political agenda played any role in the

airing of the Segment is one of the most subjective, and most

difficult, that the Panel has sought to answer. The political agenda

question was posed by the Panel directly to Dan Rather and his

producer, Mary Mapes, who appear to have drawn the greatest attention

in terms of possible political agendas. Both

strongly denied that they brought any political bias to the Segment.

The Panel recognizes that those who saw bias at work in the Segment are

likely to sweep such denials aside. However, the Panel will not level

allegations for which it cannot offer adequate proof [LINK–Evil file format (.pdf) warning!].

I don’t think there’s anything "subjective" here. I think the bias is blatantly obvious. Viewing the Ra^thergate sandal in the context of the overall election, it is obvious what was happening: This was a desperate attempt to get a military record story on Bush to neutralize the effect of the Swiftvet story on Kerry. Only a "myopic zeal" for focusing on the Ra^thergate story in isolation from the Swiftvet story could lead one to think that there is not adequate proof of bias in this case.

. . . that there are two guys running for president. Call them Candidate X and Candidate Y.

Suppose further that there are parties attacking the military records of Candidate X and Y and bringing up all kinds of allegations about what they did or didn’t do during the Vietnam War.

Suppose that there is a TV network that at first refuses to cover the allegations made against Candidate X by a large number of sources and then, when the story becomes too big to ignore, heaps scorn on those making the allegations, trying its best to shoot holes in their account.

Suppose finally that the same TV network eagerly hops on the allegations made against Candidate Y by a single source and, when virtually the entire blogosphere shoots holes in the allegations, the network stiffly and rigidly defends the allegations.

Could you fairly conclude that the TV network and the people at it who were involved in these stories were biased against Candidate Y in favor of Candidate X?

How then can the CBS Ra^thergate pannel say something like this?

The question of whether a political agenda played any role in the
airing of the Segment is one of the most subjective, and most
difficult, that the Panel has sought to answer. The political agenda
question was posed by the Panel directly to Dan Rather and his
producer, Mary Mapes, who appear to have drawn the greatest attention
in terms of possible political agendas. Both
strongly denied that they brought any political bias to the Segment.
The Panel recognizes that those who saw bias at work in the Segment are
likely to sweep such denials aside. However, the Panel will not level
allegations for which it cannot offer adequate proof [LINK–Evil file format (.pdf) warning!].

I don’t think there’s anything "subjective" here. I think the bias is blatantly obvious. Viewing the Ra^thergate sandal in the context of the overall election, it is obvious what was happening: This was a desperate attempt to get a military record story on Bush to neutralize the effect of the Swiftvet story on Kerry. Only a "myopic zeal" for focusing on the Ra^thergate story in isolation from the Swiftvet story could lead one to think that there is not adequate proof of bias in this case.