AP‘s Calvin Woodward, who has the standing assignment of “factchecking” political speeches, continues to be an embarrassment to genuine factcheckers everywhere–substituting his own weird value judgments, semantic games and crystal-ball gazing for genuine examination of facts (FAIR Blog, 10/30/08, 2/25/09, 4/30/09). In his post–State of the Union effort (1/27/10), he singles out Barack Obama’s call for a non-military discretionary spending freeze, pointing out that during the 2008 campaign Obama had said that rival John McCain’s proposal for a spending freeze was “using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.” Saying that Obama’s “proposal is similar to McCain’s,” Woodward complained that “he didn’t explain what had changed.”
Actually, regardless of what you think of the freeze proposal, the administration has explained quite specifically how the two proposals are supposed to differ: While McCain’s “hatchet” would freeze funding for individual programs, Obama’s “scalpel” would freeze overall domestic discretionary spending, allowing some programs to expand while others are cut (White House Blog, 1/26/10). Again, you can question the wisdom of the policy, but you can’t claim that the White House doesn’t offer an explanation of how Obama’s approach differs from McCain’s. Or rather, if you work for AP, you not only can—you can make it the centerpiece of your “factchecking” article. (The article’s headline is a pun about Obama’s “Hatchet’ Job.”)
Woodward indulges in fortune-telling when he dismisses Obama’s talk of creating a deficit-cutting commission as a “weak substitute” for a congressionally established panel: “Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.” Actually, Nostradamus, the Senate plan for a deficit commission would have required three-fifths majorities in both houses to enact the recommendations (McClatchy, 1/26/10), proposals that came from a White House–created panel could pass by majority rule (since deficit-cutting measures fall under the Senate’s reconciliation rules)—a far easier political hurdle. (Once more, the question of whether such “success” is to be hoped for is another matter—see FAIR Action Alert, 1/6/10.)
Woodward follows Obama’s “Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan” with the retort, “But Obama can’t guarantee people won’t see higher rates or fewer benefits in their existing plans.” Because an honest president would have pointed out, apparently, that his or her reform bill wouldn’t permanently eliminate all medical inflation.
This was just as ridiculous as a small article in the Chicago Sun-Times that claimed that Obama moved “back to the center.”
Yes, well, what else would we expect from the AP, or official news agency of the Republican Party.
Calvin Woodward appears to have an awfu lot of trouble identifying “facts” and an equally hard time understanding what “true” means. So, of course, he gets the assignment to check the truth of facts in major political speeches. Welcome to the propaganda factory.
The most egregious example of Woodward’s ideas of fact and truth:
OBAMA: “To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations.”
THE FACTS: With that comment, Obama missed another chance to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, he ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.
If AP leaves this guy in charge of factchecking, and continues to label his articles as fact checks rather than the personal opinion that they are, there’s little question that the upper levels of AP are either incompetent at their jobs or completely in the bag for a specific political position.
It appears that Mr. Woodward is very good at stating the facts as he wants to present them. However, his ability to understand or even comprehend the complexity and the dynamics in the real world and the intention and proposed direction of the proposed programs is very, very weak. His ability to understand the complete issue therefore contributes to his incomplete and presumptious assumptions that should not always be taken as fact by his readers. Until said readers do their own investigation of the facts.