Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry’s new TV commercial is based on a lie. Will reporters say so?
The ad starts with a Barack Obama quote: ”We’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades.”
To which Perry responds: ”Can you believe that? That’s what our president thinks is wrong with America? That Americans are lazy? That’s pathetic. It’s time to clean house in Washington.”
Now, it would be rather unusual for a president to say that.
Obama didn’t.
The quote comes from an event where Obama spoke about efforts to woo corporations to do more business in America. Obama’s response was that government should being doing more to improve the business environment for corporations–to “make it easier for foreign investors to build a plant in the United States.”
If anything, Obama is saying the government has been lazy in its approach to pleasing corporations. As MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell explained last night, this is the kind of thing you can imagine coming from the mouths of Republican politicians and candidates.
So how are media doing fact-checking Perry’s claim?
Today (11/18/11) the New York Times has a piece headlined “Perry’s Latest Attacks Distort Obama’s Words and Past.” That’s pretty good–though it’s a little strange to see the paper’s somewhat passive description of Perry’s mendacity: “Some of his recent attacks have drifted into the realm of falsehood.” How on Earth did they drift into that realm?
But the piece is an improvement over the Times‘ take on the ad a day earlier, written by the same reporter (Richard Oppel). That article led with the news that that the commercial “takes a sharper tone” than Perry’s previous ads, and that it “may be an effort to shift attention from Mr. Perry’s recent stumbles by attacking the White House.”
In the sixth paragraph, readers are finally told that “the ad takes Mr. Obama’s remark out of context.”
Mitt Romney has also been twisting Obama’s “lazy” comment, with little push back from the press. Another Times piece described Romney’s attack:
Mr. Romney’s critique sounded a familiar theme in the Republican primary contest–that the president is out of touch with the ordinary American worker.
Later in the article, an Obama spokesperson says Romney is taking the comments out of context–which is the kind of thing journalists should point out themselves.
In the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza reported the Perry ad this way:
His latest ad, which began airing Wednesday in Iowa and on national cable stations, takes Obama to task for a recent comment that America has grown “a little bit lazy” in attracting foreign investment.
He added:
Romney also took issue with the comment this week, accusing Obama of calling Americans lazy. “I don’t think that describes Americans,” he said.
And once again, an Obama spokesperson steps in, near the end of the piece, to try and set things straight.
If this is any indication of how the press is going to handle campaign season lying, things look pretty bleak.
One bright spot came on the CBS Evening News (11/17/11):
SCOTT PELLEY: As we get pulled into this campaign season, you’ll be seeing a lot of ads by the candidates. And from time to time, we’re going to offer some background on the claims that all the candidates are making. This one caught our eye today. Texas Governor Rick Perry is running a spot about what he describes as an outrageous comment made by President Obama.
OBAMA: We’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades.
GOV. RICK PERRY (R), TEXAS: Can you believe that? That’s what our president thinks is wrong with America, that Americans are lazy? That’s pathetic.
PELLEY: That would be pathetic. So we hunted down the full comments the president made during an interview Saturday at the Pacific Economic Summit. He’d been asked about U.S. businesses marketing themselves overseas.
OBAMA: There are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the U.S. as a great opportunity. Our stability, our openness, our innovative, free-market culture. But, you know, we’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted, well, people will want to come here, and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America.
PELLEY: There it is in context.
There–that wasn’t so hard, was it?
UPDATE: Syntactical glitch in first sentence fixed.
The larger issue isn’t whether the quote’s in context, but the implications of it.
Heaven forfend that the corpress would take Dear Misleader to task for bending over backwards (or is it forwards) to serve corps, foreign or domestic.
Pots and kettles, don’t you know.
I find it ironic that you attack the Perry campaign for its misleading commercial when you guys start this article with a grammatically-incorrect sentence:
“Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has a new TV commercial is based on a lie.”
That sentence seems a bit run-on, maybe missing a word there? Like “which” — as in “which is based on a lie.”
Sure, that’s a MINOR grammatical error and if people like me didn’t bother reading your articles, we would not notice them. But that would not be very helpful, would it?
Why should I as a media viewer get upset about a commercial written and produced by some 20-somethings who can’t write a sentence to save their lives, communicate in 21st century newspeak (texting), and could care less if anyone notices? The same reason as when I see equally poor journalistic skill in work such as this, which would have taken a few minutes to proofread.
I don’t see why readers and viewers should ever have to go over something multiple times to understand what you said or meant. Sure, a minor gaff. But, in my day, journalists took the time to check their work. I suggest you do likewise if you want to maintain your integrity.
@Sorry Charlie: You honestly consider a grammatical error slipping by to be in any way similar to the deliberate mischaracterization presented in Perry’s ad? I mean, that’s the kind of thing most people would call “missing the forest for the trees.”
If you notice an error, there’s nothing wrong with saying something, but your rant is simply a sloppy attempt to derail the conversation away from the topic at hand: the mainstream coverage of Rick Perry’s malicious advertisement.
@Sorry Charlie: I couldn’t help but notice the grammatical error in your first sentence. (You don’t need the dash.) And doesn’t communicating in 21st century newspeak includes putting words in caps? Also, as Sean points out, you are off-point.
The mistake in the headline may seem minor, but it points to a sloppiness in one’s approach to writing. I suspect the problem is that we’re depending on spell-check rather than doing our own proof-reading. I see this type of mistake all the time, and there’s no excuse for it in journalism or any other profession that does a lot of writing. Spell-check only notices words that it doesn’t know (whether they’re misspelled or not). Please, everybody, PROOF-READ!
Maybe the NYT board should change its name to the Republican Propaganda Ministry News. It’s got kind of a ring to it, don’tcha think? Like a dinner bell calling all the Republican swine to come feed at the trough of distortion and lies…
@Sorry Charlie: You realize that — in spite of your half-hearted self-inoculation (ie; you’re “Sure, that’s a MINOR grammatical errorâ┚¬Ã‚¦” & ” Sure, a minor gaff.”) — you’re tacitly equating a “minor grammatical error” with a blatant political lie? These are two different categories that are distinctly unrelated. IF FAIR was criticizing Perry or Romney for misspelling or poor grammar, then your point would be valid, but FAIR is obviously referring to an INTENTIONAL major mischaracterization of an individual candidate’s position on a significant issue (US Employment policies) which is NOT significantly related to grammatical correctness. Additionally, even if you want to get all anal-retentive about the sentence structure and try to extrapolate some larger conclusion, it was NOT hard to pickup the meaning in the context of the original sentence, and the rest of the article was not riddled with similar errors, so the vast majority of readers wouldn’t even notice, much less balk at it. Know that at the end of the Indy 500 race, nobody cares if there’s a few paint-nicks on the winner’s car — or even the last-place car for that matter.
Two men Perry and Obama, on their way out,and good riddance.If Obama read it off his teleprompter Im sure it was well vetted by his staff.If it was off the cuff- God knows what he meant to say.
Doubtful Perry even saw, or ok’d the commercial/add his staff prepared.If it was off the cuff…..
Why is this important as we slip beyond 15 trillion in debt?
FAIR’s archives only go back to Sept 2008, so I couldn’t see their analysis of reportage on Rev. Wright’s, “God damn America”.
Whatever points they made didn’t have much effect on the corporate interns and minions who pepper the comment sections on right wing sites.
They still invoke Wright to imply Obama is a crypto islamo nazi anarchofascist, with socialist tinges.
No Ron we simply ask a simple question.How did you(Obama) know him as a close mentor/friend/pastor, for 25 years;and never see,hear,or understand what kind of monumental creep he really was?Anti american black separatist radical-A number one creep!,Explain that again cause Im not getting it.You didn’t hear him ever say anything?You missed 25 years of raging against the machine sermons?Right right….Um Mr president in all due respect for you, and the office you hold…..What a load of BULLSHIT
I believe it’s the MSM’s main objective to boost rating to sell ad space/time. Therefore it’s in their best interests to report whatever will keep the candidates neck ‘n neck and the rest of us tuned in. They probably want to keep Perry, Cain and the rest of the (R)s around for of the asylum theater they generate. Mr. Pelley must have been given a green light for that decent report because it helped CBS stay legitimate and/or take Perry down a notch or two. I predict lots of news manipulation between now and next November. FAIR, you have your work cut out for you. Thank you for the great job you do.
Regarding the candidates, since the (R)s have no game, they have attack Obama. They are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one, aren’t they?
…and now you’ve all followed him away from focusing on Perry and Romney and onto the typo.
Remember Rule #14 of the Internet: Do not feed the trolls; it only encourages them.
Simple question Michael:
How many minutes of Rev. Wright’s 25 years of sermons have you listened to?
I heard the whole twenty minutes of his “GDA” and I thought he was pretty fair in his assessment of American treatment of blacks.
Maybe I missed something.
Well Ron I only need “listen” to one thing.When his words and beliefs started breaking ,Obama threw him under the bus.His 25 year old friend ,did not stand up at all for those words as you are willing to.That you missed
Onewhoreads……Rule #13 is don’t feed the moles.I threw that rule book out long ago because it is important that we on the right ,have open dialog with you on the left.We are after all the same people.Why is it your side feels it can only achieve it’s propaganda aims by silencing opposition?
Hi Michael,
What “words and beliefs” are you referring to? I only listened to his GDA speech, and as I said, it seemed like a reasonable analysis of black/white relations. No communist/socialist/anarchist rhetoric at all, as far as I remember. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that). Have you anything specific to level against him from that speech, or others?
Obama’s initial reaction to the furor was to dismiss it. He remarked that the critics couldn’t have heard many black sermons. Wright’s views were pretty mainstream in most black churches.
Obama did throw him “under the bus”. His calculated cowardice was an early indication of how he would handle attacks from the right.
I think open dialogue between left and right is important too, Michael. I’m not sure who it is on our side who feels they “can only achieve [their] propaganda aims by silencing opposition”, but if I find out, I’ll ask them to stop. Like you, I prefer debating the opposition over venting to the choir.
Ron
Well Ron I don’t find his words in that speech, or any of the others I have heard( and remember I did not know him for twenty five years.Yet unlike Obama I did” hear” him on at least the speeches his church transcribed ,and copied for distribution)as a “reasonable analysis”.I do not agree with the base ideas of the reverends separatist church as founded.Do some research on where his church hails from.Where the roots of his teaching spring from. Fascinating. Oprah dumped him long before due to his beliefs and teachings.
Calculated cowardice?No Ron just a cold blooded decision.And a good one at that.The good Rev has stated that Obama spoke to him during the brew ha ha promising when all is done…..they will once again be able to speak.Nod nod wink wink.
And if that is a common black sermon as Obama stated …..well Im very sad.
But don’t worry.Wanna see real religious persecution?Wait till Mitt wins the nomination.All those open minded libs who were willing to “understand” rev Wright will instantly become Mormon killers.It will be the great crusade against Mormonism.Anything will suffice in their bid to keep power.The ends justifies the means!!!
Hope reasonable minds will prevail
Thanks again Michael. Not sure what “base ideas of the reverends separatist church as founded” you’re referring to. His GDA speech, as I remember it, simply outlined black white relationships from the seventeenth century to the present.
He concluded that blacks had more reason to “damn” America than to “bless” it.
Maybe you could supply some reasons for blacks to bless America. For example, they been able to play big league baseball for a few years now, and they can now star in Hollywood movies. I’m trying to think of some other positives.
But they certainly have come a long way since I was born. We used to choose who was “it” by chanting: “Eenie, meanie, minie, moe, Catch a nigger by the toe. If he hollers, let him go. Eenie, meanie, minie, moe.” That was in Toronto, in the fifties!
I don’t think libs will become Mormon killers either, although I do see them laughing even harder at the teachings of Joseph Smith than they ever have at St Paul’s.
Well No I don’t really agree with this whole idea of black disempowerment.I see a black president.A black Republican candidate.A former black secretary of state, and head of the joint chiefs of staff.Senators ,Congress men… .Generals,business leaders.The list is endless.I see Rush Limbaugh(the great racist) closest friend and producer for over 20 years Bo Snerdly is black.Who would have THUNK it?I see one of my closest friends is a brilliant surgeon who is black.His wife a brilliant lawyer is also black.His daughter an orthodontist, and his son in Columbia.Another friend of mine who is black and never went to college worked his way up from min wage in a business to VP then on to own his own and now is worth many millions.Everywhere the ceilings are being thrown down.Not due to government intervention but by the rugged individualism this country inspires.Irish need not apply did not stop the sons and daughters of Irish indentured servants(slaves) who came here by the tens of thousands.It did not stop the jews who were so persecuted and reviled(still?).Or the Italian WAAPS who were the lowest scum to so many.It will not stop blacks who were brought here as slaves 159 years ago from countries that themselves kept them as slaves as they climbed beyond prejudice and injustice.Do the averages speak to a different plight?I will agree with Mr Cain on this one.The black community long ago tied their star to the Democratic party.It has not helped them.A party that for all the good it has done, has monumentally helped to disempower blacks.A nanny state does not help blacks in the long run.It is the imposition of a plantation mentality.It has wounded them to their core and robbed to many of a belief in themselves.Im hoping we will see a maturing of that position.And what of rev wright?Another man who tells others all the reason why “his people”can’t make it ,as he himself lives in luxurious surroundings ,and hobnobs with the worlds most powerful men. Hypocrite.This is the place Ron where they will make their greatest contributions I believe to the world.What a story it will make.Only in America
Good thoughts, Michael. I know there are many inspiring stories in the black community.
But what about the black children left behind? Do you really think that a government controlled by the rich will look after people, or the earth, better than a government of common people, or wise people, or selfless people?
Hard to find them, I know, especially if corporations dominate the process of selection.
That liberal media has sure been hard on conservative opinions. They almost stopped the war with Iraq by their criticism of the slam dunk evidence.
Benevolent monarchies, or benevolent dictatorships, can be very efficient at taking care of everyone, but how many of those have we had in the long history of the world?
We don’t have the government we deserve, we now have corporate government. Originals and blacks get the shortest end of their services, but everybody else is shortchanged by the corporations.
Everybody but the 1%.
Sorry Ron but I don’t believe in corporatism ,or corporate domination.And the war in Iraq was voted for by both sides,and world bodies.Good or bad intel not withstanding.They went on what they had.To those people who wanted retreat defeat and surrender it is small consolation to of at least been right ,about the WMDs,and wrong about Saddams ultimate designs.And I don’t believe in the theory of the 1%.Just another liberal boogie man.And the shortest end will be carried by the less educated.Which begs the question….when will those with masters picket those with Doctorates.BA’picket Masters.High school all college grads and so on.A world of picketers going against those with more.
Fifty corporations are bigger than a hundred countries, and you don’t believe they have any domination worthy of discussion?
War is good for corporations, and their money controls the political lives of both parties. It’s not surprising that both dems and repubs voted for the corporate line.
But the intel was bogus from the start. Canadians knew. Europeans knew. The whole world knew. Only Americans were in the dark. But what do you expect when the “liberal” New York Times prints Judith Miller’s claptrap.
You’ll have to enlighten me on being “right about the WMDs”. First I’ve ever heard about it.
Somehow talking about “retreat, defeat and surrender” from Saddam brings to mind an elephant spooked by a mouse.
I lost your thread of thought on the last few sentences, so feel free to rephrase. I think you’re actually agreeing with me!
I welcome any reply from you, Michael, but I won’t recomment. My computer needs a tuneup, and it’s taking more of my impatient time to dig out this article (what was it about anyway) every time I try. Maybe we’ll meet on another topic.
I enjoyed our discussion. You treated my views with respect. Thank you.
You too Ron.Moving on….Get that computer fixed