When Bill Clinton speaks, people listen. Or so you would think.
But sometimes they just hear what they want to hear. Especially if
they’re the New York Times. And if the Times
didn’t hear it, was it spoken?
Let’s go to the videotape. Actually, I would if I could but I’ve
only seen transcripts. And they’re confusing enough, though less so
than what the Times started out doing. Let’s take it a
step at a time.
Last week Clinton accused Republican political operative Arthur
Finkelstein of “self-loathing,” all because he was openly opposing
Clinton’s wife while having recently let it be known that he’d
married his long-time partner. Clinton’s comments set off a
political tempest that is now entering its second stage, with
Finkelstein now being seen as a victim of Clinton bigotry. Stage
three will probably have Finkelstein loathing Hillary more than
himself. In any case, we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
What’s important here are Clinton’s actual words: Here’s how
they read on CNN’s transcript from “Judy Woodruff’s Inside
Politics” of last Tuesday, April 12:
I was sad. I mean, there were two stories. One is that
he went to Massachusetts and married his longtime male partner, and
then he comes back here and announces this, which means, I thought,
one of two things: Either this guy believes his party is not
serious and is totally Machiavellian its position, or, you know, as
David Brock said in his brave book, “Blinded by the Right,” there
are [sic] some sort self-loathing there.
CNN’s “Crossfire” included a corrected portion of that above in
its transcript from that same day’s show. “This guy believes his
party is not serious and is totally Machiavellian in its position
— or, you know, as David Brock said in his great book ‘Blinded by
the Right,’ there’s some sort of self-loathing there.” Note that in
this corrected version Brock’s book is now being called “great,”
and not “brave.”
Meanwhile, the Associated Press in its April 12 dispatch,
included a very similar quote, which also went with “great” instead
of “brave” in reference to the Brock book.
“Actually, I was sort of sad when I read it,” he said.
“I thought, one of two things. Either this guy believes his
party is not serious and is totally Machiavellian in its position,
or you know, as David Brock said in his great book ‘Blinded by the
Right,’ there’s some sort of self-loathing or something. I was more
sad for him.”
But compare all that to the New York Times’s report in
its April 12 edition, which apparently set the “self-loathing”
story in motion. Here’s how reporter Raymond Hernandez (or perhaps
Donald G. McNeil Jr., who “contributed reporting for this article”)
captured Clinton’s comments:
“Either this guy believes his party is not serious and
he’s totally Machiavellian,” Mr. Clinton said, or “he may be
blinded by self-loathing.”
The Times simply erased Brock and his book from
history. On top of that, it took the “blinded” from the book title
and gave it to Clinton to use as a descriptive. All of this inside
a quote attributed to Clinton. How the paper could have done so,
given that Clinton’s comments presumably exist on videotape, is
anyone’s guess. What we end up with, in any case, is a wildly
distorted quote. Have their been any repercussions? You’ve got to
be joking.
The Times has run no correction. Its “public editor”
ombudsman took the week off. Brock’s own MediaMatters.org,
which jumps at the merest hiccup that might disadvantage the
liberal position and trumpets every sign of Brock’s public stature,
has remained silent on this public humiliation of its main man.
(Talk about self-loathing.) Meanwhile, the virus that the
Times released into the news bloodstream has infected more
than one newspaper. The “blinded by self-loathing” wording was
repeated in a number of stories, including in such august outlets
as London’s Sunday Telegraph and Greg Pierce’s “Inside
Politics” column in the Washington Times.
Just to show how journalistic sloppiness can take on a life of
its own, New York Daily News gossip columnist Lloyd Grove
ran a shorter version of the accurate CNN quote, but Daily
News commentator Michael Goodwin relied on the New York
Times fabrication.
In the larger scheme of things this little exercise reminds us
how easily — readily — news reports get things wrong. Brock
watchers will in addition find new evidence of what transpires
whenever David Brock is excluded.
