Sidebar: Keeping On Keep On Talking

Since my last Lil White Lies “critique of the critique” of the Mitt Romney campaign ad where a quote was lifted out of context by Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign, which was Obama quoting something said by the McCain campaign (“If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”), other analyses have surfaced which permit a more thorough examination of this Pants on Fire ruling by PolitiFact.

FactCheck.Org received an unusually large amount of e-mail on this which it published in its weekly FactCheck Mailbag, for two weeks running. Most writers-in viewed this as outright misrepresentation by Romney, although FactCheck continued to maintain a “let the readers decide” stance. One letter, from a Matt Shepardson of Romeoville, Illinois, was particularly expounding:

What makes this ad deceptive isn’t the Romney people misleading people as to WHEN this quote was made, though the “when” could add to the overall level of deception in the end. The issue with the ad is that it appears that it is Obama who is making the assertion, “If we talk about the economy, we lose.” Obama didn’t make that statement in 2008, and he didn’t make that statement since. Obama was quoting the McCain campaign when he said this. Quoting someone else, and having the fact that someone else is being quoted be omitted, is by the very definition deception. ...

Jackson references the fact that the Romney campaign released a press release where they admitted Obama was repeating the McCain campaign’s comments, and I credit him for at least mentioning this, but the press release in no way excuses what is seen on the TV ad (unless, perhaps, they were to make sure that everyone who saw the ad was also somehow exposed to the press release). Presenting the statement regarding the economy AS OBAMA’S is the issue, and the issue is that it’s a deceptive presentation.

When an independent fact-checking organization leaves such a straight-forward case “to opinion,” it gives permission to those who would obfuscate the truth to do so. Spin is one thing, and it has already made the public cynical, but making assertions with no basis in fact must be called what it is when it happens. If we are ever to restore the faith in our politicians and political process, ads like this must be called out for what they are. And what they “are” are lies.

FactCheck published a response to this (and the other letters of a similar vein) as follows:

We clearly failed to convince these and several other readers of our main point. In our judgment, the ad’s claim that the new health care law is “killing jobs” is far more consequential than the out-of-context editing of Obama’s words. The truth is that independent experts predict only a “small” or “minimal” impact on employment, which is a major concern of voters at a time when unemployment is so high.

Regarding the out-of-context editing, we noted the fact that Obama’s words were shown out of context and gave the full quote from 2008. We said: “It is possible that a viewer might be misled into thinking that Obama said this about his own campaign in 2011, since the quote comes 23 seconds after a graphic cites Obama’s comments as being uttered in 2008.”

But we left it to viewers to decide whether or not to agree with the Obama campaign’s harsh characterization of the video editing as “dishonest” or “deceitful.” Our view is that such pejorative terms should be avoided without clear evidence of malicious intent. In this case the Romney campaign’s stated intent was not to deceive, but to make a case that Obama now faces an even worse economy than John McCain did in 2008. Readers can decide for themselves whether or not to accept that. And we’ll continue to be cautious about using such emotionally loaded terms as “dishonest” or “deceitful.”

In the meantime, a New York Times article addressed the same quote, and an interviewed “top operative” for Team Romney stated that “everybody does it” and that these ads are merely “manipulative pieces of persuasive art.”  It should be noted the New York Times referenced the PolitiFact ruling, followed by: (emphasis added)

The significance of the spot lies in its explicit distortion of an opponent’s remark, but the spot’s direct duplicity is also the latest step in the transgression by political operatives of formerly agreed-upon ethical boundaries. What was once considered sleazy becomes the norm.

The reason I highlighted this was because my conservative counterpart basically wants his readers to agree that in this case being sleazy is perfectly acceptable because “it doesn’t change the context.” In other words, he’s made sleazy the norm. I guess if it were the other way around, and it was a Democrat doing this to a Republican, it would be sleazy (to him)…or it would be selectively ignored.

Now comes Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post’s FactChecker to "re-visit" this as well, awarding Romney’s ad Two Pinnochios, the PolitiFact equivalent of a Half True, stating many reasons he was having trouble being “outraged.” In fact, he went so far as to call it “a trap” for the Obama campaign.

The Romney people went so far out of their way to highlight what they did that we suspect this was designed to be a trap for the Obama campaign. The Romney campaign appears to have wanted to spark a negative reaction from the Obama camp, thereby setting up a clash focused on the economy. If that was their goal, they certainly succeeded.

The problem, the general public may not have been aware of Romney’s campaign staff “going so far out of their way to highlight what they did” as the ad was being aired. I mean, there’s not even the fine print explaining this was lifted out of context at the end of the ad, like on those car lease commercials which explain the low monthly payments mean a big payment (and the residuals) at the end of the lease after you return the car (for which you're not given enough time to really see and are just as deceptive). So Kessler saying the campaign was not trying to hide anything, is not really believable.

Kessler states that because the ad images go from “grainy to clear”, he’s “not sure how people could be fooled into thinking this is a present-day Obama statement.” But as the above FactCheck letter writer states, most people would know “Obama didn’t make that statement in 2008, and he didn’t make that statement since.”

The fact remains, however, Kessler does not dispute this ad as wholly “True” with his Two-Pinnochio award, and he also points out Romney’s “dubious assertion” in the ad that Obamacare is killing jobs. And no one but far right-wingers are suggesting that it must be True because it’s (supposedly) still True with the context.



*Someone's* going to say this is still True with context?