« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
White House Gets Sub-Headline Correction
Victory! Or not quite. The White House's public freak-out over the New York Times has won them... a correction to the Times' sub-headline:
Catherine Mathis, senior vice president of corporate communications for the newspaper, stated that the sub-headline has been changed, adding that a correction would be printed. However, Mathis also pointed out that the White House did not challenge the contents of the article.
A TPM Reader runs through how the Times might phrase that correction:
The White House statement on the CIA tapes is interesting. It's extremely unusual to focus on a sub-head in attacking a story - Perino is perfectly well aware that sub-heads are written by editors, not reporters, and typically oversimplify the story that follows.Looking closely at the NYTimes story itelf, it makes a subtly different claim than the subhead. The story states that "the involvement of White House officials" was "more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged." Not, mind you, that the White House itself had downplayed its involvement. I'm no expert on anonymous attributions, but those strike me as
two different categories. An attribution to the White House would imply, to me at least, that it came from someone in a position to speak for the institution - a spokesman, for example. A "White House official" or "senior administration official," by contrast, is one of a small coterie of
extremely senior staff, mostly of cabinet rank or with West Wing offices.But the more generic "Bush administration officials" encompasses a much wider array of sources, including the sorts of officials cited in earlier Times stories. All the story itself claims is that some members of this last group were misleading in earlier conversations.
So concerning the sub-head, Perino would seem to have a semi-legitimate gripe. The sub-head suggests that the White House as an institution attempted to mislead reporters on the issue; the Times certainly fails to marshal evidence in support of that claim. But on the main substance, she's being deliberately duplicitous. The Times reporters have been speaking to
anonymous administration sources for two weeks, and clearly feel that officials deliberately misled them about the role the White House played. If Perino felt that past stories were erroneous, or that the officials to whom the Times was speaking had mischaracterized the White House role, she was welcome to speak up at any point. Her silence could reasonably be construed as tacit approval; as she demonstrates today, even when there's a formal 'no comment' policy in place, the White House is eager to speak up to correct what it sees as misleading stories. So Perino's hitting back hard because she's eager to change the topic, and focusing on an irrelevancy - a non-reported, non-sourced sub-head. I hope the Times runs a correction tomorrow ("A headline claimed "White House Role Wider Than It Said." In
fact, White House spokesmen have repeatedly declined to comment on the extent to which White House officials obstructed justice; it was an array of administration officials who misled reporters into believing that the White House had abided by the law in this matter. We regret the error.) so that we can all shift the focus back to where it belongs - to what the White House
did, not what it now claims to have done.
Comments (39)
CHARACTER wrote on December 19, 2007 1:51 PM:No one in this administration has any integrity
Chesser wrote on December 19, 2007 1:52 PM:How can they lie so often and live with themselves
Aside from breaking the law I find this most troubling
Would you want your kids to grow up and act like this
The point isn't the wording or substance of the correction, the point is that now Republican spinners on roundtable news shows can say "The New York Times is already backing away from this story, and in fact has retracted parts of it."
The correction just enables right wing hacks to dismiss the content of the article by focusing on, literally, the most minor aspect of it. Highlighting one small error to refute a much broader (and factual) claim is a common strategy for liars and people with certain personality disorders.
Jeff wrote on December 19, 2007 1:58 PM:I basically agree, but a small modification or two. It simply cannot be the case that what "the White House" has said is limited to its official, on the record statements, from its spokesperson or otherwise. That would allow the White House way too much illegitimate power to shape public perceptions of its stances by doling out information as "White House officials" but only on background.
The key distinction has to be between "White House officials," on the one hand, and the distinct categories of "senior administration officials" and "administration official" and "government officials," on the other. As best as I can tell, there have been no media reports specifically identifying "White House officials" as sources on the role of Miers and the White House. The sources have been identified as "senior administration officials" (CNN), "administration officials" (ABC) and "government officials" (NYT) - all getting the story on the evening of December 7, apparently.
Now, it is highly unlikely that such a coordinated outreach to the press did not happen out of the White House, and it is only slightly less unlikely that none of those sources was in the White House (though it is possible - CNN's senior administration officials could have been tops in the CIA, ODNI, or State Department, for instance). If the Times knows that any of those sources was in the White House, then no correction of the subhead is required. If it doesn't, then it can correct it, while clarifying.
But there should be no way that what "the White House" has said is limited to on the record statements from press flaks.
Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 2:08 PM:Let's remember that in 2003-2005 Scooter Libby preferred to be known as a "former Hill Staffer" in Judy Miller's articles.
The attribution question is fair game - and the White House is parsing to the hilt.
TheraP wrote on December 19, 2007 2:11 PM:Perino is trying to change the subject from "the White House did wrong" to "the paper wronged me."
So she's substituting herself as the issue (that the Times has wronged her, wronged her she says!!!) in order to divert attention from the fact that the White House has destroyed evidence and obstructed justice.
Simple as that, I say.
But good, because now the Times ombudsman can get into the act, thus prolonging the story and making it even worse for the White House.
Lisa wrote on December 19, 2007 2:15 PM:I agree,
Whispers wrote on December 19, 2007 2:16 PM:most important -
it keeps the story going -
people will figure out the spin
Clesser has it exactly right. This is meat for the base. "The liberal NY Times smeared the Bush administration but we forced them to acknowledge a mistake!" The nature of the mistake is never going to matter.
sandy wrote on December 19, 2007 2:19 PM:She is nothing but a WH TOOL.
biff diggerence wrote on December 19, 2007 2:20 PM:This is the second time I've heard Ms. Accessorizing Queen of 2007 address the WH Press Corps in the same sing-song voice that Fred (the Dorf) Dorffmann addressed Dean Vernon Wormer . . .
" . . . helllllloooo"
yeesh.
Eric wrote on December 19, 2007 2:21 PM:When have the majority of the American people ever figured out right-wing spin?
Henk wrote on December 19, 2007 2:21 PM:Chesser hit the nail on the head.
Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 2:22 PM:Bubblebrained, compliant and uninformative is no way to go through life, Dana.
biff diggerence wrote on December 19, 2007 2:26 PM:Amazing.
No mention of the fact that the Times piece puts the decision of the tapes' destruction INSIDE the freakin White House.
Franklin wrote on December 19, 2007 2:31 PM:I think the Bush White House owes a correction for misrepresentation of facts in reference to this matter -- not the NY Times.
gypsy howell wrote on December 19, 2007 2:35 PM:Per Chesser's comment, this has "check the kerning" written all over it.
Douglas Watts wrote on December 19, 2007 2:40 PM:Preponderance of evidence shows that this administration only lies when its lips are moving. The NYT should be ashamed of itself. Pathetic.
Aredubya wrote on December 19, 2007 2:54 PM:We've been here before during Watergate, when Woodstein tried to get confirmation of what Nixon admin higher-ups had been named as culpable in Hugh Sloan's grand jury testimony about who knew about the dirty tricks and slush funding. They asked a couple of sources, "Was Haldeman named?". These witnesses would not go on the record, and would not directly answer the question, but with little verbal tricks, Woodstein though they got the confirmations, and went with their story.
The next day, the White House (and nascent GOP Wurlitzer) went insane, trumpeting that, NO, Sloan did NOT name Haldeman - the story was a damn lie, and that Woodstein was leading the charge of trumped up politicized liberal crap. In fact, they were technically right. Sloan did not name Haldeman in his testimony, because he was not directly asked if Haldeman was in on the schemes. The Washington Post stood by their story, issuing no correction, but they knew they were wrong, and knew how close they were to becoming discredited.
The reality was, of course, Haldeman WAS in on the schemes, and was later convicted for his abuses of power. For a brief moment though, a reporter's technical error almost killed the story that brought down the Nixon administration.
Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 2:56 PM:The White House obviously decided to challenge the subhead to cast aspersions on the whole article. But by challenging just a tiny point, they implicity confirm the rest.
anony wrote on December 19, 2007 3:05 PM:Just one more New York Times mistake of many. Perhaps moveon.org paid them to make that "mistake"? See, I can speculate too. LOL.
Dana had every right to correct the paper and I applaud her for doing so.
Mike wrote on December 19, 2007 3:12 PM:anony
I have to hand it to you,
you got your face out of the tackle box
long enough to post at the library.
Whats wrong - your subscription to sports illustrated isn't getting delivered to the trailer anymore.
lambert strether wrote on December 19, 2007 3:15 PM:Never apologize to a Republican. Their deepest desire is to be dominated; that's why they overcompensate so much. So, when the Democrats apologize to them, the Republicans react with increased anger, because they're not getting what they really want....
jimijazz wrote on December 19, 2007 3:31 PM:This doesn't change the substance of the article. As many of the posts have already suggested these are Nixonian type tactics to try to divert from the damaging part of the story. Bush and his cronies think they can still intimidate the mainstream media at this point in time.
LongTom wrote on December 19, 2007 3:35 PM:This is reminiscent of the to-do over the Dan Rather/Bush dreaft evasion letters. Just because the sub-head was not literally correct, doesn't mean that Bush isn't guilty of the dereliction being discussed. It's very effective.
djcrow22 wrote on December 19, 2007 3:37 PM:Dana Perino is a bald face liar. Lying and obfuscation by a federal employee while participating in a cover up of a criminal enterprise,under oath or not, should be a felony. This group of fascists have taken the Big Lie to a new and despicable level. Big Scandals are the new lie. We have been under the constant bombardment of scandal for seven years and with the complicit assistance of the corporate(again fascist)media, we are suffering from severe scandal overload. When Dana Perino, who has zero credibilty and is a chronic liar, can demand a retraction from the largest newspaper in the world and get it, what do we have left? Perino,masquerading as the White House spokeswoman,who does not know what the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missle crises are about,stands up there day after day lying and covering up for fascist war criminals without be called out is a crime in itself. Perino, like virtually every other WH spokesman, is a purveyor of lies and has become a daily embarrassment. The contempt she displays even to the WH press corps(representatives of the complicit,fascist media corporations) is amazing. When there are no consequences for lying to the American people everyday, it follows that she will continue to lie and misdirect as she pleases. Dana Perino is a disgraceful,contemptuous and willful participant in the criminal enterprise that is the Bush Administration. She deserves no respect.
OK wrote on December 19, 2007 3:47 PM:The Bush administration reaches for the weapons of mass distraction.
Again.
jimijazz wrote on December 19, 2007 3:55 PM:And as this story gets bigger and more involved which it most certainly will, this sub-head isn't going to mean much. It almost feels as though Bush is trying to put the brakes on this story(scandal) before it bursts.
JA wrote on December 19, 2007 4:07 PM:"And as this story gets bigger and more involved which it most certainly will" From your mouth to God's ear! I hope this turns into something that even Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi can't ignore. But I'm not about to hold my breath on that.
Bill B. wrote on December 19, 2007 4:14 PM:I wonder if Perino knows the difference between "pernicious" and "mendacious".
Gromit wrote on December 19, 2007 4:14 PM:Dana, dear. It is not all about you.
She really believes that she's a pure and honest public servant who has been wronged in her selfless efforts to inform the public.
The collective and individual self-delusion of the Bush administration is beyond scary. Like Bush insisting yesterday that Iran has nuclear weapons.
I wouldn't trust them to order breakfast.
windancer wrote on December 19, 2007 4:27 PM:God! She looks so sexy when she is mad. I wish she would show us her boobs. But they are probably false too.
Windancer
Sully18 wrote on December 19, 2007 4:28 PM:Still no truth;no honor,but lots of spin and semantic newspeak.It`ll die down soon if the games continue.And one thing is for certain;the games will continue.
Jack Chalker wrote on December 19, 2007 6:50 PM:And the story is what. Tapes of CIA operatives torturing known terrorists were destroyed. Big deal. The only persons interested in viewing the aforementioned tapes are those who want to nail the torturing bastards to the wall. It amazes me to hear people use the word civilized in the same conversation with the word war. Does anyone here believe for one damn minute that soldiers or terrorists of any country or entity that the U.S has ever fought gives a rats ass about the Geneva Freakin Convention. There's not a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine amongst us who believes for one damn second that we wouldn't be tortured if captured. Moreover, as I reminisce about the stories told me by former POW's in the Vietnam war during my stint in SERE school I can tell you with unabashed honesty that Waterboarding doesn't even begin to compare with what these gentlemen experienced.
You people better damn well learn something quick. Turning the other cheek is all fine and dandy. Diplomacy has its' place. However, more often then not turning the other cheek only gets you two red cheeks. Anyone who has ever had to fight knows damn well that Marquis of Queensbury rules are B.S. You damn well better fight fire with fire. YOu get as down and dirty as the enemy you are fighting. For those of you who think waterboarding and other techniques barbaric, I truly believe you are being intellectually and morally dishonest. I truly wonder if the person/s being "tortured" had information pertaining to one of your family members being harmed would your morals be so impeccably self-righteous? Somehow I seriously doubt it.
PHB wrote on December 19, 2007 10:29 PM:Appology
A recent story in the Times was eroneously headlined "Whitehouse Role Greater than it claimed"
In fact the Whitehouse did not make any public claim in regard to this incident, although administration officials did speak to numerous reporters off the record and it was widely understood that they were in fact giving the position of the administration and no attempt was ever made to contradict these statements.
We appologise for the confusion that this may have caused and have corrected the headline to read "Whitehouse Role Greater than Administration Officials Stated in Unattributable Briefings While Refusing to Give Public Comment."
rxbusa wrote on December 20, 2007 3:47 AM:Isn't the kerfuffle of cute-when-she's-mad Dana Peroxide the whole point of this little exercise in distraction? Her high dudgeon is meant to obfuscate the fact that they've been either lying or stonewalling on dozens of scandals for years.
The purported reason they never tell us anything is because of "ongoing investigations." At some point (one which I personally am long past) we should start to wonder why there is an investigation on damn near everything they do.
Insane President. wrote on December 20, 2007 12:17 PM:Jack Chalker,
" I truly wonder if the person/s being "tortured" had information pertaining to one of your family members being harmed"
This is so crazy; I'm surprized you can actually turn on a computer, press down keys, and type the garbage that furnishes the vacant space between your ears.
I have lots of information on how your Torture President harmed my family members.
Following your logic, both Bush and Cheney should be put on the 1st freighter sailing to Gitmo.
EasyToRefuteWingnuts wrote on December 20, 2007 2:29 PM:"Jack Chalker" wrote:
"I truly wonder if the person/s being "tortured" had information pertaining to one of your family members being harmed"
-----
Jack Chalker, the sci-fi author, died on February 11, 2005. The above post does seem to be genuine, however for one major reason: although it goes against almost everything the author wrote during his lifetime, its major themes are as brain-dead as one may get.
Citizen J wrote on December 21, 2007 10:49 AM:Shorter Translation of Jack Chalker: "Kill 'em all!!"
It must be truly sad to live in such a fear-filled world as yours.
Spartan 117 wrote on December 21, 2007 11:58 AM:"YOu get as down and dirty as the enemy you are fighting."
Then what is the difference between the "eeeeeeevil enemy" and us? We're the "good guys", just 'cuz we say we are 'cuz "we're America"?
You are a sad, fearful individual and you have my pity. It must be terrible to live in fear of "THE ENEMY" all the time as you apparently do.
Jack Chalker wrote on December 23, 2007 7:03 PM:What stikes me most about all the replies to my post is the lack of response to my argument.
Let me state this again so there will be no misunderstanding. I truly believe those of you throwing hissy fits regarding "torture" are being morally and intellectually dishonest. You're bullshitting the world and yourselves. If circumstance were such that a member of your family could be saved or harmed for that matter by information being withheld by a person or persons. You know damn well you would want those with the power to do so, to extricate any pertinent information. And, I'm pretty damn sure you wouldn't care what methods were used.
It's funny, according to you you folks I'm "a sad, fearful individual", a member of the "kill'em all club", hell...even to crazy to turn on a computer. Might I ask...what are you? Truth be known I am none of the above. I hate war and violence as much as all of you. I venture to say I probably hate it more then any of you. However, having seen what some of these people you would defend are capable of I harbor no illusions when it comes to methods used to extract information. Talk to me after you've bagged a few victims of a VBED or buried IED. Talk to me after you've looked for the fingers of a 8 year old girl...cut off by a member of al-Qaida in Iraq simply because the girl took a fucking candy bar from a Marine Lance Corporal. Yeah, I give a rats ass about some asshole like that.
You people need to get off your collective asses and see for yourselves instead of living vicariously through distorted media.
I get to go back and deal with it again after Christmas. And, let me tell you this. If you think for one minute any of us are fighting for you back here you're nuts. We're fighting for each other and the people over there that need us. And while I won't deign to speak for all military personnel...speaking for myself "Don't talk about something you've not seen firsthand". Most of you talk shit but have never seen shit. My advice, if you want to know what's going on. Join up and come see for yourselves. Those of you that armchair quarterback are as useless at tits on the proverbial bull.