Soccer Dad

We'll tell you what's important

via memeorandum and Instapundit.

James Taranto yesterday critiqued the latest fad in "journalism:" fact-checking.

Like movie reviewing, the "fact check" is a highly subjective process. If a politician makes a statement that is flatly false, it does not need to be "fact checked." The facts themselves are sufficient. "Fact checks" end up dealing in murkier areas of context and emphasis, making it very easy for the journalist to make up standards as he goes along, applying them more rigorously to the candidate he disfavors (which usually means the Republican).

Specifically he critiques this "fact-check:"

Like movie reviewing, the "fact check" is a highly subjective process. If a politician makes a statement that is flatly false, it does not need to be "fact checked." The facts themselves are sufficient. "Fact checks" end up dealing in murkier areas of context and emphasis, making it very easy for the journalist to make up standards as he goes along, applying them more rigorously to the candidate he disfavors (which usually means the Republican).

Example: USA Today has a "reality check" of a McCain ad whose script runs as follows:

Narrator: "Who is Barack Obama? He says our troops in Afghanistan are . . .

Obama: ". . . just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."

Narrator: "How dishonorable. Congressional liberals voted repeatedly to cut off funding to our active troops, increasing the risk on their lives. How dangerous. Obama and congressional liberals: too risky for America."

The USA Today headline reads "Quote From Obama Taken Out of Context." In a way this is a tautology, since a quotation by definition is taken out of its original context (and placed in a new one). But of course the phrase out of context usually connotes "used in a misleading way." Is that the case here? Here is a longer version of the Obama quote, per USA Today:

"We've got to get the job done there, and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

On the one hand, Obama was making a broader argument, which the McCain ad ignores: that America should send more troops to Afghanistan. On the other hand, Obama clearly did assert that America is "air-raiding villages and killing civilians" (the subsequent clause makes that undeniable), though one could argue about whether he was asserting or merely worrying that we are "just" doing so.

Taranto doesn't seem bothered by the charge in the ad and nothing about it seems amiss. Except to Obama supporters.

Take yesterday's Washington Post editorial, Dangerous Territory:

But the relevance of character can't excuse an anything-goes assault. Mr. Obama's use of the word "just" in his statement on Afghanistan was inartful. But Mr. McCain knows perfectly well that Mr. Obama doesn't believe U.S. troops are killing only civilians. He also knows perfectly well that the problem Mr. Obama described -- the alienation of Afghan civilians by military tactics that lead to too many civilian deaths -- is real and demands a rethinking of strategy. What's dishonorable in this case is the McCain ad, not the Obama statement.

"Inartful?" The Post dismisses that the use of the word indicates anything about Sen. Obama's mindset. It looks to me like he's emphasizing the civilian casualties above all else. And as Taranto points out there could be less to the "killing civilians" charge than meets the eye.

Given that the enemy in Afghanistan does not distinguish itself from the civilian population, how many of the putative civilians who have died in attacks by the West were actually enemy combatants? And on what basis does one assign blame for civilian casualties when the West attacks terrorists who are hiding among civilians?

Going back to the Washington Post editorial, it compares the McCain camp's tying of Obama to Bill Ayers with the Obama camp's tying of McCain to Charles Keating. On the one hand:

Character is legitimate campaign fodder -- up to a point. Is there something to be learned from Mr. Obama's association in the 1990s with William Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist to whom Ms. Palin referred? It's certainly not that Mr. Obama hates America or shares responsibility for the bombing Mr. Ayers helped carry out. By the time Mr. Obama came on the Chicago scene, Mr. Ayers was a member of the liberal political establishment that Mr. Obama sought to join. Maybe someone of stronger character would have decided not to go with that flow -- not to join a foundation board with Mr. Ayers or allow him to host a political coffee. It's an arguable point, maybe a small brushstroke in a full portrait of Mr. Obama, in any case hardly disqualifying to his candidacy.

On the other hand:

Similarly, the Keating savings-and-loan scandal, in which Mr. McCain was accused of poor judgment but no crime, is a legitimate topic. The Obama campaign is off-base in seeking to tie it to today's financial meltdown on the basis that Mr. McCain was and remains an ideological foe of regulation. As we've written here before, his record is far more complex, including advocacy of stricter accounting standards after the Enron scandal and stronger regulation of housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Mr. McCain himself has talked about the shame he felt in his Keating Five involvement and how it impelled him to a greater attention to ethics in his subsequent career. It's a brushstroke, or two, in his political portrait.

Brushstrokes? In the first case Sen. Obama knew about Ayers' past and it set off no alarms. If this was the way to political power, he wouldn't worry over such details. In the second case, his dealings with an unsavory character inspired Sen. McCain to be concerned with corruption and take action.

It's a point I made before. Others have too, including here. And yet the Washington Post just dismisses these concerns as "brushstrokes."

What is important to the Washington Post? Well it wasn't the involvement of James Johnson in the Obama campaign. After the flap the Post had an editorial Surrogate Silliness.

Ditto Mr. Johnson. Like many people, he made a lot of money at Fannie Mae at a time when its accounting was messed up. As a wealthy person, he got a mortgage that may or may not have been more favorable than the mortgages available to other wealthy people. Mr. Obama handled the controversy clumsily. But, once more, this episode tells us nothing important about Mr. Obama. Mr. Johnson as Washington insider? Please. Mr. Obama sought the help of a Democrat who had experience vetting potential vice presidential running mates. If Mr. Obama needed surgery, what would it say if he picked a doctor who hadn't previously performed the operation he needed?

This might sound awfully quaint. It may be pitifully naive. But would it be too much to ask for just a little more focus on what the candidates themselves have to say--and less on the surrogate bloopers du jour?

Given the subsequent failure of Fannie Mae, this argument seems quaint. Someone who was involved in the Fannie Mae failure is someone who Sen. Obama trusted. That also says something about his judgment. But the Washington Post says, "move along, nothing to see here."

It's hard not to get the feeling that the media (as represented by the Washington Post here) has taken an approach of "we're the final arbiters of what's important this campaign season."

I've wondered (as have others) if the Washington Post would follow through on some of its substantive criticisms of Sen. Obama on Iraq and note the huge experience gap and endorse John McCain for president. The Post's unwillingness to entertain questions of Sen. Obama's character and judgment make it pretty clear that it won't endorse McCain. I expect an unenthusiastic or, at least, equivocating, endorsement of Obama from the Post. But they will endorse him.