Tim Rutten Distorts, You Decide
Tim Rutten — a man so far to the left that he once uttered the phrase “the mythology of liberal Hollywood” without a trace of irony — is now waging a one-man war on alternatives to the liberal mainstream media.
Two weeks ago, Rutten mocked the Fox News Channel, calling it “the most blatantly biased major American news organization since the era of yellow journalism.”
On Saturday, Rutten took some cheap potshots at pro-war bloggers — including Roger L. Simon, and some unnamed critics of the L.A. Times’s woefully deficient coverage of the implosion of Joe Wilson’s credibility. (As Rutten no doubt knows, yours truly has been one of the more prominent of these unnamed critics of the Times.) See, some of us had the gall to point out that papers like Rutten’s L.A. Times had trumpeted Wilson’s allegations on their front pages — but then remained silent for days after the recent bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report had shattered Wilson’s credibility.
How dare we!
In classic L.A. Times style, Rutten commits the exact crimes of which he accuses his opponents: inaccuracy, distortion, and a lack of civility.
Rutten’s piece, titled Fuel for the pro-war blogs, opens as follows:
It takes a strong stomach to plunge into the sea of malice, mendacity and misrepresentation that now churns around the affair of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, Valerie Plame.
Malice, mendacity, and misrepresentation! These are harsh words. I know what you’re thinking: but Patterico, Wilson’s blatant lies merit this intemperate language!
Heh.
If you are unfamiliar with Mr. Rutten and his paper, you could be excused for assuming that Rutten is indeed referring to Joe Wilson with the phrase “malice, mendacity and misrepresentation.” After all — as I have detailed in several previous posts (here, here, here, here, and here) — a recent bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee published some strong findings demolishing the credibility of Joe Wilson — findings studiously ignored by the Los Angeles Times for almost a week.
But those familiar with Rutten and the Times should not be surprised to learn that he is referring, not to lying Joe Wilson, but rather to . . . bloggers.
In his piece, Rutten presents a selectively one-sided account of Wilson’s claims, omitting Wilson’s worst lies, as well as the most damning evidence of those lies. Rutten purports to summarize the bloggers’ case against Wilson — and, by extension, our case against the L.A. Times, for doing such a poor job of reporting the Senate committee’s findings regarding Wilson’s deceptive statements. Rutten’s summary is misleading:
The bloggers, whose rhetoric gains heat and velocity as it ricochets from one site to another through a chain of self-referential links, basically formulated a two-count indictment: First, Wilson lied by saying he was not recruited for the mission by his wife and about the conclusiveness of what he had found once in Niger. . . Second, major newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, were alleged to be suppressing the story of Wilson’s mendacity. In other words, why won’t the media tell us the truth?
(Side note: it is richly ironic that, shortly after denouncing bloggers as full of “malice, mendacity and misrepresentation,” Rutten is soon decrying the overheated rhetoric of these same bloggers. Rutten’s argument is fairly translated as follows: Bloggers are nasty liars! And they’re name-callers, too!)
In the context of Rutten’s entire piece, his purported summary of the bloggers’ arguments is distorted and misleading. Rutten omits the most salient evidence against Wilson, thus making the bloggers’ arguments sound weak and easily rebutted.
For example: Wilson did indeed baldly lie about the conclusiveness of what he had found in Niger — but you’d never know it by reading Rutten’s piece.
First, Rutten misleadingly understates what Wilson claimed. According to Rutten, all Wilson said was that he had “found nothing to support allegations” that Baghdad had attempted to buy Nigerien yellowcake.
Even if that had been all Wilson had said, that would be a lie. After all, as Wilson reported to the CIA, the former prime minister of Niger had told Wilson that he had been approached by an Iraqi delegation seeking to “expand[] commercial relations.” Possibly because uranium is the only Nigerien export in which Iraq might possibly have had any interest, the former prime minister told Wilson that he had concluded that the Iraqis were interested in buying uranium from Niger. Obviously, this fact supported evidence of Iraqi interest in Nigerien uranium — as many intelligence analysts concluded. For Wilson to claim that he had found “nothing” to support the allegations is simply false, as the bipartisan Senate report found.
Rutten mentions not a word of this.
But, Rutten’s false characterization notwithstanding, Wilson didn’t claim simply that he had found “nothing to support the allegations.” Wilson’s claim was much grander: he claimed to have conclusively rebutted the allegations that Iraq had been interested in Nigerien uranium — and further claimed certain knowledge that this refutation had been communicated to top Bush Administration officials.
Details are available here. For example, the New York Times’s Nick Kristof, relying on an interview with Wilson, reported that the allegations of Iraqi interest in Nigerien uranium were “unequivocally wrong.” Wilson told The New Republic that Bush Administration officials “knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie.” On “Meet the Press,” Wilson told Andrea Mitchell that his findings “effectively debunked the Niger arms uranium sale.”
As Wilson stated on page one of his book (quoted here):
I stated that the Bush Administration had been informed a year and a half earlier that their claims of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger were false. I knew what information the administration had about Niger… My report — and two others from American officials — had apparently been disregarded.
Such a conclusive refutation would be a tough trick, especially in light of the evidence provided by the former prime minister to Wilson, that Iraq had indeed sought uranium. Wilson has tried to explain away the conclusiveness of his statements by saying they reflected “a little literary flair.” A little literary flair? What an incredibly flippant way to describe a direct accusation that your president has lied on a vital issue relating to national security — relating to the very decision to go to war and risk our soldiers’ lives.
A little literary flair.
Rutten doesn’t mention that cute statement, or any of Wilson’s overhyped statements calling Bush a liar.
Even more implausibly, Wilson claimed that he had rebutted the claim in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address that, according to British intelligence, Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. As Bob Somerby notes, there are a few other countries in Africa besides Niger — and some of them sell uranium (for example, Somalia and the Congo). How was Wilson able to determine that the entire African continent was uninterested in selling uranium, based on a single sweet-mint-tea-drinking binge in Niger?
Rutten never explains this to us.
So when Wilson claimed that he had conclusively refuted Bush’s statements, that was bunk. What’s more, the fact that his claims were bunk was obvious to anyone who knows that Niger is not the only country in Africa that sells uranium. Who didn’t seem to know this? Why, the L.A. Times itself, for one, which reported — repeatedly and breathlessly — that Wilson had refuted Bush’s State of the Union claim. For example, as I told you previously, the Times reported on July 12, 2003 that Wilson had “concluded that the allegations were false.” As recently as June 25 of this year, the Times reported that Wilson had “determined that the statement [regarding Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Niger] was untrue.”
These were conclusive and rash statements — made by Wilson without foundation, and repeated time and time again by the L.A. Times.
There is not one word about any of this in Rutten’s article.
Rutten omits other damning evidence of Wilson’s self-aggrandizing fibbing. For example, Wilson supported his ridiculous claims that he had “debunked” the yellowcake claims by asserting that he had given the Bush administration chapter and verse on how he could tell that the documents supporting the claims were forgeries. There was only one slight problem: as the Senate report showed, Wilson had never seen these documents at the time he made these claims. A chagrined Wilson later had to admit that he had not seen the forged documents. He weakly and unconvincingly explained that he had likely filled in gaps in his memory based on later press reports. This was stunning evidence of Wilson’s tendency towards self-promoting exaggeration — and that’s putting it kindly.
Rutten doesn’t mention this either.
Rutten’s selective disclosure of the facts continues with his claim that, according to bloggers, “Wilson lied by saying he was not recruited for the mission by his wife.” Rutten then claims:
While the Senate report says that Plame “offered up” her husband’s name for the mission, a senior CIA official this week told the Los Angeles Times’ Doyle McManus: “Her bosses say she did not initiate the idea of her husband going…. They asked her if he’d be willing to go, and she said yes.”
Once again, Rutten misstates the bloggers’ arguments, which are much broader than the characterization by Rutten. Our claim is that Wilson lied by saying that his wife had nothing to do with his going on the trip.
Our claim is the truth. Wilson did say that. In his memoir, Wilson stated: “Valerie could not—and would not if she could—have had anything to do with the CIA decision to ask me to travel to Niamey [the capital of Niger and the location of the U.S. Nigerien Embassy].” As the Senate report found, Wilson’s claim is conclusively refuted by documentary and testimonial evidence. As the Washington Post reported the day after the Senate report came out:
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame “offered up” Wilson’s name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations saying her husband “has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
So, even if the Senate report is wrong, and Wilson’s wife only agreed to the assignment after it was initially suggested, she still had something to do with it. So, Wilson still lied about his wife’s involvement.
But Rutten doesn’t tell readers that either.
In conclusion, with another swipe at Fox News, Rutten comically pretends that he has set forth the bloggers’ entire argument, which is refuted by the allegedly simple and complete factual record he has presented:
There you have it: full disclosure. As they say on television, you decide.
If you can read this entire post and agree with Rutten that he has given “full disclosure,” then you’re a lost cause.
If Rutten’s selective view of the Wilson saga were the truth, then maybe it really would be a “bit of a footnote” not worth an immediate story on page A1. However, as I (and countless others) have amply demonstrated, there is much more to the Wilson story — and it goes to the heart of the “Bush lied!” canard. When a paper trumpets allegations like this in front-page story after front-page story, it has an obligation to correct the record, as prominently as it initially distorted that record. The L.A. Times hasn’t done this, and Rutten’s defense of this failure is transparently phony.
And gee, I’m sorry if that doesn’t seem civil enough for you.
UPDATE: The initial version of this post made reference to “conservative bloggers.” I have removed the adjective, because leaving it in could falsely imply that Roger L. Simon is generally conservative. I have either replaced the adjective with “pro-war” or removed it entirely, with no appreciable change in meaning.
UPDATE x2: Spelling of “Nigerien” corrected. Thanks to a reader.
But you hand in there anyway, Patterico. Good on you. I remember stumbling across your site in the early days. No one linked to it and it sure didn’t seem popular in any other way, but I bookmarked it nonetheless. Quality shows.
Comment by ras — 7/20/2004 @ 12:20 am
I appreciate that. It actually was rather comical for several months. My blog was like those blogs that they joke about in the New York Times: I read it, my mom and dad read it, and if I was lucky maybe a couple of other people read it. I didn’t have the slightest clue how to get people to read it, and it showed.
I am still not satisfied with the readership numbers, and probably never will be, but it does seem to be headed in the right direction, at least. I always encourage readers to pass it along to anyone else who might be interested . . .
Comment by Patterico — 7/20/2004 @ 12:37 am
An impressively detailed commentary which will, of course, be studiously ignored in many circles. I am reminded of a quote — somebody help me here, what’s the original and who said it? — “A rascal can tell more lies in thirty seconds than an honest man can refute in an hour.” Wilson and his apologists just keep on lying and ducking and weaving and obscuring simple facts, so that folks like Patterico have to expend a lot of time and effort to correct the record. We owe him and many other hard-working bloggers a lot. The press simply can’t grasp the fact that journalism faces a serious challenge: its credibility is under intense scrutiny by the new medium of the internet. For the first time in human history, large numbers of people have a quick way of checking the quality of what is presented as objective reporting and editing. Radical change is being forced on the media; those that do not evolve will beomce extinct.
Comment by L. Barnes — 7/20/2004 @ 5:15 am
Behind ya all the way, Pat. Doin’ a great job, here. One of the reasons the LA Times even publishes such utter codswallop is because they feel threatened by watchdogs such as yourself. They know you’re out here, and they know people read you. So…good work.
I might write about this, later. I learned some interesting stuff about the early days of the press in history class…
Comment by Chadster — 7/20/2004 @ 8:28 am
L. Barnes: Unfortunately, I think your two statements refute each other. If it takes an hour for someone to refute 30 seconds worth of lies, and the volume of lies runs to about one every hour all day on 4 TV news stations, 30+ papers, 3 major news magazines, and 3 wire services… how is anyone going to have time even to read the all the refutations written by bloggers, much less write them?
I don’t think that a revolution in media is occurring, though I’d love to see one. I think the co-opting of the blogosphere is occurring. I also think that the marginalization of the smaller blogs is occurring at the same time. When major media can disparage as radicalized, just as a first premise, then any argument will do to destroy what they’re saying.
IMHO, the major media will have little trouble ignoring blogs, like Eisenhower ignored McCarthy, until they implode under the weight of their own rhetoric. Those few that make good points will get the occasional “aww, ain’t he cute. A blogger who got something right!”. Or maybe a less condescending “Well, bless my soul. That was articulate and informative. You sure don’t see that too often… good on ya!”
A revolution it ain’t.
Comment by Tony — 7/20/2004 @ 8:39 am
Rutten’s mendacity, willful mendacity at that, is exceeded only by the arid nullity of his argument, carefully culled as it is of some of the more pressing truths of the Wilson/Plame labyrinth of lies. His reactionary stance against those who are deigning to critique his odd, contortionist spin can be reasonably viewed as a near-rabid fit of psychological projection. It would be pitiable if it weren’t for the mendacity, and the malevolence, he spews so sparingly.
A wastreling writerly wannabe.
Comment by Michael B — 7/20/2004 @ 9:01 am
Great commentary. It is really this kind of detail that sustains the foundations of the project to build a more humane Middle East. Of course we’ll screw some things up and, of course, the price paid will be terrible (see VDH for some real insight into the price paid by the WWII generation: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200407160827.asp). But no project to turn an entire people from the politics of naked aggression to a more humane worldview has ever gone without cost.
It will be easy to lampoon, distort and discredit this project because it is too large and too ambitious *not* to offer up rich opportunities for slick propagandists like Rutten.
However, when articles such as yours so effectively unmask the sheer moral and ethical vacuity of these people, one cannot help but be repulsed. In doing this, you’ve provided a wonderful service.
Comment by WildMonk — 7/20/2004 @ 9:04 am
Heh, Tony, your comments are too clever by half. Obviously there is no contradiction: the quote I can’t quite recall accurately is hyperbole dressed up as an epigram. So the math is irrelevant.
Meanwhile, while there is the inevitable shakeout of weblogs, and while the major news media are fighting back, the important fact is that change is taking place, and against the express wishes of the media. The mere existence of weblogs that Fisk the “news” is proof of that, as is the snide, haughty contempt the media display for the factual analyses that expose their bias.
I recall Glenn Reynolds quoting a newman who wished to remain anonymous to the effect the the public was lately so disinclined to believe in the objectivity of the media that his profession was being rocked by — his word — “seismic” forces. It is happening, and there will be no relief for the biased and contemptuous media.
Change is here now, and will continue…I expect it to acclerate and increase the pressure on the least adaptive members of the media. They are dead ducks.
That’s because the weblogs are so effective. In fact it is possible to give the lie to a lie with a short, factual refutation. My admiration of Patterico’s protracted, detailed analysis was just that — admiration, not a tacit admission that scolding media charlatans is a Sisyphean task. It is not. It just seems that way at times, because the professionals have so much to lose; they will use every weapon at their disposal to defend their positions. That will include ignoring, trivializing, misquoting, disparaging and finally attempting to refute folks like Patterico. It’s a losing effort. Dead ducks.
Comment by L. Barnes — 7/20/2004 @ 9:29 am
Earth to James Madison: You’re a lost cause. Just thought you’d want to know.
Comment by Pixy Misa — 7/20/2004 @ 3:08 pm
Trojan Huddle: Trouser-stuffing edition
I haven’t said anything about former NSC Advisor Sandy Berger stuffing his pants, but others have…and there’s quite a bit more around the blogs today: Did you ever hear about the Aggie who took a potato to the beach? Demmons…
Trackback by BoiFromTroy — 7/20/2004 @ 3:49 pm
Pixy:
James Madison was actually a banned commenter. His comment has been deleted.
Comment by Patterico — 7/20/2004 @ 5:30 pm
Submitted for Your Approval
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council links:Say …
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 7/20/2004 @ 9:50 pm
L. Barnes: Of course the math is wrong, but the point is still true. There’s too much major media and not enough blogging to refute all the lies. You can’t give the lie with a short refutation because you have to either disregard the blanket characterization that bloggers are all reactionaries (an implied admission), or spend half your time proving how moderate and erudite you are before launching your takedown.
Rush isn’t a source even when he’s clearly and indisputably correct. You quote Rush in an argument, you spend the next ten minutes defending your source. Trying to attack the media through blogs is like a neverending ten minutes… except you’re Rush, and all your sources are, too.
See, the media get to frame the debate. When you have to operate in their framework, it’s hopeless. What we see as a continuum where:
Blogs = 0 (simple truth)
Media = 10 (leftwing baldface lies)
is framed for the vast, vast majority as:
Blogs = -10 (rightwing handwaving paranoia)
Truth = 0
Media = 3 (slight liberal bias)
Now, if the LA Times climbs down from their perceived 3 to a 0, that looks like they’ve told the truth to all. The 17 blog readers know that they’ve only come from 10 to 7, though, and that’s hardly the whole truth. Unfortunately, the media gets to frame the debate and before you can argue whether the LA Times has come clean, you have to argue that the entire preception ‘honesty’ is skewed. You have to spend half your time reframing the debate.
Within our community, that’s easy. We remember the arguments that have come before. We know the history… our framework is redefined. To an average LA Times reader, a blog is a new source. It’s not in the framework of debate. Anything said on the internet is already suspect, and anything said by a blogger doubly so. Therefore, it’s easy to say “yeah, OK, these guys are all up in arms but really it’s a tempest in a teapot. Lemme lay it out for you…”, then climb down three rungs from the lie and claim victory.
The only way blogging is going to be sucessful is if it forces the media to reframe the debate, and the only way that’ll happen is if the perception among the news consumer changes to view major outlets as no longer useful.
We can’t force the media to reframe the debate through fisking… half a correction renders the blogger impotent. To change things requires that bloggers become independently useful. To a large extent that’s happening, and I think Glenn’s anonymous source was more concerned with original reporting that refutes the ‘party line’, as opposed to takedowns of individualarticles.
Don’t get me wrong. fact-checking the major media is an important part of reframing the debate. To be more relevant, you must also demonstrate that your competitors are less relevant. It has to be more than that, though. Becoming the exclusive source for an NY Post attack on the NY Times is not the way to revolutionize the news.
Comment by Tony — 7/21/2004 @ 3:12 am
“The press simply can’t grasp the fact that journalism faces a serious challenge: its credibility is under intense scrutiny by the new medium of the internet. For the first time in human history, large numbers of people have a quick way of checking the quality of what is presented as objective reporting and editing. Radical change is being forced on the media; those that do not evolve will beomce extinct.”
Or, as the great Ken Layne said: It’s the Internet, and we can fact-check your ass!
Comment by Jim Treacher — 7/21/2004 @ 6:59 pm
Submitted for Your Approval
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council links:Say …
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 7/22/2004 @ 10:46 am
The Council Has Spoken!
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Government Health Hell Care by The Smarte…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 7/22/2004 @ 9:03 pm
Watcher’s Council Picks CQ Post Weekly Winner
The Watcher’s Council has spoken this week … and they’ve selected my post, Gray Lady Spins It Hard For Kerry, Berger as the non-Council post of the week! I was up against some tough competition from Allah and Michelle Malkin…
Trackback by Captain's Quarters — 7/23/2004 @ 3:06 am
Go Read …
… Government Health Hell Care by The SmarterCop. The post is so good that it won this week’s Watcher’s Council contest. Congratulations go to Four Right Wing Wackos for Say What? and Patterico’s Pontifications for Tim Rutten Distorts, You Decide. The…
Trackback by AlphaPatriot — 7/23/2004 @ 7:03 am
[...] Thank goodness Tim Rutten eschews such words when describing conservative bloggers — preferring instead the high-flown terms “[m]alice, mendacity, and misrepresentation.” [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Transcript of Tim Rutten’s Interview with Hugh Hewitt Is Up — 8/29/2005 @ 7:15 am