Patterico's Pontifications

8/9/2005

NYT Distortion on Cindy Sheehan

Filed under: Media Bias,Sheehan,War — Patterico @ 7:01 am



The New York Times runs an editorial today on Cindy Sheehan:

Summertime often produces unexpected media figures, and this is Cindy Sheehan’s season. Ms. Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq last year, is camping out near President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Tex., and says she won’t leave until Mr. Bush agrees to meet with her to discuss the war. There are many reasons for the flood of media attention she is attracting: she has a poignant personal story and she is articulate – and, let’s face it, August is a slow news month. But most of all, she is tapping into a growing popular feeling that the Bush administration is out of touch with the realities, and the costs, of the Iraq war.

Ms. Sheehan’s 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Baghdad. She says she and her family met privately with Mr. Bush two months later, and she is sharply critical of how the president acted. He did not know her son’s name, she says, acted as if the meeting was a party and called her “Mom” throughout, which she considered disrespectful.

Ms. Sheehan has traveled from her California home to Crawford, where Mr. Bush will be spending much of the month, in the hope of having a more substantive discussion. On Saturday, Mr. Bush’s national security adviser and the White House deputy chief of staff met with her beside a road a few miles from the ranch, but she is still insisting on a meeting with the president.

Nowhere does the editorial disclose that Ms. Sheehan once had a different account. In a June 24 article in the Vacaville Reporter, Ms. Sheehan described the meeting quite differently:

“‘I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,’ Cindy said after their meeting. ‘I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.’

“The meeting didn’t last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son’s sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

. . . .

“The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

“For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

“‘That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together,’ Cindy said.”

This story surfaced yesterday on Drudge — after the New York Times had run a news article [UPDATE: make that two!] that similarly failed to mention Ms. Sheehan’s previous praise for the President during the meeting. The story is now widely known — surely editors were aware of it when they wrote their editorial.

I’m not interested in criticizing Ms. Sheehan. I can’t imagine what it would be like to lose my son, and neither can anyone else who hasn’t experienced it.

But if a news outlet is going to report her current statements — even in an editorial — they have an ethical duty to report her earlier ones that directly contradict what she is saying now. Completely failing to mention those comments at all, anywhere in the paper, is rank distortion.

31 Responses to “NYT Distortion on Cindy Sheehan”

  1. “This story surfaced yesterday on Drudge”

    But not the whole story.

    http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002301.html

    actus (a5f574)

  2. patterico – Read Cindy Sheehan’s article at the following link to get a sense of her real state of mind: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0606-29.htm

    eddie haskell (8fd1a1)

  3. Actus,

    I gave a link to the actual article. Her characterization of the meeting in that article is simply not consistent with what she is saying today. The question is not whether she has changed her mind about the war — what she has changed is her portrayal of the President’s behavior in the meeting.

    Opposition researchers didn’t make up that article. She said what she said, and it was reported at the time.

    She clearly had no problem criticizing the President in June 2004 — she says in the same article that she felt his form letter was impersonal and insincere. Her comments about the meeting itself are quite different. It is absurd for the NYT to try to hide that fact from its readers — but that’s exactly what they’re doing.

    Patterico (481d49)

  4. This is Off Topic, but its surprizing that the Los Angeles Times would even pay attention to this, yet alone publish in its Science section. Hmmm, isn’t Bible supposed to be untrue? Shouldn’t archeology dispute the Biblical account? Hmmm..

    “NEOCONSERVATIVES USE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SEWAGE-PLUMBING TO WHITEWASH THEIR RELIGION”

    NOTE: THE SITE IS NOT WORK-PLACE SAFE.
    at http://satire-dot-myblogsite-dot-com/blog/_archives/2005/8/9/1120593.html

    David (03f14c)

  5. “I gave a link to the actual article. Her characterization of the meeting in that article is simply not consistent with what she is saying today.”

    And I gave a link that explains how it could be.

    “But if a news outlet is going to report her current statements — even in an editorial — they have an ethical duty to report her earlier ones that directly contradict what she is saying now. Completely failing to mention those comments at all, anywhere in the paper, is rank distortion.”

    Indeed. Like the quotes in the link I gave?

    actus (a5f574)

  6. Pat – Ethics and the NYT parted back in the 19th century. That is why I feared the worst for the LAT when Big O said he was going to make LAT as sleazy as the NYT. MY fears became reality by 1970. Neither paper has been bothered by ethics for over 40 years; the NYT over 85 years.

    You are right if they had any ethics or standards they would have at least printed some of her earlier comments.

    Rod Stanton (7320bc)

  7. Maybe Dean will join her and support her version of today’s facts. Dean did say it is important to get the Democrats version of the facts out there.

    I will stick with the newspaper on this one.

    bill (7c942b)

  8. “And I gave a link that explains how it could be”

    Can you spell that out please? Your link seemed like a giant non sequiter, as Patterico pointed out.

    Sweetie (f6fb72)

  9. How could her characterization of the meeting change so drastically? Simple. She got just a little dose of media attention and now she is hooked.

    otcconan (6970a8)

  10. “Can you spell that out please? ”

    she gives faint praise, and fails to criticize the guy that she does already criticize.

    actus (a5f574)

  11. The only thing missing from Crawford this year is Max Cleland’s little circus. I guess Miss Sheehan is this year’s show.

    Unfortunately for her when a new Tom Cruise or Michael Jackson story pops up her media friends will disappear like a puff of smoke and she’ll still be stuck with her grief.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  12. Actus:

    There is a difference between reporting it all and desperately trying to reconcile that which cannot be reconciled, as your little blog link tries to do, and failing to report the contradictions to begin with, as the NYT tries to do. The NYT is quite simply hiding the facts from its readers, and should be ashamed. The fact that partisans like you claim not to see that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.

    Patterico (4e45a8)

  13. ” The NYT is quite simply hiding the facts from its readers, and should be ashamed. ”

    So is drudge, but he has no shame.

    actus (a5f574)

  14. Your link, Actus, suggests that the family decided to take the high road — they didn’t criticize the President because they had just decided not to articulate their criticisms. That’s crap. They were plenty critical of the President’s letter to them. Ms. Sheehan said at the time: “We haven’t been happy with the way the war has been handled . . . The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached.” That’s all right there in the article where they both praised his behavior at the meeting.

    They knew how to criticize him. They did it plenty. They just didn’t criticize his behavior at the meeting. Instead, the husband said: “We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn’t have to take the time to meet with us.”

    It’s inconsistent, no matter how much you dance around it.

    Patterico (4e45a8)

  15. “she gives faint praise, and fails to criticize the guy that she does already criticize”

    Faint praise = praise. She’s flip flopped on the characterization of the meeting with Bush. The fact that she has been consistently critical of the Iraq War and Bush’s handling of it is nice but last I looked there are no awards given for just being consistent. The truth is obvious: she is trying to increase the publicity of her cause in the one way that sets her apart from other critics – citing her meeting with Bush. And the MSM loves when a small sub-set of a larger group claims to speak on the behalf of the entire group IF they speak from the left.

    Consider the reactions to the Swift Boat Vets, claiming to speak for Kerry’s Vietnam peers, and the 9/11 widows, claiming to speak for the families of 9/11 victims. One group couldn’t get the time of day from the MSM and other group the MSM couldn’t get enough of.

    Sweetie (f6fb72)

  16. Patterico:

    If you are harping on NYT for not providing an encyclopedic recitation of events, then consider also the Vacaville article’s “distortion” in not giving proportionate ink to Sheehan’s objections to the war and to Bush personally.

    The theme of that article was her putting aside her qualms about both and cutting the president some slack in deference to her dead son. The NYT article was no more slanted when it focused on Sheehan’s take on the White House event as an activist. There’s certainly no concealment of where she’s coming from. The “impeachment tour” sign on the bus says it all.

    Each article has a story to tell, and employs a journalistic angle to tell it. I would point to one difference between the two, though: the NYT article is explicitly printed as an editorial.

    biwah (f5ca22)

  17. “We have a lot of respect for the office of the president”

    I don’t see what this says about Dubya.

    “I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn’t have to take the time to meet with us.”

    And here we have the husband speaking, not the woman in question. In fact, the woman is included in the previous praise, but left out the latter.

    “And the MSM loves when a small sub-set of a larger group claims to speak on the behalf of the entire group IF they speak from the left.”

    ?

    “One group couldn’t get the time of day from the MSM and other group the MSM couldn’t get enough of.”

    Wait, you think the swift boat dudes weren’t on mainstream media enough?

    actus (a5f574)

  18. Folks, Actus is a troll. It took me too long to figure it out because I tend to expect the best of people, but this guy is clearly either incapable of rational argument or is deliberately twisting things for some motive that I find hard to imagine. It’s not like he’s going to convince anyone with his childish rhetorical pranks.

    Every comment thread in which Actus participates is diminished by his obtuse remarks, and things are not improved any by the replies. Throw not your perls before swine.

    My apologies to Paterico for taking such liberties on his blog, but I really enjoy reading the comments here more when they aren’t endless moronic back-and-forth with someone who has no intention (or no ability) to say anything interesting.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  19. I think Cindy explained herself well here. I think you ought to be more respectful of a woman who lost her son in war.

    But I well remember that, last year, there were some fellas calling themselves Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who claimed John Kerry was “unfit for duty,” even though some of these same guys had lavished praise on Kerry in the past. So didn’t that mean they were lying?

    Oh, ‘scuse me; they were Republicans. Different rules apply. Sorry.

    maha (e66a41)

  20. Actually, actus makes a good point: Sheehan didn’t actually say all that much in the Vacaville article, and it was pretty indirect. The argument that the inclusion of those statements is mandatory in any subsequent article about her activism is very weak.

    I should concede that the previous NYT articles weren’t editorials. But the main point, I think, is the one I just made. If she said what she says she said, to the president’s face, I applaud her courage. But I’m not going to shit all over the Vacaville Reporter for not including it in their article.

    biwah (f5ca22)

  21. Actus must be referring to the attention the Swift Boat Veterans got from Chris Matthews and Larry O’Donnell.

    eddie haskell (8fd1a1)

  22. “Or, if that’s too technical, in a debate about the relative health of the economies of North and South Korea? ”

    I watch TV, and saw them there. And not just on the daily show.

    actus (a5f574)

  23. “But I well remember that, last year, there were some fellas calling themselves Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who claimed John Kerry was “unfit for duty,” even though some of these same guys had lavished praise on Kerry in the past. So didn’t that mean they were lying?”

    The point is you could have read about this inconsistency in the NY Times.

    John Scott (7bf2c4)

  24. The woman met the president previously, as mentioned above, and has talked with a deputy chief of staff and the national security advisor. She will get no better answer why her son died than she already has. I hope her friends encourage her to get out of the camera range and talk with people who can help her process her grief, not continue to project her anger on the President, it does her no good. More here: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003210.htm

    I thought the MSM stood in the way of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about as much as they could. I did not see the MSM showing too many shots of Vietnam Hero John Kerry at the “Winter Soldier” “Hearings”.

    Whether Ms. Sheehan previously saw the President or not, no matter what she previously said or not, is it really national news if the parent of 1 of >1,800 soldiers who have died is upset about it and feels that confronting the President somehow would help?? Is it national news for the NYT when parents of deceased soldiers cry with the President and ask him to pursue the path to victory and not let deaths be in vain? (Maybe it is, I don’t read the NYT).

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  25. While we can sympathize with these parents for their loss, at the same time we realize that they are dishonoring their children’s lives by their selfishness.

    We have an all volunteer force. When I enlisted and prepared for deployment, we reviewed our wills. Do we have to issue statements of voluntary intent just so that our survivors do not hijack the one thing that we are willing to die for–our honorable legacy? Is the good that we do in bringing freedom and life itself to millions not enough?

    There is nothing much lower than a liar giving the euology over a grave of a hero. Maybe we should draft the writers at the NYT into penal battalions. It seems to me they are not doing their fair share towards the common defense.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  26. maha

    how ’bout being respectful of the families that have lost their sons/daughters in Iraq and elsewheres and don’t act like Cindy? Families that understand and respect the choices of their family members in the service?

    how about those of us WITH family/friends in Iraq RIGHT NOW who don’t buy the patently false “I support troops BUT …” schtick of the “anti-war” ilk?

    I’m sorry that such a fine young man lost his life, and I’ll cut a little slack for a grieving mom. But there comes a point when she starts exploiting her grief for political purposes at odds with how her own son felt that actually sullies his memory.

    I am disturbingly reminded of the father of Nick Berg.

    Darleen (f20213)

  27. Patterco–

    I agree with everything you said except the last words. Not “rank distortion”, but “dishonesty.”

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  28. If you are harping on NYT for not providing an encyclopedic recitation of events, then consider also the Vacaville article’s “distortion” in not giving proportionate ink to Sheehan’s objections to the war and to Bush personally.

    Ha! So now reporting “Woman says x” without reporting “Woman previously said not x” (where “x “is “Bush behaved badly and disrespectfully in the meeting) is not a lie — it’s just a failure to provide an encyclopedic recitation of events.

    Gotcha, dude.

    Patterico (756436)

  29. I think Cindy explained herself well here. I think you ought to be more respectful of a woman who lost her son in war.

    maha,

    To whom are you addressing that comment? It surely cannot be me.

    Patterico (756436)

  30. “But I well remember that, last year, there were some fellas calling themselves Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who claimed John Kerry was “unfit for duty,” even though some of these same guys had lavished praise on Kerry in the past. So didn’t that mean they were lying?”

    Actually I believe the NYT wasn’t shy about trumpeting that aspect of the Swifties history – so I wonder why weren’t they willing to give Sheehan the same treatment?

    Not that the NYT has an agenda or anything…

    Scott (57c0cc)

  31. […] Today’s article never once mentions that Sheehan gave quite a different account of her meeting with Bush to the Vacaville Reporter last year. We’ve been through this before with the New York Times, but I’m going to quote it again. You tell me how “dissatisfied and angry” she sounds: “I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis,” Cindy said after their meeting. “I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.” […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » L.A. Times Joins the Crowd in Distorting the Cindy Sheehan Story (421107)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1036 secs.