AP Takes Cheney Quote Out of Context
The Associated Press is at it again. In a story covering a town hall meeting with Dick Cheney yesterday, the AP accuses Cheney of saying that a Kerry presidency would result in a major terrorist attack on the United States. The AP bolsters this conclusion by chopping off the end of one of Cheney’s sentences, thus causing Cheney’s statement to sound inflammatory and even extremist, when it actually was neither.
The AP story opens:
Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.
The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as “scare tactics” that crossed the line.
“It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,” Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.
If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a “pre-9/11 mind-set” that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush’s offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.
AP readers are not told that the AP snipped Cheney’s quote in the middle of his sentence, in a way that supports the AP’s interpretation of Cheney’s remarks as an argument that a Kerry presidency will lead to another terrorist attack. When you read Cheney’s quote in its full context, it is highly questionable whether the AP’s interpretation is correct.
I heard Cheney’s quote on the radio today, and later found it in a couple of places on Nexis. (I’ll provide a web link when one becomes available.) [UPDATE: The White House transcript is here.] When I read the entire passage in context, it does not appear to me that Cheney is arguing that electing Kerry will lead to another terrorist attack. Rather, Cheney appears to be arguing that, if Kerry is elected, the next terrorist attack will be viewed according to a pre-9/11 mindset, and will consequently be treated as a criminal act rather than an act of war.
Here is the full quote, in context, with the most relevant portion set in bold type:
We made decisions at the end of World War II, at the beginning of the Cold War, when we set up the Department of Defense, and the CIA, and we created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and undertook a bunch of major policy steps that then were in place for the next 40 years, that were key to our ultimate success in the Cold War, that were supported by Democrat and Republican alike — Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerry Ford and a whole bunch of Presidents, from both parties, supported those policies over a long period of time. We’re now at that point where we’re making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and it’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.
We have to understand it is a war. It’s different than anything we’ve ever fought before. But they mean to do everything they can to destroy our way of life. They don’t agree with our view of the world. They’ve got an extremist view in terms of their religion. They have no concept or tolerance for religious freedom. They don’t believe women ought to have any rights. They’ve got a fundamentally different view of the world, and they will slaughter — as they demonstrated on 9/11 — anybody who stands in their way. So we’ve got to get it right. We’ve got to succeed here. We’ve got to prevail. And that’s what is at stake in this election.
While Cheney’s language could have been more precise, I think that his point was clearly that Kerry would view any future terrorist attack as a law enforcement matter — not that a Kerry presidency would cause another terrorist attack. At the very least, this is a plausible interpretation of Cheney’s quote.
Granted, Cheney’s fundamental point is that treating terrorist attacks as a law enforcement issue will lead to more terrorist attacks — over time. And, of course, the Bush Administration wants the public to believe that Americans will be safer under Bush than under Kerry.
But there is a difference between saying, on the one hand: “John Kerry will respond to terrorist attacks in an inappropriate fashion, which will eventually lead to more terrorism,” and saying, on the other hand: “If you elect John Kerry, we are going to get hit with another terrorist attack.” The former charge is standard campaign rhetoric. The latter charge, which implies an immediate and direct causation between a Kerry presidency and an act of terror, is one that many Americans would see as needlessly controversial and inflammatory.
By snipping the quote where they did, and declaring that Cheney made the latter, more controversial accusation, the folks at the AP deprived their readers of the ability to interpret Cheney’s quote for themselves. Unless they happen to have heard the entire quote in context, as I did, AP readers will have no idea that Cheney appeared to be making a different, less inflammatory, and more defensible point.
Is it a coincidence that the AP spin on this story plays right into the hands of the Kerry/Edwards campaign??
UPDATE: The L.A. Times, New York Times, and Washington Post each have stories on Cheney’s quote. The New York Times story replicates the errors of the AP story, snipping the quote so it reads, “if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.” Period. Full stop.
The L.A. Times and Washington Post have misleading and overly dramatic headlines and openings. But at least they don’t snip the quote mid-sentence, in the unfair way that the AP and NYT do.
Isn’t there a word for snipping quotes this way?
UPDATE x2: I am told that there is at least one transcript out there that snips the quote where the AP and NYT do. Fine, but there is also at least one that doesn’t. Also, the L.A. Times and Washington Post both quote Cheney as continuing his sentence beyond where the NYT and AP said he did. Also, as I said, I heard the quote myself on the radio, and his thought was clearly unbroken.
Ultimately, the question is not merely whether a transcriber took down a slight pause in a speech as a comma or a period. The question is whether a significant part of a continuous thought was omitted, thus distorting the meaning of what remains. As to the NYT and AP, the answer to that is a clear and resounding “yes.”
UPDATE x3: Cori Dauber says that the snipped version is spreading like wildfire. Yup: that’s what AP and NYT stories tend to do. She also says that she heard the entire quote on Imus, and I am right about the context and the unfair snipping.
UPDATE x4: The message seems to be getting out. For example: Michael J. Totten ran a post complaining about Cheney’s comment. Somebody notified him about this post, and Totten had the guts to run a correction. Totten then ran the full quote, with the relevant context, and commented:
That is a lot less inflammatory. The AP ought to be smacked for that. Will they run a correction? I’m running a correction since I relied on their crappy reporting, so I certainly hope so. (Not holding my breath.)
Me neither, Michael. But thanks for being a stand-up guy and noticing the difference.
UPDATE x5: Here is a partial transcript from CNN which also indicates that the quote was Dowdified by the AP and NYT.
UPDATE x6: Thanks to Big Trunk from Power Line for linking this post. The guys at Power Line have been on the cutting edge of debunking AP bias, and I am pleased to have their bright spotlight shining on this issue.
By the way, this post is cross-posted at “Oh, That Liberal Media,” a group blog on liberal media bias to which I contribute. If you aren’t reading it, you should be.
UPDATE x7: Cheney has clarified his remarks.
They totally distorted his meaning. Thank you for catching it.
Comment by John Rogers — 9/8/2004 @ 2:43 am
I thought only Republicans called their opponents Un-American
First, the AP takes a quote out of context from Dick Cheney, then let Edwards respond by calling Cheney un-American. What do you have? Politics.
Oh, that liberal media.
Note: the Seattle Times piece above said the Kerry campaign called Cheney …
Trackback by SayUncle — 9/8/2004 @ 6:55 am
Cheney, selective editing, and selective outrage…
Dick Cheney… Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack. The Kerry-Edwards campa…
Trackback by QandO — 9/8/2004 @ 7:01 am
Not only is the AP trying to represent Cheney as having said something impolitic and Goebbels-sounding, I think there also trying to make it sound as if he is PROMISING something: elect me and George and we won’t “get hit” that bad.
Which of course would be a very stupid thing to promise.
Cheney, that Arch-Devil of condescension!!
Comment by the UNPOPULIST — 9/8/2004 @ 8:11 am
More nonsense from the “mainstream” media…
Here’s the transcript:
Comment by Anti-Idiot — 9/8/2004 @ 8:19 am
Even Fox was going with the “Cheney scare-mongering” angle this morning. And they managed to play the entire quote, i.e. through the law-enforcement part!
Agreed, he could have spoken more precisely…OR COULD HE???? Maybe he wants it both ways!
Comment by Brian Jones — 9/8/2004 @ 9:37 am
Cheney makes an “if-then” statement, then conjoins several additional clauses, none of which change the meaning of the original hypothetical.
Look, he says it in plain English. If we make the “wrong choice” on Nov. 2, “the danger is we will be hit again.”
He adds that the hit will be “devastating” AND that we will fall back to the view that terrorist acts are criminal acts.
Cheney makes a series of assertions, each of which has a clear meaning independent of the others. It is completely legitimate for AP and NYT to focus attention on the first (and most startling and most controversial) in that series.
Frankly, I don’t see that you’ve established any bias or unfairness at work here on the the part of AP or the NYT. And I’m not relying on any abstruse principle of journalistic theory, just the everyday workings of logical connectors in English.
He said it. He will almost certainly have to “unsay” it, and soon.
Comment by Tim McGarry — 9/8/2004 @ 9:55 am
First the Republicans booo Clinton while the man is going into the hospital (and Bush did nothing to stop them), now this.
It is clear which side should be ashamed of the hate, fear and outright lies they spread.
Comment by Stop them! — 9/8/2004 @ 11:01 am
Tim, the problem is that the AP writers violated the Hippocratic Oath of Quotations: First, do no harm. They silently chopped half of it off, then they took it upon themselves to interpret what Cheney was saying and selectively restate it. In doing so they arguably changed the meaning of the quote. And whether it’s correct or not, the end result was no shorter and certainly no clearer than what Cheney actually said.
FWIW, I don’t see anything particulary controversial about either interpretation of the quote. The current VP says his boss can do a better job than the challenger. But apparently it’s yet another issue where Kerry would prefer to throw a hissy fit rather than actually state a position.
Comment by Bryan C — 9/8/2004 @ 11:04 am
AP Quoting Out of Context
This morning, after my long vacation from blogging, I started reading things about the Associated Press making up booing Clinton’s heart bypass at a Bush/Cheney rally, falsely twisting details of Arnold’s life and a bunch of stuff this morning about…
Trackback by Josh's Weblog — 9/8/2004 @ 11:51 am
“If you don’t wear your seatbelt, there’s a greater danger that you’ll get into an accident and die.”
vs.
“If you don’t wear your seatbelt, there’s a greater danger that you’ll get into an accident.”
It would be better for Cheney to have avoided the first construction, because it’s not precise and might be mistaken for the second by people who are not paying attention. But to report the second statement when the first was made is ridiculously irresponsible.
Comment by DF — 9/8/2004 @ 12:57 pm
Advanced Quote-Snipping
Patterico continues his fine work as a one-man fact-checking team for the Old Media. Today he shifts his focus from the L.A. Times and onto the AP, which has been Dowdifying Cheney’s speech from the convention. I don’t think Cheney…
Trackback by Little Miss Attila — 9/8/2004 @ 1:17 pm
More Questionable Reporting from the AP
Patterico reports that the Associated Press has quoted Dick Cheney out of context in a way that harms the Vice President while providing fodder to administration critics. This of course follows the AP’s infamous invention of a hostile, booing crowd…
Trackback by Democracy Project — 9/8/2004 @ 1:39 pm
Media Not Letting Truth Stand In Their Way
AP Takes Cheney Quote Out of Context” href=”http://patterico.com/archives/002686.php”>Patterico’s Pontifications: AP Takes Cheney Quote Out of Context A few days ago the AP put out a false story about people at a Bush rally booing when told of Presiden…
Trackback by Just Some Poor Schmuck — 9/8/2004 @ 3:01 pm
You know you’re on to something when even Julian “Cryptostupid” Sanchez agrees with you.
Comment by Xrlq — 9/8/2004 @ 4:19 pm
Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.
So?…That’s the case, ain’t it?
Comment by slatts — 9/8/2004 @ 6:48 pm
I’ve totally stopped bothering with newspapers. It’s over.
Gaaah! This is driving me nuts. The guys at The Corner aren’t paying attention. Hewitt isn’t paying attention. Certainly the AP and NYT look like high school newspapers. Contrary to the bleatings of the press, Dick Cheney did not suggest
Trackback by Jackalope Pursuivant — 9/8/2004 @ 7:33 pm
slatts,
Sure . . . it faces the threat of another terrorist attack either way. Don’t kid yourself: nobody’s administration can completely eliminate such a threat.
I agree with Cheney that a “law enforcement” approach to terrorism is no longer appropriate after 9/11. As I said in the post, I think that was his main point in his unscripted remarks — the mainstream media’s interpretation to the contrary notwithstanding.
Comment by Patterico — 9/8/2004 @ 8:29 pm
Assuming the transcript provided here is accurate, the AP is correct as shown by by mathematically precise comments.
Comment by The Lonewacko Blog — 9/8/2004 @ 9:27 pm
Patterico catches AP being naughty — again!
Dick Cheney is careful with his words. That won’t stop the Associated Press from butchering his quotes to fit a pro-Kerry political agenda. But the blogosphere
Trackback by BeldarBlog — 9/8/2004 @ 11:42 pm
AP Bias on the Campaign Trail
The AP newswire can change a lot of people’s minds at once. But lately, it seems they’ve been making a lot of “mistakes”, and curiously, they all seem to benefit one candidate’s campaign.
Trackback by Random Observations — 9/9/2004 @ 1:30 am
James Wolcott’s Brilliance Part II
Let’s look at Master Wolcott’s latest scintillating, steaming pile of brilliance (italics mine): On Top of Old Baldy It’s a post about Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney’s bald. It’s funny! Laugh! Why aren’t you laughing? Responsible citizens are justi…
Trackback by The Waterglass — 9/9/2004 @ 5:45 am
First the Republicans booo Clinton while the man is going into the hospital (and Bush did nothing to stop them), now this.
It is clear which side should be ashamed of the hate, fear and outright lies they spread.
Tee hee!
And they say that irony is dead…
Comment by Pixy Misa — 9/9/2004 @ 5:47 am
While you raise an great point I had trouble at first in isolating the meat. I eventually posted the borrowed and assembled text below on a sports board that I visit:
The Associated Press’s characterization of what Cheney said: (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.
What Cheney actually said: Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.
Cheney’s point was that Kerry would view any future terrorist attack as a law enforcement matter — not that a Kerry presidency would cause another terrorist attack.
Edwards: What he said to the American people was that if you go to the polls in November and elect anyone other than us, and another terrorist attack occurs, then it’s your fault, this is un-American.
So… even though the media and Edwards are supposedly intelligent and nuanced… it seems they can be stupid enough when it suits their purposes!
Comment by Wizard61 — 9/9/2004 @ 5:59 am
“First the Republicans booo Clinton while the man is going into the hospital (and Bush did nothing to stop them), now this.”
That story was retracted by the AP…and I can give you the link…
Comment by EvilElvis — 9/9/2004 @ 6:38 pm
I Question the Timing
In response to Bush’s lead in the polls, Susan Estrich complained that the Democrats haven’t been mean enough to President Bush… so now we have a pathetic attempt to revive the “Bush was AWOL” myth, with plenty of leftist sycophants…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 9/9/2004 @ 7:52 pm
EvilElvis, I’d like to see that retraction.
All I’ve seen is AP change the story…not retract it.
Comment by GEAH — 9/11/2004 @ 12:56 am