Today, the Seattle PI published Joel Connelly's column listing errors by other pundits in the region. Amusingly, Connelly makes a mistake of his own in the column. Here are the key paragraphs:
The conservative online magazine Insight "reported" last year that, as a boy, Obama "spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia." The publication did not reveal its sources.
The "report" set off the echo chamber of right-wing talk radio and Fox News punditry. After repeated mentions on Fox, a CNN correspondent did his legwork and visited the school ... and found it to be secular with a multiethnic, multifaith student body.
And here's what I found when I read the Insight story (and a follow-up) in 2007:
If you look at the original Insight story, or their follow-up, carefully, you will see that Insight did not claim that Obama attended a Madrassa, or that he was raised as a Muslim — but that supporters of Hillary Clinton were claiming he had, or at the very least, getting ready to say that he had.
Now, how could one discredit that story? I can think of only two ways; you would have to find the original reporter — who is anonymous — or his sources — who are also anonymous — and get either the reporter or the sources to admit that the story is false. No one has gotten those admissions so we don't know whether the story is true or not, and we can not conclude that it has been discredited.
My guess? It is only a guess, but I think it likely that some supporter of Hillary Clinton was spreading this story. It would not, after all, be the first time the Clintons had used smears against a political opponent.
Why even bother to mention this? Three reasons. First, it is amusing to see an error in a column about other pundits' errors. Second, Joel Connelly is terrible about correcting his own errors, so the rest of us have to help him from time to time. Neither of those two reasons is very important. But the third is, and is why I wrote the original post. Many journalists, including several who work for the New York Times, could not read the plain language of the Insight article accurately. I have considerable sympathy for journalists who struggle to cover complex issues, especially when those journalists do not have the substantive background that they need. But I do think that all journalists should be able to read simple prose — accurately. Sometimes, it turns out, that is too much to expect.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Incidentally, I would not be surprised to learn that Fox did get it wrong, but I also would not be surprised to learn that Connelly is incorrectly reporting what Fox said.)
Posted by Jim Miller at February 13, 2008 05:05 PM | Email ThisSo now we're faced with a tough scenario to accept. Was it a supporter of Clinton that originated the story and it is false, and if so, can we believe that CNN did some real investigative reporting to defend a Clinton opponent? I don't know, whenever there's a Clinton and CNN involved, nothing is ever as it appears.
Posted by: MJC on February 13, 2008 08:32 PM My suspicion is that he is soft on this and would make "Dhimmitude" more of a likliehood in the US, as it has become in England. That in itself ought to scare the bejezzus out of early rational-thinking American..
My suspicion is that he is soft on this and would make "Dhimmitude" more of a likliehood in the US, as it has become in England. That in itself ought to scare the bejezzus out of every rational-thinking American..
Sorry to feed the troll...but his mother died in 1995 of Ovarian Cancer. Give it a rest already.
Posted by: Cato on February 13, 2008 11:37 PMLuckily, there are 9 months left in which to ask of Obama what Walter Mondale asked of Gary Hart in a 1984 Presidential debate....."When I hear your new ideas, I'm reminded of that ad, 'Where's the beef?"
Posted by: Rick D. on February 14, 2008 06:12 AMBut fight them? Who knows.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 14, 2008 06:24 AMFinally they rested on showy displays of incredulity at the notion that Hillary - of all posple - would be the actual source. They prefer to believe that Insight made up that "detail" (covering the first three paragraphs of the peice) as well.
Since then the Clintons have been exposed in all kinds of dirty tricks against Obama, including robocalls which emphasize his middle name and passing the "madrassa" smear through chain mails.
If i had to guess, I'd just assume that progressives see the score as clearly as anyone, but would just prefer to lie about it, Blizer included of course.
Posted by: jummy on February 15, 2008 10:29 AMThe school IS NOT SECULAR. And CNN didn't even claim it was. It did quote one person saying "It's not an Islamic school," but in fact, it is.
The school representative said, "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment." Translation: it is a state-run Muslim school in a Muslim nation, but it is open to everyone, and they attempt to respect the beliefs of everyone.
It sounds a lot like some of our private Catholic schools. If we had state-run Catholic schools that operated like that, would we call them "secular"? Of course not. Calling this school "secular," by the most common use of the word "secular," is false.
Also, the main point of the attack of the school as a "madrassa" is not merely that it is Muslim (which it absolutely is) but also that it is radical. And while there is no evidence to indicate that it is, in any way, radical, the CNN reporter did not find that it was not radical at the time Obama attended (30 or 40 years ago), so to frame the CNN report that it is not a "madrassa" as conclusive is, again, false.
I find the claims against Obama in terms of his early schooling to be entirely non-credible. But Connelly's representation of those claims (whoever made them) is false.