Want to do an exercise in figuring out media bias? Here's your chance.
A) Mitt Romney claimed, inaccurately, that his father marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.
B) Hillary Clinton claimed, incorrectly, that she had to run with her head down to a waiting car in Bosnia because of sniper fire.
Both statements had an element of truth (Romney's father was participating in related civil rights activity with Dr. King, and Clinton was in an area which was a "potential combat zone."). Both were made while seeking their party's nomination to run for president. The exercise is to compare the way the statements by each were treated in the press. How quickly were they let off the hook? How soon were their words scrutinized? Which publications carried more stories about the various snafus?
The only substantive difference in these accounts for me is that Romney at least has the excuse that he was a child when the actions in question were taking place. Clinton's story was from 12 years ago, not 40.
3 comments:
One difference is their response:
Romney's camp claimed his memory was "figurative," which was just absurd.
Clinton said "I mispoke" which is about as close to honestly admitting a mistake as a politician ever gets. I'm not citing this as some great accomplishment; she simply had to do it b/c the facts were against her.
But Romney's response struck me as fairly typical of Romney at the time, to come up with such a lame excuse. For his vaunted data analysis abilities, the guy couldn't think very well about fuzzier things like words. He should have just said "I misremembered," and it would have pretty much been the end of the story.
I'd rather Senator Cliton said she "misremembered," personally. The rather blunt truth is that she simply made up something that did not happen. Even in her "misspoke" statemnet, she omits that she and her daughter climbed up on a guard tower during the welcome - something you'd NEVER want to do if you're worried about snipers.
On the other hand, while I didn't pay much attention to the "figurative memory," I find it more excusable for a child to think "my dad is helping Dr. King" and "Dr. King is marching" and concatenate the thoughts into a single memory: "My dad worked and marched with Dr. King."
The point behind Romney's statement was "I was proud of my dad as he worked with Dr. King to establish civil rights" was inherently true. Perhaps that's why they stuck by the statement to some degree.
The point behind Clinton's initial statement was "I was under fire as we went to deal with the situation in Bosnia," and I find that to be inherently false and, if true, I'd consider it reprehensible of her to take her daughter into such a situation. There was heightened risk, but she wasn't entering a combat zone (the key point of the statement) as her statement was meant to be interpreted.
Perhaps. But I may just be showing my own biases and arguing points I've already decided on. Humans are funny like that.
I think your point about the inherent underlying truth has some weight.
I certainly agree that Clintons are in the pander bear genus. I almost feel personally embarrassed for these people when they get caught in a lie like this. You wonder what ever makes them do it in the first place.
Post a Comment