Mitt Romney: Liar – Media: Soft
Posted by Michelle Moquin on December 12th, 2011
Good morning!
With all the talk about Romney, I couldn’t help but post this write that Arianna Huffington wrote and posted toward the end of last month.
Perhaps you read it; perhaps not. In either case, here it is:
Mitt Romney Brazenly Lies And The Media Lets Him Slide
Last week, a lot of media attention was devoted to latest GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich using the word “humane” in a debate answer about illegal immigration, suggesting we should avoid policies that tear families apart. Will erring on the side of humanity sit well with “family values” voters?
There was another big story — the brazen dishonesty of former frontrunner Mitt Romney — that received a lot less attention from the media. Instead of obsessing over whether an element of humanity might disqualify Gingrich with some Iowa voters, the media would be better served focusing on whether out-and-out lying should disqualify Romney with all voters.
The lie is found in Romney’s first television ad, run last week in New Hampshire. The ad shows President Obama saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” What the ad doesn’t tell you is that this was from 2008 — and that Obama was quoting an aide to John McCain at the time. Here is the full Obama quote: “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.’” (The full speech can be found here.)
This is far from the garden-variety truth stretching we’re used to in political advertising. This is so breathtakingly cynical it should cause us to question whether a candidate that would put it forth is fit for any public office — let alone the presidency.
This ad isn’t about the economy — it’s about character. Or at least it should be. Instead, for those in the media who bothered to cover it, it led mostly to a discussion about campaign tactics. Usually the media loves to play up these “character moments,” and here was a moment that really did reveal a candidate’s character. Yet, with some notable exceptions, the media punted.
Our own Jason Linkins superbly covered the ad and the reaction to it here, but the story deserves to stay alive. As Jason wrote, “people in the political media just don’t take well to calling people liars, probably because if they did, they’d spend so much time doing that that people might get cynical or something!”
Of course, as Jason points out, what actually makes people cynical is seeing obvious lies not called lies. That Mitt Romney hasn’t been forced to apologize for this ad, that he hasn’t been forced to fire the team responsible for it, isn’t just a failure of Romney’s — it’s a failure of our media culture and highlights the role it has played in the degradation of our political system.
Instead of a national conversation about what sort of person would approve such an ad, what we mostly got was just another “he said/she said” episode. The Obama camp attacked the ad, and the Romney camp responded. “There was no hidden effort on the part of our campaign,” Romney said in Iowa on Wednesday. “It was instead to point out that what’s sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander.” And he was actually allowed to get away with that.
The response by Romney’s senior New Hampshire advisor Tom Rath was even worse. “He did say the words,” Rath told CBS News. “That’s his voice.”
Well, I guess Obama better not denounce someone like, say, Hitler, or Osama bin Laden by quoting their words because to the Romney camp, if the words are said by your voice, you must believe those words. And this is a man who wants to be president?
Along with being deceitful, the ad is also a challenge to the media. It’s like when a toddler looks right at you and slowly and deliberately spills a glass of milk. The child wants to see the reaction. It’s a test of boundaries. If there’s no reaction, then the message is that it’s OK.
So what message did the media send with its reaction? This is how the New York Times‘ Michael Shear covered the ad:
“Democrats reacted ferociously on Tuesday to Mitt Romney’s first campaign commercial, which they said distorted comments by Barack Obama to make it look as if he was running away from his record on the economy.”
“They said”? The ad did distort President Obama’s comments. It was not a matter of what Democrats said versus what Republicans said — there is an objective reality, and it is the media’s job to present it unequivocally.
According to Shear, the ad “let Republican voters know that Mr. Romney would take a combative posture toward Mr. Obama.” Actually, it let voters know that Mr. Romney would take a lying posture toward Mr. Obama.
The article then quickly pivots to yet another discussion of campaign tactics: “The result of the back and forth was to highlight an ad that Mr. Romney’s campaign spent relatively little to broadcast — just $134,000 on one New Hampshire television station.” Just another “back and forth,” people — nothing to see here.
Politico mentioned the ad several times, mostly as a jumping off point for a discussion of — what else? — campaign tactics. In a story calling the ad “jujitsu” and the lying part of it “the buzziest part,” the site wrote: “Today’s impending back-and-forth will only elevate Romney and rally conservatives to his side. Most important, by the end of the day, the high command in Boston is confident they will win the argument with voters (especially independents).”
And they might well, with media coverage like that.
In another article, entitled “Who wins this round,” (see, it’s just all a game!), Politico’s Maggie Haberman concludes that, “if nothing else, the ad was clearly intended as a signal of the bare-knuckled race Romney would run in a general.” The problem with this ad was not that it was “bare-knuckled” — you can be bare-knuckled without being dishonest.
To Haberman’s credit, the piece notes that the ad says something that “clearly isn’t true,” but that acknowledgment makes it even more damning that this doesn’t lead to a discussion of the implications of the lie, but instead to more coverage of politics as a meaningless, consequence-free boxing match.
A third Politico story said that the ad is “a microcosm of what a general election fight between Romney and Obama might look like, with Romney leveling explosive attacks on Obama’s economic record, and the president working to disqualify Romney as a liar.”
But, in fact, the ad was not an attack on Obama’s economic record (I have leveled plenty such attacks myself and they are perfectly legitimate). It was an attack on the truth, and on the intelligence not just of the media but of voters as well. And, given the reaction, it is sadly very likely a microcosm of how the media plan to cover the race.
On PBS’s Washington Week, there was some mild tsk-tsking, but the discussion, between Gloria Borger and John Dickerson, was mostly about how the ad might be successful, because, hey, it’s getting media attention, isn’t it?
Borger: A big context problem. And you know that the people cutting the ads are so cynical, a) they know there’s a context problem; b) they know that we’re going to be talking about it. I spoke to somebody in the Romney campaign who said, “As long as you people keep talking about our ad, we’re happy.” But if you’re a candidate looking for credibility, I don’t think this is the way to go about it.Dickerson: Unless you’re in a Republican primary, where proving you can beat up on the president is one of the tests. And being accused of playing dirty pool about Obama might not hurt you.
Of course, this theory — that it’s always good to have the media talking about you — only works if what they’re doing is just replaying your ad and talking about campaign tactics, instead of replaying it, calling it a lie, and asking if the candidate who approved it is going to apologize and fire whoever made it.
And then there’s “FactCheck.org.” Surely a group with a name like that must have been all over this ad, right?
“The Obama campaign is in a lather over Mitt Romney’s first TV spot, calling it ‘a deceitful and dishonest attack’ because of an edited quote from 2008,” the FactCheck site says. Their conclusion? “That’s a matter of opinion.” Actually, it’s not a matter of opinion. Maybe someone needs to launch a site called FactCheckFactCheck.org.
As Jason Linkins writes, “the phenomenon of the media being unable to call a lie a lie and a liar a liar” has become a disease. “And one of the symptoms of the disease is that it feels like you’re being fair. But this disease ravages the political discourse. It makes it okay to lie. It makes it okay to spin falsehoods in your campaign ads. And it makes it okay for the person you hurled a lie at to respond in kind — and now, they’re immunized from criticism. Now they’re the ones just ‘sparking a debate.’”
Fortunately, there are several in the media who have not yet succumbed to this disease. CNN’s John King, for example, called the ad “reprehensible.”
ABC’s Jake Tapper tweeted that the ad was more than misleading, “it’s TV-station-refuse-to-air-it-misleading,” and that it was ”so deceptive it’s a lie.” “TV-station-refuse-to-air-it-misleading” is a perfect description of the ad — and bravo to Jake Tapper for saying so.
And over at MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell’s response was a strong antidote to the disease of thinking the truth is just another opinion. “Mitt Romney’s first television ad is simply and entirely a lie,” he said, adding that those who say “everyone does this sort of thing in political advertising” are also lying. “The truth is,” he said, “most of the media is going to allow those things to fly as if they are the standard issue spin of campaigns.” Added his guest Eugene Robinson:
“This is anything but the standard issue spin. This is not regular spin. This is not even out of context — that’s technically true — but this is pure mendacity.”
The New Yorker‘s Ryan Lizza was another one who showed the media how it should be done:
This is one of those cases where a candidate has put out something that is demonstrably false. If a journalist or writer quoted someone in such an intellectually dishonest way, you would never trust the person’s writing again. And yet this episode is being reported by some as a clever tactic by the Romney camp to spark a debate about the ad’s accuracy that will serve to highlight its overall message that Obama has been a failure. (See, it worked!)
Back in 1998, in response to some lies Republicans had told about the budget process, I wrote: “The public seems to consider politicians’ abuse of language and the truth as resignedly as they do carbon-monoxide emissions. We don’t like them, but we can’t imagine a world without them.” And things have only gotten worse since then.
In an essay called “Dickens, Dali, and Others,” George Orwell wrote: “The first thing that we demand of a wall is that it shall stand up. If it stands up, it is a good wall, and the question of what purpose it serves is separable from that. And yet even the best wall in the world deserves to be pulled down if it surrounds a concentration camp.”
And the first thing a campaign demands of an ad is that it shall promote the candidate. Yet even the best ad in the world deserves to be pulled — and roundly excoriated — if it is built on a lie. Focusing instead on whether it’s a good or bad move politically is a major reason why our political system is so broken.
*********
Readers: Quite the read isn’t it? This is an article that goes to the easy way Romney lies about anything. He would be the best republican candidate against Obama because he has no scruples at all.
On another note with respect to the 2012 presidential candidates. My thoughts are always country first. And my first and foremost goal, with respect to the presidential elections, is that Obama succeeds in 2012, as I believe he is the only presidential candidate that not only gives a damn about, but cares deeply that this country and all people prosper.
That being said, I didn’t say it yesterday, when I made reference to Hillary Clinton, but I think she would be a damn good VP and I am seriously HOPEing that Biden will step down should Clinton on the ticket garner more support and effect that result.
What are your thoughts? Blog me.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
December 12th, 2011 at 10:48 am
THE SURPRISING THING ABOUT SKYPE
The fact that we can now easily have a face-to-face video conversation with someone sitting in a room thousands of miles away may seem incredibly cool to those of us who grew up watching The Jetsons. (What’s next, flying cars?)
But the truth is, video chatting is quickly becoming a ho-hum fact of life with services like Skype, FaceTime and Google Video Chat, now available on most computers, tablets and smartphones.
As great as the technology is, it isn’t always perfect and there is often a slight delay, depending on many variables — such as which network you’re using, the strength of the signal and whether you’re using a wired or wireless device.
But get this: An intriguing new study found that the pauses in video chats may actually enhance the way you communicate with someone in certain situations.
To find out the details, I picked up my phone (the old-school one that plugs into the wall in my office) and called the study’s lead researcher, Stacie Renfro Powers, PhD, an assistant professor of communications at The Ohio State University in Columbus.
The findings were published in the March 2011 issue of Computers in Human Behavior.
HIGH-TECH TALK
The study: The research team recruited 70 college students, male and female, to engage in two 10-minute one-on-one video chats with someone they didn’t know.
The topics of the conversations were provocative and emotionally charged, such as politics and war.
Sitting in separate rooms, each student faced a camera, video monitor and microphone and used a list of prepared questions to kick off the conversations.
In one of the conversations for each participant, the researchers secretly inserted a slight, almost imperceptible delay (about one-second long) between utterance and transmission.
The other conversation that each participant had was not slowed down by delays.
After each conversation, the students were asked to rate — on a scale from 1 to 7 — the level of several emotions, including frustration, that they had felt during the conversation.
Dr. Powers told me that even though the students didn’t really notice the delay, it nonetheless influenced the outcome.
When the students experienced the delay in the first of the two conversations, they actually reported less frustration, compared with the students who talked to each other with no delay in the first conversation.
How can that be? Dr. Powers speculated that it’s because the listeners subconsciously used the pause to try to understand the other person better.
In other words, before they could jump to a conclusion — possibly misinterpreting what was said and upsetting the other person — the listeners were forced to take a second and think.
But, interestingly, when students experienced the delay in the second of the two conversations — after they had already gotten to know the other person for a few minutes and had experienced a seamless discussion —
their frustration levels were actually higher than in those who had no delay in the second conversation.
So if you’re familiar with someone and his/her speech and mannerisms and you’ve gotten used to communicating with him, then there seems to be little tolerance for brief interruptions in conversation.
GETTING “IN SYNC”
This study suggests that video chatting (and its inevitable delays) may be especially useful if you have to talk to someone who you don’t know well about a difficult or complicated topic.
“The delays appear to be beneficial in initial meetings with new people, where there is a need to stay calm and focused and process what the other person is saying,” she said.
What’s most intriguing about this study result to me is the consideration that slowing down applies to any kind of communication, whether it’s in-person or over the phone — not just video chat.
However you’re talking to someone, said Dr. Powers, take an extra moment to be sure you understand exactly what’s being said and then take another moment, as needed, to gather your thoughts for a response.
If you’re hearing something that’s making you angry or confusing you, don’t be afraid to check with the other person to be sure that you are really “getting” what’s being said.
That’s important whether you’re relying on new-age communication technology or just good old-fashioned face-to-face conversation.
Source(s):
Stacie Renfro Powers, PhD, assistant professor, School of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
December 12th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Michelle, what do you expect from a guy who tells you with a straight face he believes the shit in that book of mormon.
December 12th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
The right will support any candidate as long as it will prevent Obama from returning to office.
Morals, truth, intelligence, are the things they claim to represent but only demand of the other party’s candidate. Theirs can be liars like romney or dirt bags like newt and they will rally behind them as if they were saints.
Hypocrisy ridden is a nice way of describing the republican party.
The truth is they are mostly a bunch of wannabe rich, racist, bigots herded by white boys that stop every now and then to fleece them.
Carmen
December 12th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Michelle:
What does an honest candidate do when most of the news media is against him because he is a Black Man?
To actually broadcast an outright lie misquoted from 2008 and have newspeople coment on it as fair shows the upward battle President Obama must endure until election day.
Mitt Romney was called out by a watchdog organization, yet they let it slide as politics as usual.
Thank God there are honest Newspeople around such as CNN’s John King, who called the ad “reprehensible.” and ABC’s Jake Tapper tweeting that the ad was more than misleading, “it’s TV-station-refuse-to-air-it-misleading.”
Last but not leastly you mention MSNBC’s, Lawrence O’Donnell’s response was that “Mitt Romney’s first television ad is simply and entirely a lie.”
The American public MUST be made aware that this was a low blow lie by Mitt Romney and that he may be campaining for Presidency, but there is a limit to how much lying a candidate can get away with beyond “spin” before the News Media calls it an outright lie.
This is going to be a fight for Presidency we have never seen the likes of.
It is also a Black Man/White man issue and it will get dirty at times because the White man wants to be on top again as usual.
HOWIE
December 12th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Neither one of the two leading candidates for the republican nomination have a bit of morals. Both lie whenever it suits them. This link will take you to a Huff article exposing a major newspaper in New Hampshire, the “Union Leader.”
It ran a story with an article claiming that the source came from an anonymous person. The article was a defense of an accusation made against Newt Gingrich by former Governor Sununu.
The paper had earlier thrown its backing to Newt over Romney. Then we learn from a whistle blower that the article claimed to be written by a high ranking staff member of Newt’s team was actually written by Newt himself.
The paper lied to its readers to give Newt the appearance of being defended by a concerned staff member.
LINK – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/newt-gingrich-new-york-times_n_1143107.html?ref=media
=====================
Comment – Obviously the Union Leader is a rag. It is not a newspaper.
You withhold a source when it is someone other than the target of the article and they are giving you information that can be damaging to them.
Refusing to credit a quote by the target of the article to make that target look better and then mislead readers by saying that the quote came from an anonymous senior aide is flat out lying.
That was stupid on the editor’s part and now the paper will never be respected as a news outlet.
I’ve never read it but from this story I can only guess that it’s much like Faux News in print.
December 12th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Howie, when you set you mind to it. You can analyze with the best of them. Ditto, I couldn’t have said it better.
December 12th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman will have a Lincoln-Douglas style debate today in New Hampshire and the two candidates could not be more different.
Gingrich started off his campaign by talking down the Paul Ryan Plan, referring to it as “right wing social engineering.”
Huntsman, on the other hand, began his campaign by embracing the Ryan Plan and has been the candidate who has supported the Plan consistently and completely.
Gingrich was dogged for his sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi. Huntsman also had moderate views on climate change.
But, Gingrich is leading in nearly every national poll and Huntsman is nearly in last place, even though, on paper, Huntsman probably has a more conservative record and platform and certainly a lot less personal baggage.
So, why is this?
I think two factors are at work.
First, Gingrich speaks passionately about Americanism, and he does so unlike any other candidate in a cycle in which American exceptionalism matters so much, especially to seniors. Gingrich, notably, does best among seniors.
And second, he has been fierce in attacks against the mainstream media and President Obama.
To put it simply, Gingrich clearly and passionately tells the voter what he is for and who/what he is against.
Huntsman, meanwhile, speaks in nuances. It’s not clear what he is for and what he is against and why.
Last week, Huntsman developed a nice frame for his campaign. He will now run as the candidate who wants to end the country’s fiscal deficit and the trust deficit.
He has railed against crony capitalism and touted his economic growth plan, which many have called perhaps the most pro-growth proposal ever offered by a presidential candidate.
Huntsman’s problem is that he has been marketed terribly and it’s hard to tell whether there is enough time for him to sell his candidacy. That’s something Gingrich has never had a problem doing.
When Gingrich and Huntsman debate today at 4 p.m. EST in New Hampshire, the differences in their style will be on clear display.
Simply put, and as the old saying goes, it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. This cycle, when Gingrich speaks, voters have heard a conservative.
When Huntsman speaks, voters have heard a hipster/moderate/Ambassador as opposed to a rugged individualist governor.
If Huntsman has any hope of reviving his campaign, he must be more of the latter and less of the former.
—Tony Lee
December 12th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
One can make fun of the ridiculous choices the republicans have in Romney and Newt. But you had better be serious and go to the polls because these insane bigots will put one of them in the White House if you snooze.
They don’t care who gets in as long as he is white.
Ito
December 12th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Howie, you said it best. It is a color thing and it will get worse.
December 12th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
The main reason Mitt and Newt get to lie on Obama and not be called on it is they are white boys. Ergo, Mitt wasn’t called out by any of the major news outlets for his obvious lie about Obama.
But you notice Newt was when he tried to succeed with a lie against a white man, Mitt Romney. He was outed by the main news media for trying to use a lie against Mitt.
If he had done that same thing against Obama nothing would have been mentioned about it.
As Howie explained. “This is going to be a fight for Presidency we have never seen the likes of.”
The white boy, regardless of his political affiliation, will always defer to the white candidate. He does not want white women to be fixating on a black man as the most powerful man on the planet.
It is bad enough he is perceived as having an inferior dick, being inferior in the sack, and inferior as an athlete. He will not be found to be deficient in the intellect department also, if he can help it.
Too late, color aside, could either the lying sack of shit Romney or the I-sound-like- a-genius to the ignorant Gingrich hold Obama’s jock strap or Leadership program?
The answer may very well depend on the color of your skin. Otherwise the obvious one is, Hell, NO!
Robert