The Reporting Sucks, Iowa Caucuses Edition
03 January 2008 11:29 am by Taylor Marsh
 |
Taylor Marsh LIVE!
3:00 p.m. eastern – 12:00 pacific
Missed the show? Podcast is up.
Robert Becker, Iowa director of the Bill Richardson for President campaign, took particular offense with reports circulated this morning that his campaign was encouraging non-viable supports to switch to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
“Here we are the day of caucus and there are all these rumors
about deals being made,” he said. “I’m just sick of it. We have
not directed our supporters to caucus for anyone other than Bill Richardson.”
- Lynda
Waddington
This will not go down as a good day for (ahem) journalism.
This
Washington Post story is exhibit A of just how bad the reporting
on Iowa has gotten today.
A source close to the Biden campaign described a possible arrangement, now
under discussion between the two camps, that could apply to certain precincts
where Biden can’t meet the 15 percent viability threshold … .. The Biden
source described the possible Obama deal as “viability for victory.”
An Obama source confirmed that discussions had taken place, but that nothing
had been decided. … ..
There is now an “update” at the top of the post. The bottom paragraph
now reads as follows:
By early afternoon, Biden campaign Iowa State director Danny O’Brien issued
a statement saying no plan was the works. “There are no discussions underway
and there will be no deal with any campaign,” said O’Brien. “We
believe Sen. Biden is strong enough on his own.”
However, the reader has no idea which part of the post is the “updated”
version.
Again, this blog was the first to post the Biden camp’s actual quote, including
the New Hampshire nugget.
“Our campaign has NOT cut any deals with Senator Obama’s campaign or
any other. … .. We are looking forward to this evening … and then New
Hampshire!!” – Biden
team
Chase Martyn may be calling in today for the show; if he does I’ll ask him
about his post,
which jumped the gun quite a bit, no doubt led by his strong feelings for Mr.
Obama. It’s understandable because this is an emotional time, but unfortunate.
That said, the rumors about second choice swirling may eventually play out
in the end, but none of the people writing about them had any irrefutable facts
when they posted. At least when I posted about Obama slamming Gore, using an
unnamed source who had corroborated the story and the quote, I was proved correct
in the end. This matters.
Everyone makes mistakes. I sure have. Some writers have also taken to removing
sections of posts, not using the strikeover technique, thus leaving no trace
of the original post intact, or the changes made. As in the Post article,
they simply added the word “updated,” without giving readers any clue
which part was updated. Additionally, an “editor’s note” is nice,
but once the original text is removed the post is misleading at best. Sure,
it makes the post and its author look better, but it’s a disservice to the reader.
I write this as a reminder to myself as well, so I don’t get caught in one of
these messes, which can happen when emotions run high.
There are many factors in play in Iowa today besides rumors put into posts
without proof, as well as the crafting of a narrative that tilts hardly towards
Obama, though the caucus outcome is anyone’s guess at this point. Yes, I’m a
partisan, but my reporting, which is separate from my commentary, when I do
it is objective and it has been correct every time so far.
Here’s another issue playing out today (h/t reader jonas8), complete
with actual names and sourcing:
Cheryl Talbert attended Romney’s morning speech to employees of Principal
Financial Group in Des Moines and said that as a moderate Republican, she
likes him and Arizona Sen. John McCain. But she planned to attend a Democratic
caucus, in what she called a ”defensive move” against a Clinton presidency.”I’m going to vote for Obama, as an anti-Hillary vote,” she said,
”and I have two friends doing the same thing.”
