Boehner was wrong, he should absolutely apologize to Obama, publicly.  But I am not sure what MMFAs beef is with Halperin?  He provides the link to the portion of the interview with Obama, and also links to Obama's web page for proper context.

I have to agree, Tommy. Halperin provided a link to the Obama interview. What other context does one need?

I disagree.  There is no need to just report a "he/said - she/said" here.  Halperin should have at the very least shown the remarks in question in context to let readers decide for themselves who is telling the truth.

Halperin is supposed to be a journalist.  It would not have taken much to just display the quote in context and would have given his readers enough information to come to their own conclusion.

Providing links should be a backup for the quotes you pull out of it to let the reader see you aren't just being selective or unfair if they choose to look for themselves.

No, these are blog postings, not newspaper articles, links are one easy click away.

So Halperin isn't a journalist when he blogs?  I'm confused.  Is it as easy as changing a hat or something?

What?  He included the relevant information in a link so the reader can easily access it, why is that not the role of a journalist who blogs in your opinion?  If the reader is too lazy or doesn't care too, that is their business. 

I already addressed that.

Then we disagree.

if boehner's quote is printed in the main text, then obama's exact quote should be printed in the main text, not in a link to a "looong" interview.  there is simply no reason not to print obama's quote.

Right, Mefirst. This is something that I've been seeing more of lately, the lie printed in it's entirety, and a mention that the subject of the lie disputes it.

I call BS on the defense of "well there are links, don't be lazy".The writer had enough room to feature the lie prominently, why should the truth require jumping through hoops?

 

tommy puts it as "if the reader is too lazy".  lazy has nothing to do with it.  a lot of people simply do not have the time to be doing that.  nor should they need to. if a quote is being discussed, then provide the quote.

Agree 100% Tommy.

It's not like Halperin just left it hanging there. Links were provided to explain the context.

Got go with you guys on this one. Halperin provided links to back up what Obama said he said. It's all good.

Boehner on the other hand has always struck me as someone who is, well, not that bright. And hey, didn't you guys know? Obama is the Hamas candidate, so might as well take another swipe at the guy with the funny middle name, oh, and the funny last name, and funny first name. Boehner ought to know better, but of course, he doesn't.

Boehner, remember, was the guy who passed out bribes for the tobacco lobby on the floor of the house. 

“BOEHNER: I think Donald Rumsfeld is the best thing that's happened to the Pentagon in 25 years"

That's all you need to know, folks.

True, Boehner and his buddy Delay did that for the tobacco lobby.

Another grand quote from him:

He said, regarding national security, that voters "have a choice between a Republican Party that understands the stakes and is dedicated to victory, and a Democrat Party (sic) with a non-existent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges of a post-9/11 world and is all too willing to concede defeat on the battlefield in Iraq."

I love how even the leaders of the republican party fail to call the democratic party by the correct name.

Boehner's PAC has raised $31,500 from four Indian tribes who at one time were associated with lobbyist Jack Abramoff,[11] who is currently the central figure in an unfolding lobbying scandal. Boehner and spokesmen for the Indian tribes say that the contributions were not related to Abramoff's lobbying.

Boehner rents a two-bedroom Capitol Hill apartment for $1600 a month. The apartment building is owned by a Washington lobbyist; the Washington Post evaluated his rent to be about the market rate.[16] Boehner does not deny his close ties to "K Street" lobbyists and says that his relationships are ethical, but that the ties were only for a short period of approximately 2 weeks.

Republican Leader John Boehner told The Washington Post that he knew of "contact" between Foley and Congressional pages in the spring, but was unaware of their nature or content. Boehner maintains that he believes he informed Speaker Dennis Hastert, and that Hastert assured him it had been "taken care of." Boehner says that he was unaware of Foley's e-mails and instant messages until the messages were released to ABC News and other sources.

Peach of a guy that Boehner...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boehner

He used to be my congressman.  Now its Kucinich.  From one end of the spectrum to the other.

You said that right....from one end to the other.  Boehner is a weiner, and Kucinich sees aliens.  What's not to like?

Weiner?  That doesn't even rhyme with Boehner.  What is that supposed to mean?

Found this gem on the Fox website:

...also that more people in this country have seen UFOs than I think approve of George Bush's presidency," Kucinich said.

Debate moderator Tim Russert then cited a poll saying that 14 percent of Americans claim to have seen a UFO, to which Kucinich asked: "What as that percentage?"

Fourteen," Russert answered.

"Thank you," Kucinich responded with satisfaction.

(Getting closer all the time.)

Although quite comical, it might be slightly more correct to say that the % who have claimed to see UFO's are more than approve of Congress.  But that would almost be parsing as their practically the same.

That is the most misleading statement since "when did you stop beating your wife?"  so it figures that you would bring it up, probably trying to foment the opinion that everyone hates the Democratic-led congress.

Here it is in simple terms: Everyone hates congress, but everyone LOVES his/her congressman/woman.  It's been that way for YEARS AND YEARS.

Not in Ohio...I even remember reading a story a few days ago about Strickland as a possible VP to Obama.  The Ohio people are fed up with all of their congressmen and governor.  The corruption and good old boys club is on the way out here....but probably to be replaced by a new one.

The Ohio people are fed up with all of their congressmen and governor

Wrong again.  Everyone was fed up of the REPUBLICAN stranglehold that was choking state politics for YEARS AND YEARS.  And we voted them all out in 2006 - voted out a SITTING SENATOR!  How often does that happen?  This November Ohio will hopefully have a Democratic state house and senate so we can finally, finally GET A CASINO!

Im all for a casina on the lake of cleveland.  but i hate to tell ya, its not the republicans voting that out.  its the fear of the low income losing their money.

Wrong yet again - it's the religious nuts in SW Ohio who have used fear tactics to scare the public about the evils of casino gambling.

Meanwhile, all the revenue is being happily scooped up by Detroit, Wheeling, riverboats in Indiana, and now a new casino in Erie, Pa.  I guess that blows your low-income theory out of the water.

I can't agree that Halperin was so blameless here. 

If he had read Obama's LOOOOONG interview, he would have realized immediately that Boner's comment was a deliberate falsehood. But it still gets presented, as always, as "He said, she said," instead of the more accurate "He lied, she told the truth."  Just providing a link to the interview doesn't justify presenting Boner's crap as a reasonable statement.

Boom. Exactly.

THAT's why Halperin sucks. He gave short shrift to Obama's contextualized comments, merely providing a link without explaining (however briefly) that Boehner was wrong.

The RIGHT way to do it would be:

1. Obama said X.
2. Boehner said Y.
3. Boehner was incorrect, and here's a link to the proof.

Only doing steps 1 and 2 is piss-poor journalism. 

Oh come on, it's all about the presentation, just like the way Drudge links to ridiculously false statements or the way far too many lazy reporters passed along the "Some idiot in Indiana called Obama a Muslim" story.

Halperin sets this up as a "he said/he said" matter of differing opinions when the truth is that it is more like "he lied/he corrected."  If any journalist is going to pass on lies and misrepresentaions made by any politician they have an absolute duty to correctly label those statements as the lies and misrepresentations they are, not just refer the small number of curious readers who might wish to do their own research to the original source material.

Tommy, Halperin's the journalist, and thus a member of the media.  He was the one disseminating the false information without noting that it was false, and since this web-site focuses on the media, they correctly called him out on it.

You should know this by now. 

Halperins job is to present both sides of the story and let the reader decide, which is exactly what he did by linking to Obama's very own website for rebuttal to Boehner's falsehood.

MMFA just wanted to get this out there, and they aren't too keen on Halperin, so he is the perfect vehicle in which to drive it here.

Do you think it is fair to quote Boner and not Obama - which is the subject of Boner's quote?  Why is the assymetry okay in this instance?

I would say that targetting Halperin is probably a good idea.  The guy is very influential in the way these newsrooms run and he has admitted he is trying to woo conservatives - apparently even at cost of his journalistic integrity.

"Halperin's job is to present both sides of the story and let the reader decide"

No No No!!!

Boner came out with an outright lie, and the Obama campaign correctly refuted it. There are not two sides, and it is not a "story."

Truth and falsehood are not two sides of a story.

By your reasoning, any falsehood uttered by Boner, no matter how lacking of any basis in reality, is one "side" of a story.

The story is that Boner lied, and the Obama camp caught him in the act.

Egg-zackly.

The whole "present both sides" thing falls apart when, as is often the case, one "side" is verifiably incorrect.

It is the journalist's job to inform the viewer/reader. Presenting one side's falsehood as some kind of equal and opposite version of the truth is misinformation. The viewer/reader does not get to "decide" which side is telling the truth in such cases.

(For example, if someone says Obama is a Muslim, the correct response is to report that he's not and never has been; that is a verifiable fact. It is NOT sufficient to say "well, Obama says he's Christian;" accurate though the latter may be, it is journalistic incompetence to omit the more relevant fact.)

Boehner lied, and Halperin failed to report it as the lie that it was. It's okay, Halperin, don't be afraid to call a liar a liar.

Having two equally valid sides to an issue or story is exceedingly rare.

Andrew Sullivan, ABC's Tapper, Atlantic blogger Marc Ambinder, and Goldberg himself all agree that Boehner is outright lying. Which, he is. Yet another smear on Obama, trying to paint him as some type of terrorist loving nut. 

That interview (on the Atlantic's website) doesn't look "looong" to me at all.  That description rather puts me in mind of TV news channels devoting "the full hour" to/doing "extended interviews" with people like Ann Coulter or Ben Stein.

Although not having the notoriety of some other, more well-known, Republican leaders, John Boehner, is one of the best hatchet men in the Republican aresenal. He is shameless. He will feign indignation with the best and distort opposition comments and positions like a man who...well, has no morals whatsoever. Hats-off to John Boehner...a credit to the slime bag Republican Party!!! 

BTW, has John "I'm Gonna Run A Clean Campaign" McCain renounced Boehner's remarks? Has he denounced Boehner?

I think this whole "denouncing" statements thing has gotten overboard.  Do we really expect them to publicly denounce or accept everything that everyone says? 

It is utterly silly and it was before when conservatives were demanding Obama denounce the Rev. Wright - and before Sean Hannity endlessly asking people to denounce the liberal patsy-of-the-day on his program. 

It is nice to see a Republican finally realizing what has been painfully obvious to many of us for a long time.

I just want to see the Republican candidate treated the same as the Democratic one... 

I dont recall seeing any republicans publicly demand that Obama denounce Rev. Wright, although it may have happened.  To be honest, I think he did it on his own because of the terribly publicity it brought.  I think Republicans would have been better off had he not denounced it.

They don't have to.  The right-wing hate machine otherwise known as AM radio and cable news does it for them.  And the politicians get to keep their hands clean while the Limbaughs and Hannitys do the dirty work for them. 

Remember, Bush had them all meet in the OVAL OFFICE for Christ's sake just to get their marching orders.

Limbaugh and Hannity met in the oval office to decide tactics on democrats?

Actually, Limbaugh was apparently invited, but couldn't make the last meeting:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2006/09/17/an_evening_with_ann_and_lynn.html

PS: You really seem especially poorly informed even for a conservative.

Here is Hannity doing that in the form of asking Rev. Lowry whether Obama should denounce Wright.  I have to wonder if you have been asleep while this has been going on.  This has been done a hundred different ways by several conservative blowhards.

 http://youtube.com/watch?v=sqrTSG4IV50&feature=related

I think Republicans would have been better off had he not denounced it.

LOL

Republicans would've been better off NEVER nominating Bush!

I dont recall seeing any republicans publicly demand that Obama denounce Rev. Wright..."- Columbus1492

Welcome back to Earth, brave Republonaut!

Well, there's no reason to get pissy about it just because you disagree. But, sure, I think John McCain should denounce Boehner and anyone else who dishonestly attacks Barack Obama on his behalf. I think John McCain should denounce his wife's illegal and despicable behavior. I think John McCain should denounce the corrupt and inept George W. Bush for starting an unnecessary war getting thousands of Americans killed. I can go on, but I think you get my drift...

I also think democrats should denounce themselves from voting against drilling in ANWR, ND, and the Florida coasts while complaining about dependancy on foreign oil. 

But we can agree to disagree.

Yep, that's the answer, more holes in the ground so we can race ever faster towards the cliff.  You're a genius.

1. You don't know what you are talking about.  The oil industry is growing rapidly in North Dakota.  When did Democrats vote against that?

http://dorgan.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=295964

2. Drilling off the coast of Florida has been quite famously blocked by both parties' legislators AND the Republican governors for more than a decade.  W's father (Bush 41) even put a ban on offshore drilling in Florida's waters, which Clinton and W merely continued.  Florida's state politics are mostly to blame here and possibly even electoral politics.  It is not as partisan an issue as it seems you would like it to be.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/15/State/Florida_oil_drilling_.shtml

3. As far as ANWR - of course, things may have changed, but as of Feb, 2005 "[t]he major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there. Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America's needs."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/politics/21refuge.html

And hats off to Boehner's re-imagining of the GOP brand.

 

Jeter, Tommy, Edella -- COME ON!

What else could Halperin done?  What other context do you need?

Let me show you how today's media works, because it is exactly how Halperin reported this Boehner quote.

I say the sky is green.  Jeter or Tommy or Edella says the sky is blue.  The "reporter" who covers the story reports it like this:

"One says the sky is green.  One says the sky is blue.  The controversy continues..."

Today's "journalists" seem to think that if they repeat what one side says and repeat what the other side says, then their work is done.  They simply will not provide the context

Do they know if one of us is correct?  If so why not report that?  Do they know that one of us has a motive to lie or is prone to mistakes?  Then why not report that?  Are there 1,000 experts who say the sky is blue and only one who says it's green?  Then why not report that?  Instead, if the experts are interviewed, the reporter repeats the comments of one from the blue side and one from the green side, without providing the context.

Reporters never give the context, and they think that by reporting "on the one hand, on the other hand" they've achieved objectivity, which they prize more than accuracy.

If Halperin was a real reporter he'd have said "Boehner says this and he's either mistaken or lying."  Instead it's "Boehner says this, Obama says that, the controversy continues..."  Objectivity but not accuracy.

Exactly.

I would only add that it's not responsible journalism to even report the original Boehner smear. If someone makes a claim like Boehner's, the media has a responsibility to investigate whether it has any merit. If they find it is a complete lie, don't report it at all.

Let's say Nancy Pelosi this morning claimed Bush said in an interview that the people of Myanmar should not receive any aid. The journalist investigates, and finds out Bush actually said the military junta of Myanmar refused to accept aid. Now, should the media then report the lie from Pelosi anyways?

Halperin not only reported the lie, but he then portrayed it as "he said, she said" like you point out.

Even when linking to the full interview and characterizing it as "looong", he's attempting to persuade the reader into NOT reading it to learn the facts.

....typical from our modern day mainstream media.

I think the media is obligated to report that someone is willfully lying, because the story then is the motivation of the liar.  But they should report that the liar is lying, not simply repeat the lie and repeat the denial as though both are equally credible.

For me, a classic example is the coverage of the OJ Simpson trial.  I've read several of the books that came out afterwards.  The thing that strikes me as the example of what's wrong with today's journalism is that as the trial was going on, the reporters would often laugh out loud at the ridiculous assertions of the defense and speak amongst themselves about how outlandish and unlikely those assertions were.  But later that day, the same journalists would report and provide commentary on the trial and always treat both sides as though they were equally credible -- the classic "on the one hand, on the other hand, the controversy continues" story.  In short, these reporters KNEW that one side was not credible but failed to pass that information on to their viewers, listeners and readers.

Halperins job is to present both sides of the story and let the reader decide - Tommy

I've been a journalist - have you?  It's not the journalists job to present both sides of the story, you dolt, it's to provide the TRUTH.

I've said it before and I'll say it again Tommy - you are apparently smart enough to see through the spin and lies.  You also apparently make the time to educate yourself on current affairs.  But there are some people out there who aren't like you who rely on the media to inform them.  By presenting both sides (especially when one is a lie or smear or 1/2 truth), seems to be a tad bit confusing and just comes out as noise, not information.

I slipped in a comment on the first page before reading the whole thread, sorry to add to all of those who didn't find this confusing at all.

This is not the exclusive domain of right wing radio and Fox anymore, I see it creeping into the less blatantly GOP media as well; The truth and bullsh*t presented as point and counterpoint.And it seems to be working on some of us.