Contradicting Perry: The claims of the Hunting Camp 7!

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2011

The ombudsman should have asked: What happened to the offensive name which once appeared on the rock at Rick Perry’s hunting camp?

For ourselves, we have no idea. According to Stephanie McCrummen, this is how the rock appeared as of this past summer:
MCCRUMMEN (10/2/11): The rock remained by the gate, the name brushed with a thin coat of white paint. The paint was slightly faded, according to the person who saw it recently.

"That's something that sticks in my memory," this person said. "It was kind of a sloppy job. It wasn't doing what it was intended to do."

As recently as this summer, the rock was still there, according to photographs viewed by The Washington Post.

In the photos, it was to the left of the gate. It was laid down flat. The exposed face was brushed clean of dirt. White paint, dried drippings visible, covered a word across the surface. An N and two G's were faintly visible.
That was the end of McCrummen’s report. This summer, the rock was flat on its back. The offensive name couldn’t really be seen; three letters (out of ten) were only “faintly visible.” And did someone have to brush dirt away in order to expose even that?

On that final point, the prose is suggestive but unclear. But then, that’s true of McCrummen’s prose all through her report about the offensive name which once adorned this camp—a name which predated Perry. In just this one short passage, McCrummen quotes someone who says that the paint “wasn't doing what it was intended to do.” But what did this witness mean by that? Did he mean that the offensive name could still be seen? If so, was it “clearly visible?”

McCrummen doesn’t try to explain. If she knows, she isn’t telling. And alas! In the process of reading McCrummen’s murky prose, many readers came to believe that they'd read many things in her lengthy report. The editors of the New York Times even think they read this: “The Washington Post found several people who said the word was clearly visible just in the last few years.”

We can’t find "several people" saying that in McCrummen’s report; we're not sure we can find even one. But given the endless murk in her prose, we aren’t surprised if excitable folk at the Times think that’s what they read.

For ourselves, we get suspicious when professional journalists present so many imprecise statements. (We’ve seen the Post run scams in the past. This does not include any work done by McCrummen, who may have worked in complete good faith on this murky report.) But whatever! Today, let’s finish reviewing McCrummen’s account of what she was told by those various witnesses—by the Hunting Camp 7.

McCrummen claims she spoke to seven people whose “recollections” “differ in many respects” from “Perry’s version of events.” That said, she only quotes four or five such witnesses, plus a man named Bill Reed, who seems irrelevant. Last week, we reviewed her account of what three witnesses said, including Reed. For that report, click here. Today, let’s review the rest.

Perry said the offensive name was painted over in 1984; the rock was knocked over flat at some later date. Did the following witnesses contradict that account? Knowing the press corps as we do, we’d still have to say we aren’t sure.

A former worker on the ranch: Let’s start with the witness we’ve already cited. At three different points in her report, McCrummen cites a former worker on the ranch. Did this person contradict Perry?
MCCRUMMEN: Of those interviewed, the seven who said they saw the rock said the block-lettered name was clearly visible at different points in the 1980s and 1990s. One, a former worker on the ranch, believes he saw it as recently as 2008.

[…]

The rock was about five feet across and three feet tall, smooth and relatively flat, the word in block letters stretching across its surface, said the former worker from the Hendrick ranch, who said he had seen the rock numerous times over the past 30 years.

[…]

Perry estimated that he hunted on the property "about a dozen times" between 1983 and 2006. As he rose through the ranks of Texas politics, the rustic camp was renovated, according to people who saw the place in recent years. A second story was added to the old cabin, along with brown wood siding and an outdoor staircase. A bathhouse was added, and power lines, and a low pipe fence was built around the cabin. A new sign had been posted. It read, "Perry's Camp."

The rock remained by the gate, the name brushed with a thin coat of white paint. The paint was slightly faded, according to the person who saw it recently.

"That's something that sticks in my memory," this person said. "It was kind of a sloppy job. It wasn't doing what it was intended to do.”
Uh-oh! This witness “said he had seen the rock numerous times over the past 30 years.” But as everyone agrees, the rock itself has always been there. This passage tells us nothing.

Did this witness see the name in an unpainted state after 1984? If so, was the rock still upright? According to McCrummen, this witness “believes he saw it as recently as 2008.” But what did he see in 2008? Did he see the rock? Did he see the name? If so, was the name in an unpainted state? Was it “clearly visible” in some way, even though it had been painted over? None of this is made clear in McCrummen’s prose, which is highly suggestive—and highly imprecise.

McCrummen and her editor, Kevin Merida, are both professional writers. Presumably, they know how to render clear statements. Did this former worker say he saw the name in an unpainted state after 1984? Perhaps as recently as 2008?

If so, McCrummen didn’t write that, although you might have gotten a different impression.

Only two witnesses are left. So far, we’ve found no one who plainly contradicts Perry. These final two witnesses seem to make the strongest claims.

Another local who visited the property with Perry: At two points in her piece, McCrummen quotes “another local who visited the property with Perry and the legislators in those years.” Fairly clearly, this refers to the years between 1985 and 1990, when Perry began taking legislators to hunt at the camp.

Did this person contradict Perry? We would advise great care:
MCCRUMMEN: Another local who visited the property with Perry and the legislators in those years recalled seeing the rock with the name clearly visible.

“I thought, ‘This is going to embarrass Rick some day,’ ” said this person, who did not want to be named, fearing negative consequences from speaking on the subject.

[…]

The other local who visited the ranch with Perry during those years recalled the rock standing upright with the name visible. He said it was painted over years later; he was not sure exactly when but recalled remarking about the change with friends.

"We kind of laughed about it," recalled this person, who said he would probably vote for Perry if he wins the Republican nomination. "My recollection is that it was several years ago. We were laughing because he had it painted. Because it had always been there. You couldn't miss it, right there at the gate going in. We laughed about, 'Rick's covering his tracks.’”
Plainly, this sounds like a contradiction of Perry. We would have assumed that it was a contradiction of Perry, if we didn’t understand the way some journalists sometimes work.

Can we tell you how journalists sometimes work? Given the way some journalists sometimes work, that local could have told McCrummen that he “recalled seeing the rock standing upright with the name clearly visible” in the years before 1984. In the jumble of composition, the constructions found above could have come into being. So too with the witness’ statement about the possible future embarrassment to Perry. Trust us! The way some journalists sometimes work, this local may have been talking about the historical name of the camp when he made that statement.

What about the phrase, “several years ago?” Are you up on your Texas argot?

Did this person say he saw the name in an unpainted state after 1984? It may well be that he did. We wish that Patrick Pexton, the Post ombudsman, had specifically asked that question in the course of writing Sunday’s review of this matter. We wish he had done that because we’re familiar with the way some journalists at his newspaper have sometimes worked in the past. (That does not include McCrummen.)

A person from the Dallas area: One witness is left, a person from the Dallas area. This is what McCrummen reported about what this witness said. We’ll provide full context:
MCCRUMMEN: Approaching [the camp] from the western side, drivers would eventually reach a long, metal gate where the rock stood to the left.

"It just said ‘Niggerhead,’ ” said one person who said he saw the rock in the 1980s and did not want to be named, because he still lives in the area. “That's all that was on it."

The rock was about five feet across and three feet tall, smooth and relatively flat, the word in block letters stretching across its surface, said the former worker from the Hendrick ranch, who said he had seen the rock numerous times over the past 30 years.

"I was just so taken aback that it was so blatant, so in your face," said a person from the Dallas area who visited the camp once in 1990 or 1991 and did not want to be named in a story potentially critical of Perry. "It was just, 'whop.' It was a big rock, big enough to write that whole thing out.”
If that doesn’t mean what it seems to mean, it’s a gross deception. But are you sure this person wasn’t describing his surprise at seeing a big rock, having been told about what was blatantly written upon it? Having walked over to see its painted face, which was now looking up at the sky?

Such questions wouldn’t occur to us, except for our years of work on the press corps’ past scams. Such questions didn’t seem to occur to ombudsman Pexton.

In sum:

In her piece, McCrummen cites four or five people—she doesn’t cite seven—who may seem to contradict Perry’s account. But how many really did contradict Perry? Did anyone say that he saw the offensive name in an unpainted state after 1984?

We’d have to say that we still aren’t sure. Pexton should have asked, with great specificity.

How many people saw the name in an unpainted state in the 1990s? Did someone see the name in the state in recent years? According to McCrummen, at least one person “said the block-lettered name was clearly visible” at some point in the 1990s. Presumably, that would be the visitor from Dallas. But did he say that the name was in an unpainted state? Did anyone else say that about the 1990s?

For ourselves, we don’t feel sure. That’s because we’ve seen the way the Washington Post has sometimes behaved in the past.

McCrummen may be as honest as the day is long. We do not assume that she’s playing games in this report; until we'reshown otherwise, we would assume that she worked in total good faith. But her prose is very murky, and she works for a paper with a bad past. You know? At several points in the 1990s?

Pexton was right to review this report, which involves such serious claims. But how many witnesses contradict Perry? Pexton should have asked. He should have been very specific.

No comments:

Post a Comment