Fact-checking Santorum: The Post gets it right!

MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2012

But then they give Romney a pass: In Sunday morning’s Washington Post, Fred Hiatt did some good fact-checking.

His work involved Rick Santorum’s recent statements concerning No Child Left Behind. Uh-oh! Santorum has discussed his vote in favor of this program in a way which seems to be bogus:
HIATT (3/11/12): Rick Santorum says he voted for No Child Left Behind even though it was “against the principles I believed in.” He explained during the Feb. 22 Republican presidential debate: “When you’re part of the team, sometimes you take one for the team, for the leader.”

But Santorum didn’t just vote for No Child Left Behind. He touted its principles and boasted of his support for at least half a decade after it became law.
Hiatt then gave a bunch of examples. The gentleman did some good fact-checking. To read his full piece, just click here, then click once again.

That piece appeared on the Washington Post’s op-ed page. But uh-oh! On the facing editorial page, Hiatt did some fact-checking about Mitt Romney—and he seemed to give Romney a pass. In this editorial, the editors discussed a 2009 op-ed column in which Romney seemed to recommend a federal individual health care mandate, of the type which had been included in his own Massachusetts health plan.

Romney’s 2009 op-ed piece appeared in USA Today. As many have noted in the past week, that column seems to contradict Romney’s repeated claim that he never recommended any such federal mandate. But in this case, the editors completely ignored the apparent contradiction. Instead, they praised Romney for the good sound judgment he expressed in 2009. (Headline in the hard-copy Post: "Guilty of being reasonable.")

One out of two ain’t really half-bad, especially at this level. But that’s because our society’s fact-checking skills are very weak indeed.

In its editorial, the Post took a shot at BuzzFeed, which has been widely praised for unearthing that old column by Romney. The editors called in the snark:
WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL (3/11/12): The [op-ed column] was brought back to public attention this month by the Web site BuzzFeed, which at first reported that the op-ed was not to be found on USA Today’s site. That gave birth to dark, conspiratorial thoughts in Rick Santorum’s mind, as he confided to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham. “You know, it’s really interesting, Laura, that the USA Today op-ed was somehow removed from the archives,” Mr. Santorum said. “Now, I don’t know how that happens.”

Sadly for this line of reasoning, BuzzFeed later acknowledged that the Romney op-ed was, in fact, still archived on the newspaper site.
Once again, this cut badly for Santorum! But in the process, the editors poked fun at BuzzFeed too.

Did BuzzFeed really bungle this point? You be the judge! Just click here! For ourselves, we’ve been struck by the reams of low-IQ bullshit which litter the site—and by liberal reaction to the way BuzzFeed found Romney’s column.

Liberals have been working hard to establish Romney as a liar. In truth, this isn’t a challenging task. But in light of all this investment, it’s amazing that Romney's op-ed piece from 2009 only came to light this month.

The fact that no one else ever spotted Romney’s column speaks poorly for our skills. Meanwhile, BuzzFeed posted video from three old TV spots by Romney (click here); these appearances were also taken to be incriminating. On the liberal web, many folk said that these TV spots showed that Romney has been lying about his past statements concerning his health care plan.

For ourselves, we just can’t see it. Romney has persistently claimed that he never recommended a federal individual mandate. We’ve stopped, looked and listened. We can’t see a contradictory statement in those TV spots.

For years, we liberals slept in the woods. After Iraq, we slowly emerged. By the time we emerged, our skills were weak—even in a world where one out of two can’t be considered half bad.

2 comments:

  1. Research is hard work, but with today's internet, it's not especially time consuming.
    I'n not a reporter. I don't have a subscription to LexisNexis, but I can usually find what I am looking for.
    In high school, I was an expert on Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report.
    In college, I haunted the card catalog. I couldn't understand how anyone could sign their name to someone else's research, or why others hated research paper assignments.
    When I was about 11 or 12 years old, I dreamed up a device that could be held in my hand, and would beam down from a satellite all the world's recorded music, and all the world's knowledge .
    Thanks to Apple and Al Gore, I now have it.
    "Reporters" have no excuses for the tripe they crank out, and their bosses are derelict for printing or airing it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't you mean "thanks to Apple and DARPA?"


      You make a very good point about the ease with which information can now be sought, but with all the hilarious cat videos on YouTube, who has the time?

      Delete