LAND OF SCRIPT: Misrepresenting Rice!

FRIDAY, JANUARY 3, 2014

Part 4—Kirkpatrick keeps script alive: Modern journalistic practice is marked by at least two widespread problems.

One the one hand, our press corps displays a stunning lack of basic journalistic skills. (The ability to paraphrase fairly, and to quote correctly, are two such basic skills.)

They also display a devotion to script. Nine years ago, Paul Krugman described the phenomenon:

KRUGMAN (8/3/04): Reading the Script

A message to my fellow journalists: check out media watch sites like campaigndesk.org, mediamatters.org and dailyhowler.com. It's good to see ourselves as others see us. I've been finding The Daily Howler's concept of a media “script,” a story line that shapes coverage, often in the teeth of the evidence, particularly helpful in understanding cable news.

Krugman was right on target! Over the past several decades, our discourse has been ruled by script. Again and again, these “story lines” have shaped the coverage of various issues and events, often “in the teeth” of rather obvious evidence.

One such script came into existence in September 2012. This script appeared after Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday programs to discuss the Benghazi attack.

The attack occurred on September 11, 2012. Five days later, on September 16, Rice appeared on all five Sunday programs.

Rice was quickly denounced as a liar. Even now, as David Kirkpatrick debunks several key parts of the powerful Benghazi script, the notion that Rice misspoke in some major way can’t be put to rest.

Within our journalistic culture, script is a very powerful force—and our journalists aren’t real good at paraphrasing the statements of public figures. In his piece in last Sunday’s Times, Kirkpatrick even misquotes Rice at one point.

A person could argue that he misquotes her twice. Indeed, that would be our judgment.

Does this “matter” at this point? Not necessarily, no—unless you care about the way elite journalism works.

Does this really “matter?” As a result of the mugging of Rice, she apparently lost the chance to serve as secretary of state. Instead, Rice was named national security adviser, the position she holds today. (Senate confirmation isn’t required for that post.)

But how odd! Even as Kirkpatrick debunks two key parts of the Benghazi script, he continues to misrepresent what Rice said on those Sunday programs. This lets him say that Democrats misspoke in a major way, as did the Republicans.

Can anyone here play this game at all? Let’s see how Kirkpatrick misrepresents what Rice said.

In this part of Kirkpatrick’s report, he starts to describe what Rice said on those Sunday programs. He also presents his basic framework, in which each side misspoke.

This is sometimes called moral equivalence:

KIRKPATRICK (12/29/13): Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.

One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.

The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests.

That's well-crafted equivalence! And Kirkpatrick is already misrepresenting what Rice actually said.

Did Susan Rice actually say that the anti-Islamic video the video “inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand?” In a sense, but not as such!

We’d call that a very lazy account of what Rice said that day. Below, we’ll show you why we say that.

In the following passage, Kirkpatrick develops his account of what Rice said that day. Kirkpatrick actually seems to quote some statements from Meet the Press:

KIRKPATRICK: After the attack, Mr. Obama vowed retribution. “We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act,” he said in a televised address from Washington on the morning of Sept. 12. “And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

But much of the debate about Benghazi in Washington has revolved around statements made four days later in television interviews by Ms. Rice, who was then ambassador to the United Nations.

“What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo,” she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.”

Republicans, pouncing on the misstatement, have argued that the Obama administration was trying to cover up Al Qaeda’s role. “It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event,” Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said last month on Fox News.

“This was a preplanned, organized terrorist event,” he said, “not a video. That whole part was debunked time and time again.”

From Kirkpatrick’s account of the Benghazi attack, it’s clear that Republicans like Rogers made some grossly inaccurate statements about the attack. The attack was not “preplanned” in any significant way, Kirkpatrick reports. And the anger behind the attack actually was fueled by the video, which was producing disturbances all over the Muslim world.

Did Rice make inaccurate statements too? In that passage, Kirkpatrick says she did—and this softens the blow as Kirkpatrick debunks the basic GOP script.

Unfortunately, Kirkpatrick flatly misquotes one part of what Rice said on Meet the Press. A person could sensibly argue that he misquotes her two separate times in just that one paragraph.

Has Rice been quoted accurately and fairly in the highlighted passage? On Wednesday, we posted the full text of what she said on Meet the Press. This is the exchange from which Kirkpatrick takes both his quotes:

GREGORY (9/16/12): Can you say definitively that the attacks on our consulate in Libya that killed Ambassador Stevens and others there, security personnel, that was spontaneous? Was it a planned attack? Was there a terrorist element to it?

RICE: Well, let me tell you the best information we have at present.

First of all, there is an FBI investigation, which is ongoing, and we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired.

But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo—almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which, unfortunately, are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and that escalated into a much more violent episode.

Obviously, that's our best judgment now. We'll await the results of the investigation, and the president has been very clear—we'll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

What’s wrong with the way Kirkpatrick quotes Rice? Let us count two ways:

First, and this is very important: Quite plainly, Rice stated, again and again, that she was only giving a preliminary assessment.

This was “the best information we have at present,” she told David Gregory. An investigation was underway, she said. “We look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired.”

Continuing, Rice said she was offering “the best information that we have available to us today.” She said it was “our current assessment [of] what happened.”

She then proceeded to tell Gregory what “we think” took place. When she was done, she told him again that this was just “our best judgment now.” She said she would “await the results of the investigation” she had cited.

How many ways can a person say that she isn’t giving a definitive assessment? That statement by Rice ran 171 words. By our count, she told Gregory six different times that this wasn’t a final assessment.

Six times, in less than two hundred words! But go ahead—look at the way Kirkpatrick quotes Rice. This is horrible journalism:

WHAT RICE ACTUALLY SAID: “First of all, there is an FBI investigation, which is ongoing, and we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo..."

WHAT KIRKPATRICK PRESENTED: “What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo,” she said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Rice was at pains to say that this wasn’t a definitive assessment. Quite plainly, Kirkpatrick makes it sound like she did make a flat assertion concerning what had occurred.

That is terrible journalism. In that part of his presentation, Kirkpatrick presents some actual words Rice actually spoke. But he cuts them out of a longer sentence and a fuller statement, omitting some very fundamental context.

In the process, he changes the meaning of what Rice said. It’s astonishing that a major New York Times reporter, overseen by a coffle of New York Times editors, thinks that is an acceptable way to quote a public figure.

What follows is even more astounding. In this case, Kirkpatrick actually changes the words Rice spoke. By anyone’s definition, he flatly misquotes Rice.

We’ll show you Rice’s longer statement and Kirkpatrick’s version of same. In the parts we highlight, Kirkpatrick changes Rice’s actual words. In the process, he changes her meaning:

WHAT RICE ACTUALLY SAID: But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo—almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

WHAT KIRKPATRICK PRESENTED: What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.

Wow. Fifteen months later, just wow.

We’re showing you the official transcript of what Rice actually said. This transcript is widely available. If you watch the tape of the Meet the Press program, you will see that the transcript is perfectly accurate.

Kirkpatrick’s “quotation” isn’t accurate! He has omitted part of what Rice said, thereby changing her meaning:

In Rice’s actual statement, she plainly said that the demonstrations in Cairo “were prompted, of course, by the video.” Plainly, that statement was accurate.

But alas! In last Sunday’s New York Times, Kirkpatrick omitted one part of the statement. In the process, he makes it sound like Rice said that “what happened in Benghazi” was “prompted by the video.”

Plainly, that isn’t what she said. Transcript and tape both makes this clear. Kirkpatrick flatly misquotes that part of Rice’s statement. In the process, he changes her meaning, turning a plainly accurate statement into an edgier claim.

Immediately after misquoting Rice, Kirkpatrick tell us that Republicans “pounced on the misstatement.”

Fifteen months have passed since the Benghazi attack. Fifteen months have passed since Rice appeared on those Sunday programs.

The transcript of Rice’s statement is available. The words she says on the tape are perfectly clear.

And yet, with fifteen months to get this right, Kirkpatrick flatly misquotes one part of Rice’s statement, changing her meaning in the process. In a more serious bit of shoddy quotation, he makes it sound like she gave a definitive assessment of what had occurred.

In fact, she gad warned Gregory, again and again, that she was only giving the best information we have at present, the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment.

She said she was giving our best judgment now. She said the administration would await the results of the investigation. But so what? Fifteen months later, all those disclaimers are AWOL in Kirkpatrick’s 7300-word report. Kirkpatrick makes it sound like Rice offered a definitive assessment—and he even flatly misquotes her, turning a perfectly accurate statement into a sketchier claim.

In his lengthy report, Kirkpatrick debunks two key parts of the Benghazi script. But for whatever reason, he misrepresents what Rice said on those programs.

This lets him soften the blow as he debunks those GOP claims. Susan Rice presented a bogus story line too, he now gets to declare.

For whatever reason, Kirkpatrick keeps script alive—at least, one part of the script.

Is Rice misquoted once, or twice, in Kirkpatrick’s report? We’ll go with the larger number.

We’re sorry. But when someone tells you, again and again, that she isn’t making a definitive assessment, you can’t chop her statement down to make it sound like she did offer such an assessment.

But then, we live in a very strange world. On the one hand, we live in a land of script. But it’s also a land of relentless journalistic incompetence.

Again and again, our ranking “journalists” show the world that they lack even the most basic skills. On the brighter side, as Kirkpatrick continues to misquote Rice, he continues to keep script alive.

He softens the blow against GOP bullroar. Manufacturing pleasing equivalence, Kirkpatrick keeps bullroar alive!

Tomorrow—epilogue: On Sunday’s Face the ation, Bob Schieffer needs to explain

Back to that earlier paraphrase: Let’s return to an earlier point. Was Kirkpatrick on solid ground when he paraphrased Rice this way?

KIRKPATRICK: Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines.

One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser.

Did Rice say that the video inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand?

We’d call that a very weak paraphrase. According to Rice, the best current assessment went like this:

The video inspired spontaneous street protests. Extremists armed with heavy weapons then came to the scene. They triggered the deadly violence.

Rice told a two-part story on those Sunday programs. As they invented their script, the GOP reduced her story to a one-part affair.

They eliminated her reference to the extremists who came to the scene with the heavy weapons. This made her story sound implausible, unlikely, strange.

Fifteen months later, Kirkpatrick is still paraphrasing Rice that way. This is a gift to the GOP.

People! Keep script alive!