« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
A Perspective on Milbank, Quotes and Context
Kane wrote up the recent "Countdown" comments by Keith Olbermann on the Washington Post's Dana Milbank accepting an offer to appear on another MSM outlet (CNN, as it turns out). If you are unfamiliar with this issue, you should read Kane's post first, as it will get you up to speed.
There's been an interesting discussion taking place on Kane's post about Milbank not needing to issue a correction for the partial quote he used to bolster his argument for Obama being presumptuous and arrogant.
First, to ensure complete honesty, I'll lay out my own position on the matter. I don't believe Milbank needs to change his article or interpretation. What I do believe is that Milbank either didn't know about the first half of the Obama quote in question, or he knew about it and selectively edited it out.
Based on Milbank's reaction in his online WaPo chat, I think he knew about it, chose not to use it, and resorted to belligerence and snark to deflect questions about the omission. However, that is only my opinion, based on the facts of which I am aware.
However, there's a great story that really gets to the heart of why Milbank's quoting of Obama - while technically accurate - was actually the worst sort of narrative-based journalism.
If you're a Congress junkie, as I am, you have probably heard the name Sam Ervin. The North Carolinian was a Congressman and Senator who rose to national fame and prominence for his leading role in the Watergate investigation.
Ervin was very self-effacing and modest. Such modesty, real or feigned, often serves as the velvet glove hiding the iron fist of a razor-sharp political intellect. Southern politicians are especially good at using their backgrounds and accents to hide towering intelligence (see: Clinton, William Jefferson). As you might expect, Ervin was full of homespun homilies that often underscored his larger points.
One of his favorite tales had to do with a country preacher who didn't like the top knots many women wore that were so fashionable. However, the preacher was having a great deal of trouble finding a Biblical passage to support his dislike.
Finally, one Sunday, the preacher let loose with a sermon titled "Top Knot Come Down", a fiery denunciation of top knots.
After the sermon, a congregant asked the preacher what source he used. The preacher solemnly opened his Bible and pointed haughtily at Matthew 24:17. The scripture reads thusly.
<blockquote>Let him hich is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house.</blockquote>
This story was actually used by Ervin as a prologue to his recommendation of censure for Joseph McCarthy. However, it seems quite appropriate in discussing why Milbank's quote of Obama, while technically accurate, does not pass the "smell test".
NOTE: I remembered this story from Paul Boller's book, "Congressional Anecdotes". It's an excellent book, incidentally. It reminds one of a time when debate, repartee and extemporaneous presentation could actually sway national debates. I think we'll never have another Fisher Ames, Daniel Webster or Henry Clay holding forth in Congress - which is eternally our loss. (For that matter, I'd be happy with another Bella Abzug.)
Comments (17)
*sigh* Not only did I forget (again) that I can't actually use HTML in the post, I messed up my blockquote of Matthew 24:17, which should read this way:
Dear Josh: Edit feature? Please?
August 5, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice story, but I can't agree with you on Milbank. Using a quote out of context to change the meaning of it is dishonest journalism. The whole quote meant something completely different.
If Milbank had used the entire quote and then asserted that he still believed Obama to be arrogant, then it would have been his opinion, not necessarily supported by the quote, but open to interpretation. I think Obama is arrogant. In fact, I think everyone who ever ran for president was probably arrogant to some degree. It comes with the territory. But it's not Obama we're really looking at here, it is the sorry state of journalism today.
Lying is not only telling a complete untruth. Selective omission is also lying. By that very real and legitimate definition, Milbank was lying and should correct it with a retraction and explanation. Clearly he has decided to throw his lot in with those so-called journalists suffering from destructive pundit for hire syndrome. I have no respect whatsoever for these people who pretend to be journalists and disgrace the profession.
August 5, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point. But my opinion is that, at the time Milbank wrote this article, he had the same quote snippet that Jonathan Weisman had when he originally posted on his WaPo blog.
My problem isn't with Milbank's original article. My problem is that, even when presented with the first half of the quote, which completely changes the overall meaning as you noted, Milbank not only refused to acknowledge the quote, but he even lied about House Democrats in his rebuttal. (See dijamo's comment and my reply below for details.)
August 5, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's Milbank speaking in his own defense:
I would take Milbank at his word that the quotes he was provided in writing did not include that additional context. And even with the additional context, Milbank did not feel the new information required a retraction.
August 5, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is from a Wall Street Journal account of the same meeting, posted July 29. (Emphasis mine.)
Keep in mind, this is from a rag not exactly noted for its liberal slant - yet even THEY got the quote right.
This puts the lie to Milbank. House Democrats did NOT wake up the next day and "add" context - otherwise, how did WSJ's Sarah Lueck get this quote the same evening as the House meeting?
This is the same information that Jonathan Weisman was provided - and he updated his blog entry within hours of its original posting.
August 5, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Clyburn was not the source for the WaPo piece. That's my point. You can have 10 people hear the same speech and come away with a different perspective and have different things strike them as memorable. Here's an easy way to resolve the dispute - have the source for the Milbank piece (a House Democrat) come forward. Given that he is saying it was provided in e-mail - written e-mail - not a conversation that can be misunderstood, I'd say Milbank is fairly comfortable if the source disputes the story, he would make the e-mail public and make clear what his story was based on.
August 5, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a question of perspective, though. This is what I was saying to you in Kane's thread.
This is a question of either selective editing or refusal to acknowledge additional information solely because it's damaging to the original premise.
If Milbank said that the whole quote doesn't change his interpretation, that's one thing. But, rather than acknowledge that he only had half the relevant quote, he flat-out accused House Dems of next-day revisionist history. Clyburn's quote in the WSJ simply shows that not to be true.
At this point, it doesn't matter what he got from his source. Numerous sources - and media outlets - have backed up Clyburn's *same-day* quote to the WSJ.
Now, with his colleague Weisman - who reported this before Milbank - acknowledging the full quote...with sources everywhere giving the full quote...the cat, TOTALLY out of the bag...there's Dana Milbank...still holding on to his original story, which no longer holds water.
August 5, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
He DID acknowledge that he only had the half quote from his source in the meeting. If he thought a correction was needed after hearing a fuller interpretation of the quote as reported, he would have made one. And as Milbank said later in his response, I assume you are also calling on all snarkers - including Keith Olbermann - to cease and desist from using the 100 years in Iraq out of context for McCain as well for consistency.
Let's put this another way. If this was Fox News and they would not have a columnist on until they apologized or retracted an opinion piece that used an incomplete quote of the 100 years comment against McCain, you'd be outraged not at the columnist for the incomplete quote, but at Fox News for columnist intimidation. Journalistic rules don't change in regards to whether you like the candidate or not.
August 6, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I don't have a problem with any show host or network denying someone the right to appear on their show, just as I have no problem with someone refusing to appear on a show or a network. Freedom of the press includes freedom of refusal.
On this issue, I'll have to agree to disagree with you. (I do find it funny that I'm taking heat from *both sides of this argument* in the same thread.)
To sum up, this is the part of Milbank's defense that makes me believe he's full of it:
He's strongly implying that House Dems lied about the full quote just to avoid poor optics, based on their "day-after" view of Milbank's article. Again, given that the Wall Street Journal had reported on this meeting online hours before Weisman did for WaPo, Milbank is way out of line here, and should admit it and move on.
Keep in mind, I don't have any problem with the original article he wrote, based on the information I believe he had. But to be given full information, and then discard it just because it pulls a plank out of his article's platform, is dishonest. I believe that behavior to be beneath Dana Milbank. Apparently, he disagrees.
August 6, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is about journalistic ethics. If you get a quote wrong, correct it. Period. Full Stop. That's journalism 101.
If you are going to quote someone and you were not there to hear it first hand, you must source it. Two sources are standard.
Jonathan Weisman was not in attendance, but more than 200 House Democrats were. Surely Milbank and his WaPo colleagues on the congressional beat could find someone to talk.
There is simply no excuse for what Milbank did and to build a column around a falsehood is unprofessional.
Some of you are missing the point. You like that Milbank wrote a "negative narrative" about Obama that feeds your opinions about him. While you are entitled to your opinion, you are also entitled to have facts at your disposal to form those opinions. That is where Dana Milbank failed you. And when he hides behind his "Whine Enthusiast" snark, he fails you and himself even further. Because now we must question all of his other stories and columns.
Milbank has unfortunately placed himself in the same class with Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke who all fabricated stories, made up interviews, invented quotes and destroyed their careers doing exactly what Milbank has done. The only difference? Milbank is a further ahead in his career than they were.
Milbank, in his quest to author the next big newscycle storyline used an IED on his credibility and blew it to shreds. CNN, notwithstanding, the next time you read Milbank's byline, you will question whether or not his quotes are accurate, taken out of context or just plain made up.
That does not bode well for Mr. Milbank.
It is shitty journalism.
August 5, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
As my TPM blog history will show, I'm not exactly a fan of inaccurate reporting that is anti-Obama.
But I'll make the same distinction with you that I've made with raider. There is a BIG difference between getting a quote wrong and only getting part of the quote. Milbank didn't make anything up here, and it's wrong to accuse him of doing so - especially considering that Weisman originally ran with the quote that Milbank used.
Having said that, it is COMPLETELY CORRECT to call him on not at least acknowledging the complete quote.
I agree that the complete quote goes against Milbank's "presumptuous" narrative, and I think it's why he's fighting so hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube here. But he is NOT like Jayson Blair, et al. He didn't make up what he wrote.
Frankly, I'd say he's guilty of equal parts arrogance and embarrassment...which is clouding his judgment on this, and providing an unnecessary stain on an accomplished journalistic career. Milbank should have just admitted on 7/30 that he published an incomplete quote. Not doing that - and then digging in his heels on the issue - makes him seem guilty of selective editing....which I identified in a previous thread as the worst sort of narrative-based journalism.
August 5, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to disagree with you here, Eastside. Jade is correct in saying that Milbank blatantly misquoted Obama here:
Let's say that his source sent this to him in an email - as written. As a journalist, my first question would be, what was said between those ellipses? My second question would be, what said between the two quoted phrases. The answer to those two questions is context.
If, in fact, this is all that Milbank received and he took it and put it into a big narrative about Obama's arrogance, then he is simply a really low-caliber journalist and has no business writing for a major newspaper. If, after the fact, he learns that his quote was out of context and that his use of it may have resulted in a misinterpretation, ethics would dictate that he acknowledge that - or not, but he should explain his position. He's refused to do so, which calls into questions his professionalism.
August 6, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can agree to disagree with you.
I believe that Dana Milbank has earned the benefit of the doubt on his quoting in the original article. I don't know of a single previous instance in his career (and I've been reading his stuff a long time) where he has done anything approaching this.
I still maintain that the most logical explanation for the situation is that Milbank simply ran with the available quote from his WaPo colleague, and is being pigheaded about the situation.
August 6, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no such thing as "narrative-based journalism"; there is accurate journalism or inaccurate journalism. Millbank, who should know better, committed the latter, and has not the integrity to admit it and apologuze.
August 5, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely disagree with your "absolute" here. In fact, I can't find terms strong-yet-polite enough to disagree with you in. There are plenty of journalists making lots of money to either try and create a narrative or write about a current narrative. (There are many other kinds of journalism too, but I digress.)
Milbank ran with Weisman's WSJ blog quote of Obama in his article. That, in and of itself, is not unfair, and I don't think Olbermann had any problem with that. The problem came in when Weisman, et al., acknowledged that there was part of the quote missing - and Milbank not only refused to acknowledge that, but resorted to insults as a main plank of his "defense".
August 6, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from the morning after commentary, is there any evidence he got the quote out of context. I know the Obama camps says so, and i know the Obama supporters in the meeting say so, but is there no tape? I thought there was evidence that he had omitted part of the quote, but is it a matter of people just saying what he said?
If that's the case, I don't think Milbank is out of line, because as a (former) reporter, I can tell you that it's not uncommon for people to change what they said after something appears in print.
Of course, if there is a recording, then I stand corrected. But if there is, I would have thought that would be a bigger part of the story than I've noticed.
August 6, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I am aware, the meeting was not recorded. The problem with saying that everything was changed the next day, though, is that the reporting timeline doesn't add up.
Around 7:40pm on 7/29, the WSJ had an online item that explicitly quoted Obama saying the election wasn't about him.
Weisman's blog entry for WaPo - with only the second half the quote appearing - happened about 2.5 hours after that.
Milbank's column - with the Weisman quote - appeared the next day.
August 6, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment