Right, And In Context. Is That Too Much To Ask? Or Is It Just A Fairytale?

I think my greatest pet peeve in this industry is watching people report news without context. Context isn't just important, it's everything — especially in these days of insta-pickup by blogs and online news sites, where just a snippet of text is enough to launch a million clicks.

You'd think that in the case of this election, where the race is tight and a nasty rumor or smear can make all the difference, people might want to be a bit careful. Alas, no. Case in point: The conflagration over Bill Clinton's "Fairytale" comment, made on January 7th at Dartmouth College, before the New Hampshire primary, but exploding over the past few days as an issue of race. Yes, race — that scary third rail of politics around which everyone tiptoes — suddenly an issue around a comment made by a guy once known as "America's First Black President." Wow - he must have said something pretty bad. What was it?

Here's the quote, which was part of a larger comment on Obama's representation of his Iraq war position:

"It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

Wow, strong words — but unequivocally pertaining to Obama's Iraq war position. Pretty clear cut, right?

Ha, as if. Here's what it morphed into in the media: BILL CLINTON CALLS OBAMA'S MESSAGE OF HOPE AND INSPIRATION A FAIRYTALE! HE THINKS OBAMA'S DREAM FOR BLACK AMERICA IS A FAIRYTALE!

I kid you not. Some examples:

New York Times, Jan. 11th: "[Former President Clinton] described Mr. Obama's campaign narrative as a fairy tale."
The Politico, Jan 11th: "...Bill Clinton dismissing Sen. Barack Obama's image in the media as a 'fairy tale'"
BreitbartTV, Jan. 8th, which hosted the full clip yet chose to headline it in the most inflammatory (and inaccurate) way possible: "Bill Clinton Fumes About Obama: 'Biggest Fairy Tale I've Ever Seen'"
Same NYT article, quoting someone else incorrectly framing the comment: "[Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-SC)] saw the remark as a slap at the image of a black candidate running on a theme of unity and optimism. "To call that dream a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us."
Maureen Dowd, NYT, Jan 9th: "Bill churlishly dismissed the Obama phenom as 'the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.'"
Donna Brazile on CNN, Jan. 8th: "For him to go after Obama, using a fairy tale, calling him as he did last week. It's an insult. And I will tell you, as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing."

Here's what I find to be very depressing: When someone's words are taken deliberately out of context and blasted across the headlines to make them sound like a racist. That, to me, is despicable. Whether all of the above sources did so deliberately isn't clear (Breitbart obviously did, the NYT and Politico ought to have been more specific and accurate, who knows where Clyburn and Brazile got their information) — but at this point, the misinformation is out there, so much so that Clinton had to call into Al Sharpton's show to explain himself. ("When did you stop beating your wife, sir?")

It's up to the media to be on top of these things — especially when they're reporting on it. For the New York Times to report that Clinton "described Mr. Obama's campaign narrative as a fairy tale" is a completely egregious error of fact. For the Politico to say that Clinton called Obama's "image in the media" a fairytale is equally egregious. Ditto Maureen Dowd saying that the fairytale in question was the "Obama phenom." (And, by the way, the fact that all three of these characterizations are different should have been the first tip-off). For Rep. James Clyburn to say that Clinton was calling the dream of unity a fairytale, for Brazile to say he called Obama the fairytale, in an "insult" that she reacted to "as an African-American" — well, now, that brings it to a whole new and very scary level.

Think about where Clinton started. Now think about where that remark has ended up. Wow, if people weren't careful about what they said about Obama before, I bet they sure will be now. I'd just like to see the media be as careful about what they say about the Clintons.

Update: God bless Frank Rich, who does get it right , referring to: "Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" rant falsifying Mr. Obama's record on Iraq." Knowing he's being strictly accurate about the first gives him that much more credibility in his assertion of the second. And for the record, I point to Obama's response to Clinton below. Also: Here's where the NYObserver mischaracterized the remarks too. One more: Alas, the otherwise wonderful Bob Herbert makes the same glib error, claiming that Clinton was talking about "Mr. Obama's effort."

Video of Clinton's remarks below; transcript after the jump, courtesy of Frank James of The Swamp. Obama's response to Clinton's comments are also available at BreitbartTV.

"But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. 'It doesn't matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I'm the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.' "

"First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way."

"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.

"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?"

"Or what about the Obama hand out that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook? Scouring me, scathing criticism, over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.

"So, you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want. It wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly that we didn't do better in Iowa. But you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media, doesn't mean the facts aren't out there.

"Otherwise I do not have any strong feelings about that subject."

Comments

[jackson93]

Rachel,

I agree that Pres. Clinton's words were specifically about Obama's position on the war. It is interesting to me that in describing how the media misrepresented his words, you repeat his words and do not make the effort to show how his statement is factually incorrect; thus, perpetuating Clinton's incorrect statement. The Clinton campaign has refuse to use Obama's full quotation from Meet the Press. Obama specifically stated that he was not privy to the classified information that Kerry and Edwards was and could not definitively say how he would have voted had he had the same information. This seems like a pretty straightforward answer. Obama also said that he did not want to criticize Edwards and Kerry during their convention. The Clinton campaign is completely misrepresenting Sen. Obama's position. To not identify Sen. Obama's actual quotation and to reiterate Pres. Clinton's interpretation of that quotation and pass it along as fact seems just as negligent as not giving Clinton's comments the proper context.

[hlhicks]

This may come as a surprise, but there is such a thing as subtext. I know, I know, we are not supposed to be able to read through the rhetoric and we should just believe that it would be impossibly for this super politically astute couple to ever be calculating and divisive. If you read the comments by the Clintons and their surrogates from Kerrey, Cuomo and others, race has been injected into the campaign. They have subtly played on racial and ethnic stereotypes for the last couple of months (madrassa, drug dealers, Hussein, shuck and jive, etc.) Please don't take this one instance and extrapolate it, because I can supply ten other examples that dispute what you are saying. I find it incredibly ironic that people continue to portray the Clintons as victims of an unfair media, again. I for one would not like to see race play a dominant role in this election, but I felt the same way when I read article after article from prominent feminists who blatantly told us that gender was more important than race as they not so subtly injected gender into the discussion. I also listened to Meet The Press this morning where Hillary stated that gender was the most difficult hurdle to breach (her glass ceiling comment.) To position this extremely successful woman as a victim of oppression is ludicrous and insulting. The Clintons' don't have to worry about a media that favors Obama because there are plenty of you who are willing to do clean up when they mess up and to put all of their comments into the proper context. No thanks. I will continue to use my own judgment.

[bettersaid]

Yeah, you wonder why they put headlines that SCREAM that Clinton is doing something wrong. And line up the pro-Obama editorials at the top, while they put pro-Clinton articles way "below the fold" and give them front page status for a nano-second. It's sickening. Very Foxlike. Try www.buzzflash.com. At least they try to be balanced.

[isis]

I heard Hillary herself make fun of the hope idea during her robotic trip through Iowa. As one of her supporters I sat for hours waiting for her before the Jefferson Jackson dinner. I got the negative anti-Obama 527 mailings and even a negative mailing from my former governor. Bill can flip out or whatever but the Clintons make me want to hide in my bed with the covers pulled up. I think that is called disenfranchisment. She and her friend Taylor Marsh and her husband can stop any time and tell us about her stand on issues such as media consolidation.

[isis]

The Clintons depress me at times. They can even make Glora Steinem go negative.

[Mileva Maric]

I'm glad to see at least something in the blogs about this very issue pop up.

I think those that are quick to try and call the Clintons racists are those that want Obama to win at all costs.

And here, is the real tragedy. We have come so far and to see the very African Americans I have been watching for year try to keep race out of politics turn around and use race to win this election. I mention Brazil in particular, a woman I have admired for many years.

I was gratified to see Sheila Jackson Lee come out and speak honestly about the subject. She is another woman I have come to admire over the years.

As a multi-racial American, I also think that Mr. Obama could put a stop to this immediately and should. But instead, he is fueling this dangerous path to a presidential race based on skin color.

But I can see why Mr. Obama is willing to do so, as he appears to have nothing of substance to add to his rhetoric.

Very reminiscent of G.W. Bush, who had us chasing our tails rather than paying attention to his slight of hand act.

Further, I suggest that this will backfire on Mr. Obama. Not because he won't be able to convince some ignorant people that the Clintons are racists, but because he will lose the white people who are offended by the entire proposition.

[bessie1]

Rachel Sklar is truly one of the few bright lights on Huffington Post. Brava for a well-written explanation.