There has been a great bit of coverage lately, throughout the blogs and even the occasional traditional-media mention, on the pathological lies of both McCain and Palin. Frank Rich's great editorial in yesterday's Times reminds us once again of "Truthiness" in politics. It can certainly be said that the blogosphere, and especially DailyKos, has had a very large impact on tracking down the reality behind the truthiness. Our series of tubes is both far-reaching and diligent in pointing out how we should hold candidates from every party responsible.
The Christian Science Monitor should be thanking us for making their job easier, but instead appear to be discounting the importance of our efforts.
The Christian Science Monitor, in a story posted yesterday titled, Watchdogs make it harder for politicians to stretch the truth, points out that politicians are coming under increased scrutiny for their dishonest statements.
Gilding the lily is nothing new to politics. From the 1840s when William Henry Harrison claimed to have been born in a log cabin (it was actually a Virginia plantation) to Ronald Reagan’s reminiscing about flying over Germany in World War II (he did, but only in a movie), politicians have taken perfectly good stories and embellished them.
The article cites, as an example, Clinton's "sniper fire" landing in Bosnia and Romney's recollection of seeing his father march with Reverend King. Beyond these examples, the primary focus of the article concerned Cindy McCain's repeated statements that Mother Teresa "convinced" Cindy to adopt their fourth child, daughter Bridget. In case you were wondering,
Mrs. McCain, it turns out, never met Mother Teresa on that trip. (Once contacted by the Monitor, the campaign revised the story on its website.)
Additionally,
The latest embellishments come from the McCain camp. Cindy McCain has repeatedly referred to herself as an "only child." This week came news that she actually has two half sisters, although apparently she had very little contact with them.
And,
In another instance, McCain told the Chicago Tribune earlier this year that on one of her medical missions to Vietnam she was in "the very hospital – and in the very room – where her husband was brought after being shot down and then beaten by a mob during the war."
A 1992 Washington Times story recounts a different version: "Mrs. McCain asked to see the operating room and her husband’s cell, but was turned down. She took the rejection philosophically. ‘It’s 27 years later. Let’s go on,’ Mrs. McCain said."
The McCain campaign again declined to comment on the discrepancy.
The Christian Science Monitor seems willing to downplay the significance of these lies - or if you prefer, misstatements - by politicians, and seems to even downplay our dedication to keeping politicians honest. Rather than complimenting those that uncover the lies for our efforts, article author Alexandra Marks calls us "obsessed".
Such exaggerations may simply be the product of a faulty memory or a desire to be "better" than one is in a political culture that requires larger-than-life idols. But with the advent of the fact-checking obsessed blogosphere – and a media racing to keep up – such self-aggrandizement doesn’t last as long as it once did. (emphasis mine)
There is little argument that obsession carries a negative connotation. Obsession implies that we simply will not drop the issue, despite all evidence that we have been correct in uncovering these lies. Rather than being viewed as persistant or even diligent, the Christian Science Monitor equates us to stalkers chasing some misconstrued cause, rather than merely seeking out the truth in a manner in which their own reporters fall far short. Of course, it should be mentioned that this same media has somehow convinced the public that words such as "elite" or "intellectual" or even "optimistic" are bad.
As Frank Rich rightly points out in his earlier-mentioned Times piece, the pool of "Investigative Reporters" has dwindled. For whatever reason, the reporters willing to, well, investigate, have declined, even while the number of partisan "contributors" have increased significantly.
Instead of passing over dedicated bloggers as "obsessed" for uncovering repeated lies and false claims, the Christian Science Monitor, along with the rest of the Traditional Media, would do well do give us the credit we are due, if for no other reason than us doing the research they neglect in favor of not losing their access, or not upsetting their candidate du jour. From time to time we are given credit, but more often than not we are treated with the same disrespect as the Christian Science Monitor. Nevermind that we are often better Investigative Reporters, being more diligent, more widespread, and more efficient than their own staff. They would rather refer to us as "radical" or "fringe" or "obsessed" parts of the "left-wing blogosphere." Perhaps more "reporters" should take the cue from those such as Keith and Rachel, and give credit where it is due.
Or in the least, avoid calling us "obsessed" just for trying to keep politicians honest.