During an August 23 interview with Sen. John McCain, the video of which is available on CBS' website, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric did not challenge McCain's false claim that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) "said you had to break Iraq up into three different countries" as part of his Iraq plan. McCain's false statement was also aired without challenge on the August 24 edition of CBS News Sunday Morning. Additionally, on the August 23 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ, Fox News contributor Karl Rove falsely asserted that Biden's proposal for Iraq involved "unilaterally splitting up a sovereign nation," while Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace falsely stated that Biden's plan consisted of "unilaterally dissolving a sovereign nation." In fact, Biden introduced a "five-point plan" to "[m]aintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis breathing room in their own regions." The plan also states that "[t]he Iraqi constitution already provides for federalism" and that "[t]he central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues." Further, Biden has made clear that he was not proposing that his plan be imposed on Iraq "unilaterally."

Biden and Council on Foreign Relations President Emeritus Leslie H. Gelb initially proposed their Iraq plan in a May 1, 2006, New York Times op-ed. They wrote that the idea "is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group -- Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab -- room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests." In an October 3, 2007, Washington Post op-ed, Biden and Gelb explained that "we are not trying to impose our plan. If the Iraqis don't want it, they won't and shouldn't take it."

Indeed, a September 2007 Senate amendment proposed by Biden stated that "the United States should actively support a political settlement among Iraq's major factions based upon the provisions of the Constitution of Iraq that create a federal system of government and allow for the creation of federal regions." It did not call for "unilaterally" imposing such a system. Biden's amendment was co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Sam Brownback (KS), Arlen Specter (PA), Gordon Smith (OR), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), as well as Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer (CA), John Kerry (MA), Bill Nelson (FL), Charles Schumer (NY), Barbara Mikulski (MD), and Blanche Lincoln (AR). It passed the Senate on September 26, 2007, by a 75-23 vote.

From Couric's interview with McCain:

COURIC: Do you think it will be more difficult now, Senator McCain, to criticize Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials when someone like Joe Biden is on the ticket, a very experienced and respected voice on Capitol Hill in these matters?

McCAIN: Well, I've always respected Joe Biden, but I've disagreed with him from the time he voted against the first Gulf War to his position where he said you had to break Iraq up into three different countries. I've never agreed with that, but I appreciate very much his dedication to trying to solve this genocide that's going on in Darfur and other things that Joe Biden has done. But we really have different approaches to many important national security issues. I look forward to whoever my running mate will be having a respectful debate with him on that as well.

COURIC: Where are you, Senator McCain, in the vice-presidential process?

From the August 24 edition of CBS News Sunday Morning:

DEAN REYNOLDS (CBS News correspondent): John McCain's campaign reacted critically, releasing a statement raising doubts about the pick more than an hour before it was even made official, and then following it up with an advertisement.

[begin video clip]

STEPHANOPOULOS: You said, "I think he can be ready, but right now, I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

BIDEN: I think I stand by the statement.

[end video clip]

REYNOLDS: McCain himself kept the pressure on in an interview yesterday afternoon with Katie Couric.

McCAIN [video clip]: Well, I've always respected Joe Biden, but I've disagreed with him from the time he voted against the first Gulf War to his position where he said you had to break Iraq up into three different countries. I've never agreed with that.

From the August 23 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ:

ROVE: And most important of all, as we begin to examine the ideas, you know, particularly on foreign policy, I wonder if it's going stand up well to scrutiny. Barack Obama says John McCain is disqualified to be president by his judgment and supporting and voting for the Iraq war. Well, guess what? So did Joe Biden.

And some of the ideas that Biden has offered from his foreign policy perch are frankly a little goofy. You know, when the surge -- when there was an argument about the surge, he said, well -- his answer was to split the country into a Kurdish state, a Shia state, and a Sunni state. You know, the United States unilaterally splitting up a sovereign nation, Iraq, and telling everybody they had to move to their own geographically separate quarters. A little strange.

WALLACE: Yeah, it's interesting, because we got some reporting out of Iraq today, Karl, that one of the few subjects that all of the various ethnic and religious factions in Iraq agree about now is what a bad idea Joe Biden's tripartite splitting up of the country there would have been, and, as you say, the United States unilaterally dissolving a sovereign nation.

You talked about the weaknesses of Joe Biden. Now tell us about his strengths. If you're sitting there in the McCain camp, what about Joe Biden worries you?

On the August 24 edition of CNN's Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer and chief national correspondent John King both cited an August 15-18 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in which 52 percent of Sen. Hillary Clinton's supporters said they will support Sen. Barack Obama, but neither noted that an August 19-22 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 70 percent of Clinton supporters "back Obama," according to the Post. An ABCNews.com "analysis" of the poll similarly stated that "70 percent of [Clinton supporters] are for" Obama.

King asked Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), "Where has he [Obama] failed?" King then cited the finding in the Journal/NBC poll that "almost half of Hillary Clinton's voters at this moment in time say they are not prepared to vote for Barack Obama." Blitzer later referred to the Journal/NBC poll in an interview with Terry McAuliffe, who was national chairman of Clinton's campaign, saying: "That's almost half, right there, who aren't ready to commit to Obama. There's frustration, there's anger among a considerable chunk of Hillary Clinton supporters." Neither King nor Blitzer mentioned the Post/ABC poll.

Earlier, on the August 24 edition of ABC's This Week, Post columnist George Will also cited the Journal/NBC poll. But in response, host George Stephanopoulos mentioned the Post/ABC poll, saying, "[O]ur poll shows that only three in 10 aren't for him." Similarly, on the August 24 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace said many of Clinton's supporters "are still mad. You've got this Wall Street Journal poll that shows only 52 percent now support Obama." Obama senior adviser Robert Gibbs responded, "Well, let's be honest, Chris. The Washington Post and ABC came out with a poll today that shows more than -- it shows 70 percent of Hillary Clinton voters supporting Barack Obama, the highest water mark since she suspended her campaign in June."

From the August 24 edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer:

KING: But, Senator, help me understand. What would your advice be to Barack Obama? Where has he failed? If you look at a poll today -- latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, for example -- 21 percent of Hillary Clinton's voters in the primaries, those blue-collar Democrats, say they will vote for John McCain. Twenty-seven percent say they're undecided. That is almost half of Hillary Clinton's voters at this moment in time say they are not prepared to vote for Barack Obama. What is he doing wrong?

BAYH: Well, I think our convention will give us a big opportunity to reach out to those people. Hillary, as you know, is going to be 100 percent for him. I spoke to her last night. She wants to do whatever she can to help him get elected, because she knows that he is the right change for America, too.

[...]

BLITZER: You've seen that Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that asked Clinton supporters what their inclination is right now. Fifty-two percent of them said they'd support Obama. Twenty-one percent said they'd support McCain. Another 27 percent are still undecided. That's almost half, right there, who aren't ready to commit to Obama. There's frustration, there's anger among a considerable chunk of Hillary Clinton supporters.

McAULIFFE: And I think, Wolf, for a lot of them, they were hoping that Hillary would become the vice president, so I think they were waiting to see the announcement. Now that Senator Biden has been picked, now we move forward to the general election, and I think we're going to be able to bring all those folks in as we move in to the general election.

Clearly, people are disgruntled with where George Bush has taken this country, and they know the stark differences between having a President McCain and a President Obama. And all the people who supported Hillary -- it was about health care, it was about fighting for our children and education, and it's going to be a stark difference as we head into the fall. So I'm very confident that the people will come in. It's going to take time, but you know what? Wolf, you know as well as I do, it was a 17-month primary campaign. It was very close. Hillary got 18 million votes. It's going to take some people some time, but in the end, we're all going to come together. We're Democrats; we want to take this country in a new direction. Senator Obama's pick today was Senator Biden -- was spectacular. He adds so much to the ticket, and I think it's a dynamite ticket.

From the August 24 broadcast of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

COKIE ROBERTS (ABC News political analyst): I think that a lot of -- the media loves this story because it sort of keeps the fight going. And the Republicans love this story. And the fact that they were actually putting out ads saying "Hillary didn't get it" is showing you how much it's working to -- they think it's working to their advantage.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Obama --

WILL: The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll shows that only half of the Hillary supporters say they're now supporting Obama, and one in five say they are supporting McCain.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what an opportunity for Barack Obama. I mean, look at this: He's coming into this convention -- in our poll shows that only three in 10 aren't for him. He's only getting 79 percent of Democrats. If he does one thing in this convention, if he unifies the Democratic Party, he will have -- I know David Axelrod doesn't want to say it -- he'll have a 12-point lead.

From the August 24 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: Why shouldn't Clinton supporters be angry?

GIBBS: Look, I think Clinton supporters are united in the thing that unites all the people in this convention. We need change; we can't have more of the same. I think it's a better question that's directed to the McCain campaign. They know that that ad is demonstrably false. They know that Hillary Clinton is supporting Barack Obama.

WALLACE: But wait a minute. He did-- she didn't get an interview. She didn't get consulted on the pick. She had 18 million supporters. A lot of them are still mad. You've got this Wall Street Journal poll that shows only 52 percent now support Obama --

GIBBS: Well, let's be honest --

WALLACE: I mean, I don't have to tell you, the party is not united.

GIBBS: Well, let's be honest, Chris. The Washington Post and ABC came out with a poll today that shows more than -- it shows 70 percent of Hillary Clinton voters supporting Barack Obama, the highest water mark since she suspended her campaign in June.

There's no question that people have -- people had strong feelings about their nominee. We had a race that was unparalleled virtually in this party. We went from beginning to end. We have the strongest party. We have the most enthusiastic voters. Look, I think the process that went on was a fair process that came up with as good a pick -- and the best pick that we could possibly have. I'm interested seeing how John McCain conducts this process.

Media outlets continue to report that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) was accused in 1987 of plagiarizing then-British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock without noting that while Biden did paraphrase from a Kinnock speech without attribution on at least two occasions in August 1987, he had reportedly credited Kinnock when previously using the same language.

For instance, in an August 24 article, Washington Post staff writer Anne E. Kornblut reported that Sen. Barack Obama's selection of Biden as his vice-presidential running mate "does not come without risks. Accusations that he plagiarized then-British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock helped sink his presidential campaign in 1987." On its August 24 op-ed page, the Post also published an assessment of Biden by Rutgers University professor David Greenberg in which Greenberg stated of the Kinnock incident, "Biden stole autobiographical material, in effect making false claims about his own life." Biden did not attribute portions of a Kinnock speech that he paraphrased during an August 23, 1987, Democratic presidential primary debate, and during an August 26, 1987, interview for the National Education Association. But the Post itself reported in a September 13, 1987, article that "Biden and reporters covering his campaign said that in speeches before and after that debate the senator has given Kinnock credit for the same passionate rhetoric, which he has used repeatedly in recent weeks." Specifically, the Post reported that "John Quinlan, a reporter for the Sioux City Journal, said his notes showed Biden said he was quoting Kinnock when he used the same passage in a speech Aug. 14. Stories in The [New York] Times, The Boston Globe and other newspapers also said Biden had used the rhetoric and credited Kinnock for it."

In addition to Kornblut's Post article, the following articles and editorial noted that Biden was accused of plagiarizing Kinnock without noting that Biden had credited him previously:

• An August 24 Dallas Morning News article compiled by John Riley from wire and Internet reports
• An August 24 Des Moines Register article by Thomas Beaumont
• An August 23 Chicago Tribune editorial
• An August 23 McClatchy Newspapers article by David Lightman and Margaret Talev
• An August 23 article on National Public Radio's website by correspondent Jennifer Ludden

By contrast, a separate August 24 Washington Post article by staff writers Eli Saslow and Amy Goldstein stated that "The New York Times reported that during a debate, Biden had plagiarized a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. Biden had used Kinnock's words in speeches before, always crediting him, but this time he didn't." Similarly, in an August 24 Chicago Tribune article, correspondents Mike Dorning and James Oliphant wrote that Biden's "campaign imploded after he quoted from a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock without crediting him, leading to charges of plagiarism (even though he had credited Kinnock in other speeches)."

As Media Matters for America has documented, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and the Associated Press also reported on the Kinnock allegations without noting that Biden had previously credited Kinnock, according to reports at the time.

During the August 23 edition of Fox News' Cavuto on Business, guest Jonathan Hoenig, a regular panelist on Fox News' Cashin' In and managing member of Capitalistpig Asset Management LLC, falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Joe Biden "have made it very clear that they support socialized health care." Hoenig went on to say: "I know it sounds kind of curt in this age of political correctness and altruism, but why should I be responsible for paying for Joe Biden's brain aneurysms?" Host Neil Cavuto responded, "All righty. I'll leave that alone." Biden suffered two brain aneurysms in 1988.

As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, Obama has not proposed a health-care system that is "socialized" or government-run; Obama has called for individuals to choose their own insurance.

Hoenig's assertion that Biden "support[s] socialized healthcare" is also false. During the Democratic primary, Biden proposed a health-care plan that allowed individuals a choice in the type of coverage they purchased. According to his Senate website, Biden supports "[a]llowing uninsured Americans the opportunity to purchase an insurance plan that mirrors the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP)," as well as "[e]xpanding the SCHIP [State Children's Health Insurance Program] program to allow more children to participate, and increasing outreach efforts to enroll every child eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid."

From the August 23 edition of Fox News' Cavuto on Business:

CAVUTO: Now, Jonathan, you're not calming down, right?

HOENIG: Neil, I'm not. In fact, both Joe Biden and Barack Obama have made it very clear that they support socialized health care. In fact, they think that health care is a right. And I think it shows a real ignorance as to what a right actually is. I mean, a right is right to action; it's not to a freebie from someone else. And I know it sounds kind of curt in this age of political correctness and altruism, but why should I be responsible for paying for Joe Biden's brain aneurysms?

MARC LAMONT HILL (Fox News contributor): Ouch.

CAVUTO: All righty. I'll leave that alone.

In an August 23 article on Sen. Barack Obama's selection of Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as his vice-presidential running mate, the Los Angeles Times reported that "when he ran for president in 1988, Biden was accused of plagiarism when he did not credit Neil Kinnock, then leader of the British Labor Party, for much of his stump speech." Similarly, in an August 23 article, The New York Times reported that Biden "was forced to quit the 1988 presidential race in the face of accusations that he had plagiarized part of a speech from Neil Kinnock," and in an August 23 article, the Associated Press reported that Biden's 1988 run for president "ended badly" after he "was caught lifting lines from a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock." But those articles did not note that while Biden did not attribute portions of a Kinnock speech he paraphrased during an August 23, 1987, Democratic presidential primary debate, and during an August 26, 1987, interview for the National Education Association, Biden reportedly had credited Kinnock. According to a September 13, 1987, Washington Post article, "Biden and reporters covering his campaign said that in speeches before and after that debate the senator has given Kinnock credit for the same passionate rhetoric, which he has used repeatedly in recent weeks." Specifically, the Post reported that "John Quinlan, a reporter for the Sioux City Journal, said his notes showed Biden said he was quoting Kinnock when he used the same passage in a speech Aug. 14. Stories in The [New York] Times, The Boston Globe and other newspapers also said Biden had used the rhetoric and credited Kinnock for it."

In contrast with the August 23 Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and AP articles, an August 23 Chicago Tribune article reported:

Twenty years ago, Biden was, in a sense, the Obama of his time, a young turk of a politician with a gift for soaring, transcendental rhetoric. But his first bid for the presidency imploded in 1988 when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock that described the candidate's working-class roots. Biden was forced from the race after the campaign of eventual nominee Michael Dukakis circulated a videotape with Biden failing to give credit to Kinnock for a speech he gave in Iowa.

Biden, however, had credited Kinnock with the remarks in his other speeches, leaving many of his supporters at the time -- and long after -- feeling like Biden was pushed from the stage unfairly.

From the September 13, 1987, Washington Post article, by staff writer Eleanor Randolph (retrieved from the Nexis news database):

Campaign aides to Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) reacted angrily yesterday to a report that a fellow Democratic contender for the presidential nomination had given at least one journalist a videotape suggesting that Biden plagiarized a campaign speech of British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

Biden himself said he wasn't angry, adding that his rivals may be "a little worried there's some movement" toward him in the race for the Democratic nomination.

The tape, which yesterday's Des Moines Register described as the first example of an "attack video" launched by a political rival, showed an excerpt of a widely discussed Kinnock commercial from last summer's British general election and then an excerpt from an Aug. 23 debate in Iowa in which Biden borrowed the British leader's words.

Biden did appear to drop his own family something of a notch downward on the economic and social scale to appear more like Kinnock. But Biden and reporters covering his campaign said that in speeches before and after that debate the senator has given Kinnock credit for the same passionate rhetoric, which he has used repeatedly in recent weeks -- and in a speech Friday night in Philadelphia.

"I've been using it all over," Biden said in a telephone interview. He acknowledged failing to credit Kinnock Aug. 23 but said many members of that Iowa audience had heard the same words, fully credited to the Briton, in other campaign appearances.

[...]

The Kinnock commercial, which was part of a Labor Party broadcast that many British viewers saw as an American-style advertisement, showed the Welshman saying at one point: "Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? ... Was it because our predecessors were thick? ... Was it because they were weak, those people who could work eight hours underground [as coal miners] and come up and play football, weak? ... It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand."

Biden, in the Aug. 23 debate said: "Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? ... Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I'm the first Biden in ... generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest? ... Was it that they didn't work hard, my ancestors who worked in the coal mines of Northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours? ... It's because they didn't have a platform upon which to stand."

Biden aides said yesterday that Biden began using the Kinnock rhetoric in August and had credited Kinnock on virtually every other occasion when he used it. John Quinlan, a reporter for the Sioux City Journal, said his notes showed Biden said he was quoting Kinnock when he used the same passage in a speech Aug. 14.

Stories in The Times, The Boston Globe and other newspapers also said Biden had used the rhetoric and credited Kinnock for it.

In reporting on abortion-rights opponents' criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's opposition as an Illinois state senator to bills seeking to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, the media have promoted numerous myths and falsehoods about Obama and the legislation. In several instances, the media have simply repeated false accusations -- or made the accusations themselves -- that Obama's opposition amounted to support for infanticide. For example, on the August 18 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Obama "believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said that Obama "wants the doctors ... chasing it through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed." Further, author Jerome Corsi claimed that "[e]ven if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion," and Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard wrote that Obama's opposition was "enabling infanticide." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, Obama and other opponents said the bill posed a threat to abortion rights and was unnecessary because, they said, Illinois law already prohibited the conduct supposedly addressed by the bill.

Other myths and falsehoods that the media have promoted include the following:

MYTH: IL attorney general's letter contradicts Obama's explanation for opposing the legislation

Media figures have misrepresented findings by the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and the office of Illinois' then-Attorney General Jim Ryan to claim that Obama's assertion that Illinois law already "mandate[d] lifesaving measures for premature babies" was false. But the attorney general's letter in no way undermines Obama's statement. Moreover, tasked by the state attorney general with investigating allegations that fetuses surviving abortions at an Illinois hospital were not receiving medical care, the IDPH reportedly said, consistent with Obama's statement, that had the allegations proved true, the alleged conduct would have been illegal.

In his book The Case Against Barack Obama, author David Freddoso writes that a July 2000 letter from Ryan's office refutes Obama's statement. The letter was a response to Concerned Women for America regarding a complaint by nurse Jill Stanek, who claimed that fetuses that were born alive at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, were abandoned without treatment, including in a soiled utility room. Under Ryan's letterhead, chief deputy attorney general Carole R. Doris wrote, in part:

On December 6, 1999, IDPH provided this office with its investigative report and advised us that IDPH's internal review did not indicate a violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or the Vital Records Act.

No other allegations or medical evidence to support any statutory violation (including the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act about which you inquired) were referred to our office by the Department for prosecution.

[...]

While we are deeply respectful of your serious concerns about the practices and methods of abortions at this hospital, we have concluded that there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital or its employees, agents or staff at this time.

From that letter, Freddoso concludes that the state found that "[i]n leaving born babies to die without treatment, Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois." But the state's conclusions regarding the law were reportedly the opposite of what Freddoso claims; IDPH reportedly concluded that if the hospital had done what Stanek alleged, its actions would have been illegal under existing law.

In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating, apparently in reference to Stanek and another nurse, Allison Baker: "[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. ... We took (the allegations) very seriously." Zorn wrote further: "Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, 'The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.' " From Zorn's 2004 blog post:

As you well know, Jill, the Illinois Atty. General's office, then under abortion foe Jim Ryan, was quite concerned about your allegations and directed the Illinois Dept. of Public Health to conduct a thorough investigation of the claims made by you and Allison Baker.

Why?

"Because what they were alleging were violations of existing law," IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer told me yesterday. "We took (the allegations) very seriously."

Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, "The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone."

Shafer was quick to add that neither he nor the IDPH report concluded that your testimony was untruthful or exaggerated to help advance your anti-abortion views -- simply that their investigation did not substantiate the allegations.

In other words, the IDPH's reported position supported Obama's explanation: Current law already "mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies." Freddoso writes of Obama's explanation: "This is not true. Such measures were not already the law in Illinois. Not according to the Department of Public Health. Not according to Attorney General Ryan" [emphasis in original]. But the letter does not, as Freddoso claims, assert that "[s]uch measures were not already the law in Illinois." Nor does the IDPH; indeed, Zorn quoted the IDPH spokesman saying that the actions alleged by Stanek would have violated the law at the time.

Myth: Jill Stanek is a credible source for media outlets to cite

In addition to Freddoso, several media outlets, including The New York Times, the Associated Press, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, The New York Sun and The Hill have quoted or cited criticism of Obama by Stanek over his opposition to bills to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 without citing relevant facts that undermine her credibility. These facts include her suggestion that domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions; her support of billboards in Tanzania that say "Faithful Condom Users" in English and Swahili and displays a large skeleton and aimed to discourage condom use there in favor of abstinence and "be[ing] faithful"; and her citation of a report that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China to which she added, "I think this stuff is happening." Media Matters has laid out several of these statements by Stanek.

MYTH: A 2003 bill Obama voted against in committee would have had same effect as 2002 federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which even abortion-rights advocates did not oppose

Media figures including Freddoso and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund have reported that the 2003 bill to amend the Illinois Abortion Law that Obama voted against was identical in its language to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (BAIPA), which Obama has said he would have supported. In reporting what they have characterized as an inconsistency in Obama's position, these media figures have advanced the false suggestion that the bills would have had the same effect. In fact, although both bills included language providing that the bills would not impinge on Roe v. Wade, Obama and abortion-rights advocates noted that Illinois law, unlike federal law at the time, includes statutory provisions specifically regulating abortion. Abortion-rights advocates said that in order for the Illinois bill to avoid restricting abortion rights in any way, it would also have to make explicit reference to Illinois law and make clear that it would not affect access to abortion under Illinois law.

In an August 15 Wall Street Journal column, Fund wrote that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) supported the federal BAIPA and later added: "But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it."

Similarly, in an August 13 National Review Online article, Freddoso wrote that "Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his [Obama's] position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born." He continued: "But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired."

But abortion-rights advocates in Illinois opposed the 2003 state bill because, they said, the language of the federal bill in Illinois would not sufficiently protect abortion rights in Illinois. Specifically, Planned Parenthood of Illinois has said:

Finally, perhaps the most significant difference between the federal and state versions of the legislation is the fact that the federal version applied to federal law while the state version applied to Illinois law. The federal legislation was considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act did not amend or change Illinois law. At the time, there were no federal laws regulating abortion in any way. Therefore, the federal law did not limit access to abortion services or threaten legal action against physicians. But, Illinois law does regulate abortion and medical practice. Therefore, it is the state legislation that would have affected abortion practice in Illinois, not federal law. While these differences between the federal and state legislation may appear to be just legal technicalities, when it came to medical care for pregnant women the actual impact would have been significant.

The group goes on to explain that that this affected the 2003 state legislation that Obama opposed:

On March 12, 2003 both bills [in a 2003 state package] were posted for consideration in the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee which was chaired by Senator Barack Obama. The bills' sponsor, Senator Rick Winkel first presented SB 1082. He requested that an amendment be adopted to the bill which would change it to mirror the federal legislation passed in 2002. The amendment was adopted in a procedural move called "leave for attendance roll call" which is a courtesy that is afforded to bill sponsors in order to move committee hearings along in a timely fashion. Despite the fact that the bill then contained the same language as the federal law, it remained problematic because it still amended Illinois statutes regulating abortion, and it still was part of a package that included SB 1083. Senator Winkel presented SB 1082 to the committee and it failed on a vote of six members voting no (including Senator Obama) and four members voting yes. Chairman Obama asked Senator Winkel if he wished to present SB 1083. He declined. Senator Winkel did not present the bill because, due to the failure of SB 1082, SB 1083 lacked a definition of a "live born" fetus and, thus, was structurally flawed. SB 1082 and SB 1083 were not considered again that session.

Planned Parenthood states of the 2005 "compromise" bill that included legislative language making clear that the bill did not affect state abortion or medical practice law: "The enactment of HB 984 did not negatively impact access to abortion services in Illinois and medical care for pregnant women remains protected."

From Fund's column:

It turns out that while in the Illinois legislature, he [Obama] voted against a bill that would have defined a fully born baby who survived an abortion as a "person." The concept isn't that controversial even among liberal Democrats. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, the Senate's leading pro-choice champion, urged her fellow Democrats to vote for a federal version of the same concept back in 2001, saying such a provision did not impinge on the rights enshrined in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. The Born Alive Infants bill eventually passed the U.S. Senate by 98 to 0.

But in the Illinois Senate, when Mr. Obama chaired the Health and Human Services Committee, records show a bill consisting of exactly the same language two years later was voted down by six to four. Mr. Obama was one of the legislators opposing it.

From Freddoso's article:

Obama would speak against the born-alive protection bill once again when it was proposed in 2002, and he would kill the bill when it came before the committee he chaired in 2003, after Democrats had taken control of the Illinois General Assembly. His is a radical position that most abortion-choice advocates do not share.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born.

But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired. Obama's work to kill the bill in 2003 has always been attested to by witnesses (committee records are poorly kept in Springfield), but yesterday the National Right to Life Committee found and revealed the document showing definitively that Obama had voted against it in committee -- against the exact same bill he is now falsely claiming on his own campaign website that he would have supported.

MYTH: Obama voted "present" on IL bill to avoid being the only senator to vote "no"

In The Obama Nation, Corsi falsely asserted that on March 30, 2001, Obama voted "present" on a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 that opponents said posed a threat to abortion rights because he didn't want to be the only state senator to vote against the bill. In fact, according to the transcript of the Senate's proceedings on the bill that day -- which Corsi himself cited -- the roll call for the vote was 34 voting aye, 6 voting no, and 12 voting present.

In The Obama Nation, Corsi wrote:

Not wanting to be the only Illinois state senator to vote against the bill, a move that Obama realized would be politically unpopular with his constituency, he took the easy way out and voted "Present." [Page 238]. [citing "State of Illinois, 92nd General Assembly, Regular Session, Senate Transcript, 20th Legislative Day, March 30, 2001, at http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf pp. 86-87"]

Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, has reportedly said that Obama's "present" votes on "born alive" bills were part of a legislative strategy.

MYTH: Obama argued that protections for "a nine-month old fetus" would essentially "forbid abortions from taking place"

In his book, Corsi also falsely claimed that during the debate on the March 30, 2001, bill, "Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place" [Page 238]. In fact, Obama was not describing a "nine-month-old fetus," but rather specifically referring to "a previable fetus," asserting that defining it as a "person" under the law would "essentially bar abortions."

Fox News' Sean Hannity uncritically echoed Corsi's false claim on the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show.

On the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Sean Hannity paraphrased a passage from Jerome Corsi's debunked and discredited book The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality (Threshold Editions, August 2008) that misrepresents a March 2001 speech Sen. Barack Obama gave in the Illinois state Senate opposing a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. In the passage, Corsi claims Obama said that if the bill passed, and "a nine-month-old fetus" that survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was defined as "a person who had a right to live," that it would essentially "forbid abortions to take place." But the book misstates Obama's argument; Obama was not referring to "a nine-month-old fetus"; he was specifically talking about a "previable fetus."

On August 15, Hannity paraphrased Corsi's claim, telling his guest, anti-abortion activist and WorldNetDaily columnist Jill Stanek, that Obama "said that if the bill passed and a nine-month-old fetus survived this late-term abortion and was deemed to be a person who had a right to live and a right to medical care that the law would forbid abortions to take place, which is just, you know, medically false." Here is the passage from Corsi's book that Hannity was paraphrasing:

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survive late-term labor-induced abortions. A transcript of the Illinois Senate Session has been archived on the Internet, complete with Obama's comments as he made them that day on the Senate floor. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." [p. 238]

But according to a transcript archived on the Illinois General Assembly website, Obama specifically addressed the status of "a previable fetus," not a "nine-month-old fetus":

"And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional." [Emphasis added]

From the August 15 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:

STANEK: And he brags on his website that he strategized with Planned Parenthood to vote present on the Senate floor, which was the same as a no vote, in order to lure Democrats who might have been squeamy about voting against a bill opposing infanticide and lure them to vote present so they would overcome the bill that way. He's -- it's on his website.

HANNITY: Well, Corsi actually chronicled in his book that a transcript of the Illinois Senate session had been archived on the Internet, complete with Obama's comments that he made that day on the Senate floor. And he was the only senator who rose to speak against this bill that would have protected these babies who, in fact, survive these late-term labor-induced abortions.

And he said that if the bill passed and a 9-month-old fetus survived this late-term abortion and was deemed to be a person who had a right to live and a right to medical care, that the law would forbid abortions to take place, which is just, you know, medically false.

STANEK: Yes, that's exactly what he said. I'm reading the testimony along with you. And he said on the Senate floor that he thought that this -- and this is a constitutional scholar, you know, by the way, that he calls himself. He said that he thought that this bill was going to be found unconstitutional. And he went on in 2002 to do the same thing, voted against it in committee. This time, he voted against it on the Senate floor, was the sole person to speak against it on the Senate floor again, ever.

On August 21 Politico senior writer Ben Smith and Time magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin uncritically reported Rush Limbaugh's baseless assertion that Sen. Barack Obama "got all kinds of sweetheart deals with [convicted Chicago businessman Antoin] Rezko." On the August 21 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said: "[H]e [Sen. John McCain] and his wife did not get a sweetheart deal from a fraud embezzler like Tony Rezko to buy their houses. But the Messiah did. The Messiah got all kinds of sweetheart deals with Rezko, and who knows who else." In fact, contrary to Limbaugh's claim that the Obamas got a "sweetheart deal" when buying their house, the sellers of the house reportedly said they did not cut their asking price because Rezko bought the adjacent lot.

As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, contrary to Limbaugh's claim that Obama got "a sweetheart deal" from Rezko on his house, according to Bloomberg News: "The couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid 'was the best offer' and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama's presidential campaign and the seller."

Smith and Halperin have both previously noted that report. In a February 18 entry on his blog, Smith linked to the Bloomberg article, writing: "The previous owners of Obama's house say there was no Rezko discount, and generally (via his campaign) exonerate him; though Rezko did tour the place with Obama." Similarly, Halperin also linked to the Bloomberg article in a February 19 Page entry titled "Chicago Seller: Obama Bought Home Without Rezko Discount," writing that the "[c]ouple who sold Obama his Illinois home said his $1.65 million bid 'was the best offer.' "

The Obamas subsequently bought a portion of Rezko's lot, but there is no evidence that they received a "sweetheart deal" on that purchase. According to documents posted on the Obama campaign website, Obama paid Rezko $104,166 for the piece of property in question -- above its appraised value of $40,500, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted. Obama told the Chicago Tribune in a March 14 interview how the price for the parcel of land was determined: "[T]he appraisal did note that the other parcel, Rezko's remaining parcel, would be fully developable if he sold this to me. And so rather than pay the appraised price, I paid one-sixth of the cost of his property. He agreed to sell that 10-foot strip."

From Smith's August 21 blog entry:

The RNC just blasted out a memo to that effect, and Rush Limbaugh is running with it:

This business about McCain not knowing how many houses he has. Folks, it turns out that Obama already knows. Obama's got an ad: He's got seven houses. They're worth $13 million. That wouldn't even pay for one of John Kerry's houses.

And the second thing I have to point out to you is that I don't care how many houses McCain has, he and his wife did not get a sweetheart deal from a fraud embezzler like Tony Rezko to buy their houses. But the Messiah did. The Messiah got all kind of sweetheart deals with Rezko, and who knows who else.

(Not sure the "$13 million ain't so much" bit is going to resonate, but expect to hear a lot more of the latter half.)

From Halperin's August 21 entry at The Page:

-Limbaugh: Takes out the brass knuckles on Thursday's show. Listen here.

McCain "and his wife did not get a sweetheart deal from a fraud embezzler like Tony Rezko to buy their houses. But the Messiah did."

On the July 21 edition of MSNBC's Verdict, while discussing Sen. Barack Obama's campaign ad "Seven," which noted McCain's reported inability to say in an interview how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own, MSNBC political analyst Joe Watkins claimed, "I thought that Barack Obama was not going to attack Senator McCain's wife." Watkins later stated, "This is John McCain's wife who owns the properties, and Barack Obama is attacking John McCain's wife." Additionally, in an August 21 blog post, The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder uncritically reported the McCain campaign's claim that "Obama's charges 'attack Cindy. She owns the homes. I thought he said the wives were off-limits.' " But Obama's ad neither mentions nor refers to Cindy McCain or the McCains as a couple.

Further, neither Watkins nor Ambinder noted that while Cindy McCain "owns the homes," Sen. McCain has reportedly used the family's Sedona vacation home for fundraising. In a March 6 blog post, Politico's Jonathan Martin reported, "John McCain will spend this weekend playing host at his Sedona vacation home to a handful of his top donors, according to a source familiar with the trip."

From the August 21 edition of MSNBC's Verdict:

ABRAMS: Let's turn now to what has become a major gaffe by John McCain today during an interview with Politico.com. McCain's stumbled over a simple question about how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.

[...]

ABRAMS: You're going to tell me that it is normal, that everyday Americans will just accept the fact that, you know, people don't know how many properties they own. It gets confusing, you lose track? Really?

WATKINS: No, I'm saying that somebody with a portfolio might, especially with his wife's portfolio, because, I mean, I thought that Barack Obama was not going to attack Senator McCain's wife. I mean, Senator McCain --

[crosstalk]

ROY SEKOFF (Huffington Post founding editor): But he couldn't even come close, Joe. I mean, he couldn't even come close. He had to consult his staff?

WATKINS: This is John McCain's wife who owns the properties -- this is John McCain's wife who owns the properties, and Barack Obama is attacking John McCain's wife. John McCain told people to lay off of Barack Obama's wife. I think that Barack Obama at the very least would do the same.

Coverage of candidates' ability to relate to voters ignores their policy positions

With Barack Obama and John McCain each trying portray the other as an out-of-touch, wealthy elitist, there's one thing missing from media coverage of the skirmish: an assessment of what the two candidates' policy positions say about how well they understand and care about the needs of average Americans.

The latest imbroglio was sparked by John McCain's admission on Wednesday that he does not know how many houses he owns. That statement came on the heels of McCain's initial refusal last weekend to define "rich," after which he indicated a yearly salary of $5 million is the threshold for being rich, a comment he then suggested was a joke. But McCain never did define the term, even though he has in the past based his opposition to tax cuts he now supports on the fact that they disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

The Obama campaign quickly responded with an ad pointing out that McCain didn't know how many homes he owns, and answering the question for the Arizona senator: seven homes worth a total of $13 million, according to the Obama campaign.

McCain's camp responded angrily, with spokesperson Brian Rogers defending McCain: "This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison" and saying Obama's house is "a frickin' mansion." Apparently forgetting that just a few days earlier, their candidate suggested that you aren't rich unless you make $5 million a year, McCain's campaign also mocked Obama for making $4 million last year.

Naturally, the news media rushed to cover the fight. Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post explained the importance:

In politics, there is nothing worse than appearing out of touch.

From time immemorial, a candidate who is effectively portrayed as forgetting about the "little" people, of having "gone Washington," of living higher on the hog than voters, loses.

Class remains a powerful motivator for many voters in the country. Politicians are forever trying to cast their candidacies as closely rooted in the communities from which they sprung -- a purposeful attempt to ensure that voters know that the candidate "understands the problems of people like you." Put simply: The worst thing you can call a politician is an elitist.

But in more than 1,000 words about the importance of candidates' convincing voters they are not "out of touch" and understand the problems of typical Americans, Cillizza made no mention of the candidates' policy positions. Didn't even hint that such things might indicate, in a more concrete way than the shoes they wear or the salad greens they favor, whether the candidates truly understand the problems of the people they would serve -- and whether they would do anything to ease those problems. Cillizza's focus was entirely on the perception and the politics of the dispute -- without so much as an acknowledgment that the candidates' policies might more meaningfully indicate whether one (or both) of them is "out of touch."

And Cillizza's approach carried the day. NBC's Nightly News, the CBS Evening News, ABC's World News, The New York Times, and The Washington Post -- among others -- ignored the candidates' policy positions in their reports on the flap. Instead, they focused on the campaign attacks -- and on attempting to assess which would be more effective. But assessments like these have absolutely no merit, no value. They serve no purpose; they do not educate viewers and readers about anything that matters. As Congressional Quarterly senior editor Chris Lehmann explained this week:

Market share dictates the witless coverage, which is largely for the media's own amusement. You see that all the time on the Sunday political chat shows, which are always about the polls and who is performing better in strategic terms. The only constituency that cares about that is the media. I have family around the country and we always talk politics, and no one ever asks me, "How did Obama perform on his European tour?" It's an asinine question.

Rather than attempting to guess how voters will score the exchange so they can tell the voters how they'll react (an exercise that is pointless at best), reporters should be giving them additional information that will help them meaningfully assess the candidates.

When John Edwards was running for president, and the media were obsessing about his wealth, they linked his fortune to his policy positions. Surely John McCain -- who can't remember how many houses he owns, "jokes" that you aren't rich unless you make $5 million a year, and supports tax policies that would save him and his wife, Cindy, nearly $400,000 a year -- should be held to the same standard?

Of course, John McCain is rarely held to the same standard the media apply to Democrats. But if basic fairness doesn't convince reporters to examine how the candidates' policy proposals relate to their wealth -- and to the voters they are trying to woo -- maybe this will: John McCain wants the media to link the candidates' wealth with their proposals.

McCain's campaign released a statement yesterday linking Obama's 2007 salary with his "plans to raise taxes." (Obama would, in fact, cut taxes on the vast majority of Americans, which didn't stop several journalists from reporting McCain's false attack as though it were true.) If media darling John McCain wants the media to consider the candidates' wealth in concert with their policy proposals ... well, few reporters have a track record of resisting McCain's desires. Why should they start now?

It's easy to get caught up in trying to count John McCain's houses or listing Barack Obama's preferred salad greens or trying to figure out whether there's a Whole Foods in Iowa or how much John and Cindy McCain spend on household staff. But reporters covering these who-is-the-real-elitist battles should keep in mind that for most voters, the candidates' bank accounts are less important than their own. The candidates' policy positions -- their tax plans, their proposals for dealing with the mortgage crisis, their health care plans, among others -- should be part of any news report purporting to assess the skirmish over which candidate is more in touch with the needs of the typical American.

***

Media Matters launched a new blog today. County Fair will feature progressive news links and media criticism from around the web, as well as commentary from Eric Boehlert and me.

Several media outlets, including The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, The Boston Globe, the Associated Press, and McClatchy Newspapers, have uncritically reported the false charge by Sen. John McCain's campaign that Sen. Barack Obama "just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii," which the McCain campaign made in response to an Obama ad highlighting McCain's reported inability to answer the question, "How many houses do you and Mrs. McCain have?" NBC News correspondent Lee Cowan simply omitted the false claim from his report without noting that the McCain campaign had made it.

In fact, according to a document put out by the Hawaii Department of Land and Resources, all beaches in Hawaii are public: "The public has a right of access to and along all beaches and shorelines in the State situated below the 'upper reaches of the wash of the waves.' "

During the August 21 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, Cowan included portions of the McCain campaign response, but edited out -- with no explanation -- McCain's falsehood about Obama vacationing on a "private beach in Hawaii." Cowan reported that a McCain spokesman said: "Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year and bought his $1 million mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses?" During Cowan's report, which also aired on MSNBC's Verdict with Dan Abrams, on-screen text displayed the McCain response with an ellipsis in place of the falsehood "just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii."

By contrast to these media outlets, an August 22 Los Angeles Times article reported McCain's charge, but added that "[h]e [Obama] and his family stayed at a friend's home last week in Hawaii, where beaches, in fact, are all public."

From the August 21 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:

COWAN: For Barack Obama today in Virginia, it was all too good to resist.

OBAMA [video clip]: If you don't know how many houses you have, then it's not surprising that you might think the economy was fundamentally strong. But if you're like me and you got one house, or you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don't lose their home, you might have a different perspective.

COWAN: His staff jumped into action, too, releasing a hurriedly produced TV entitled "Seven," criticizing McCain as an elitist.

NARRATOR [video clip of Obama campaign ad]: And here's one house American can't afford to let John McCain move into.

COWAN: A McCain spokesman shot back in a statement, saying, quote, "Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year and bought his $1 million mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses?"

In an August 22 Chicago Tribune article, correspondents John McCormick and Jill Zuckman uncritically and repeatedly quoted a "senior McCain adviser" attacking Sen. Barack Obama and asserted that the adviser "spoke on condition that he not be identified in order to discuss strategy." The article quoted the anonymous source stating: "The Barack Obama of hope and change and new politics is now running his campaign based on who owns the most houses. ... This is the venomous, nasty Barack Obama the country is seeing." But the authors gave no explanation of why they would agree to anonymity for a source who proceeded to attack and to foreshadow further attacks on the opposing candidate.

In a February 14 Chicago Tribune article (accessed via the Nexis database), reporters Jodi S. Cohen and Tara Malone wrote of the Tribune's policy on anonymous sourcing: "The Tribune 'discourages' the use of unnamed sources, according to the newspaper's stylebook, with exceptions made to protect the safety of a source or other extenuating circumstances." McCormick and Zuckman gave no indication that the grant of anonymity might be necessary "to protect the safety of a source," and they discussed no "other extenuating circumstances."

In a June 27 column, Chicago Tribune public editor Timothy J. McNulty wrote: "There are plenty of good reasons, of course, that reporters are willing to trade the truth in exchange for not naming the source of the information. Some sources may fear criticism; others face retaliation and even physical danger for speaking out. Anonymity is a shield to protect them." McCormick and Zuckman gave no indication that the source feared criticism or retaliation for talking to them about what the source reportedly said were the McCain campaign's planned attacks against Obama.

From the February 14 Tribune article:

U.S. newspapers have varying policies on anonymous sources.

The Tribune "discourages" the use of unnamed sources, according to the newspaper's stylebook, with exceptions made to protect the safety of a source or other extenuating circumstances.

"The Tribune will not print anonymously sourced material that adds only supplemental or trivial material to stories, such as a zippy but unattributed quote that might enliven a prosaic narrative but that also might lead the reader to wonder about the validity of the material," reads one part of the stylebook's discussion of the topic.

In the August 22 Tribune article, McCormick and Zuckman wrote:

A senior McCain adviser said the attack provides license to raise more questions about Obama and his relationships with Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., [Antoin "Tony"] Rezko and William Ayers, a former '60s radical. A new television ad about Obama and Rezko was to start running Thursday night.

"Rev. Wright is in the game, in bounds," the adviser said. "We will educate the American people about Barack's judgment through his association with Rev. Wright. It won't be this week. It won't be next week."

The source insisted Obama made a mistake in trying to question McCain's wealth. He spoke on condition that he not be identified in order to discuss strategy.

"The Barack Obama of hope and change and new politics is now running his campaign based on who owns the most houses," he said. "This is the venomous, nasty Barack Obama the country is seeing. They're looking at the polls and they're just panicking."

On the August 20 edition of CNN Newsroom, senior political analyst Bill Schneider asserted that "[t]here are some Jewish voters who still have questions about Barack Obama," and that Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) speaking role at the Republican National Convention "could be a way of drawing some Jewish voters over to the Republican ticket." But in speculating on the possible impact on Jewish voters of Lieberman's appearance at the RNC, Schneider did not note that a survey released in mid-July by the Democratic polling firm Gerstein Agne for the progressive group J Street, a self-described "pro-Israel, pro-peace" organization, found that 48 percent of Jews have a negative opinion of Lieberman, with 37 percent holding a favorable view. In contrast, the same survey found that 60 percent have a favorable view of Obama, while 34 percent view him unfavorably. According to a J Street press release (available through the organization's website), the findings were the result of a "survey of 800 self-identified adult American Jews, conducted June 29-July 3. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percent."

From the 11 a.m. ET hour of CNN Newsroom on August 20:

COLLINS: Yeah. And also, we just got a little bit of news about Joe Lieberman. People probably wondered which convention he'd actually be going to this year.

SCHNEIDER: Yeah. Well, he was on the ticket with Al Gore in 2000. He was the Democrats' nominee for vice president. And here, eight years later, he's going to give a speech at the Republican convention. That is certainly a very rare experience.

This could also be a play to get more Jewish voters. Lieberman is, of course, an orthodox Jewish senator, and this could be an appeal by McCain to get more Jewish support. There are some Jewish voters who still have questions about Barack Obama, wonder about how staunch an ally and supporter he is of Israel, even though he's said many, many times that he's fully in support of Israel.

But with Lieberman on the dais, on the podium, giving a speech at the Republican convention, that could be a way of drawing some Jewish voters over to the Republican ticket, and that could affect the race in some key states, like Florida and Pennsylvania.

COLLINS: Absolutely. All right, our Bill Schneider, standing by there in Denver. Thank you, Bill.

Reporting on an ad by the American Issues Project (AIP) attacking Sen. Barack Obama for his association with William Ayers, the Associated Press and The Washington Post quoted the group's spokesman in August 21 articles without mentioning that he was employed in 2004 by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that led a smear campaign against Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 election.

Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn wrote that the American Issues Project has a "past link to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign" and "wants to spend $2.8 million on an ad questioning Democrat Barack Obama's relationship to a founder of the 1960s radical group Weather Underground." The article then reported that one of AIP's board members, Ed Failor, is a former paid McCain campaign consultant. A Washington Post article about the ad that appeared in its campaign diary The Trail also reported that Failor did paid work for McCain in Iowa, collecting $50,000 through July 2007. Both articles quoted AIP spokesman Christian Pinkston making assurances that Failor was no longer connected to the McCain campaign. However, neither article mentioned that Pinkston is founder of a public relations firm that was employed in 2004 by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that ran a campaign of false and baseless smears against Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam War record in 2004, including a book co-written by discredited anti-Obama author Jerome Corsi.

By contrast, The New York Times and Los Angeles Times both reported in August 22 articles about the American Issues Project's ad that Pinkston was involved with the Swift Boat campaign. New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg, after reporting Failor's connection to the McCain campaign and quoting Pinkston saying, "This has nothing to do with McCain," wrote: "Mr. Pinkston's firm, the Pinkston Group, had worked for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that ran advertisements against Senator John Kerry when he ran for president in 2004." A Media Matters for America search through Swift Boat Veterans' expenditure disclosure forms on the Internal Revenue Service's website confirmed the Pinkston Group's employment.

In an August 22 Washington Post article, staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Robert Barnes uncritically reported the false suggestion in an ad by Sen. John McCain that Sen. Barack Obama wrote letters in support of a Chicago housing project proposed by Chicago businessman Antoin Rezko's company, New Kenwood LLC, "in return" for Rezko's "help[ing] him buy his million-dollar mansion." Weisman and Barnes wrote of the McCain campaign ad: "The spot raises Obama's relationship with Rezko, saying that 'one of Obama's biggest fundraisers helped him buy his million-dollar mansion,' and charges that in return 'Rezko got political favors.' " The McCain ad states that "from Obama, Rezko got political favors" while showing a headline from a June 13, 2007, Chicago Sun-Times article that stated "Obama's letters for Rezko." In fact, according to the Sun-Times article cited by McCain, Obama wrote the letters in 1998; however, he did not purchase his house until 2005.

Additionally, Weisman and Barnes did not note that, while the Sun-Times article reported that Obama "did a political favor" for Rezko by writing letters to state and local government officials in support of a Chicago housing project proposed by Rezko's company, the article also included statements from Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton and Rezko's attorney that challenge the article's assertion that Obama performed a "favor" for Rezko. The Sun-Times quoted Burton stating that "[t]his wasn't done as a favor for anyone" and "I don't know that anyone specifically asked him to write this letter nine years ago." The paper also quoted Rezko's attorney Joseph Duffy stating: "Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project."

From the Washington Post article:

That provoked a furious response by McCain campaign and Republican National Committee aides, who charged hypocrisy and argued that the senator from Illinois had received help purchasing his South Side Chicago mansion from businessman Tony Rezko, a convicted felon.

[...]

The senator from Arizona also quickly assembled a response ad, in which a narrator intones, "Barack Obama knows a lot about housing problems." The spot raises Obama's relationship with Rezko, saying that "one of Obama's biggest fundraisers helped him buy his million-dollar mansion," and charges that in return "Rezko got political favors."

The media debunk McCain smears, then promote them

One of the dominant themes in media coverage of the 2000 presidential campaign was that Al Gore was a liar. That theme was itself a lie; media outlets invented quotes Gore never said in order to accuse him of dishonesty, all while virtually ignoring actual lies from George W. Bush. Inaccurate and imbalanced as that media coverage was, it reflected at least one assumption that seems inarguably true: It is significant, and newsworthy, when a presidential candidate and his campaign repeatedly make false claims.

But it seems reporters throw that assumption out the window when the presidential candidate making the false claims is one the media have long praised for his "straight talk" and his opponent is one the media have begun accusing of being "arrogant" or "presumptuous."

Over the past few weeks, and especially the past week, numerous news organizations and other neutral observers have debunked a series of false claims made by John McCain and his campaign.

FactCheck.org, for example, has called one McCain attack ad "false," said another contains a "false" insinuation, described another as misleading, called another "ridiculous" and added, "That's absurd, and McCain knows it." FactCheck said the attacks in ye