House of Eratosthenes

The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., saying he sees some in the his party favoring a 2016 presidential candidate with an immigration policy that would “round up people . . . and send them back to Mexico.” That quote was in the transcript of “Fox News Sunday” that was distributed after Paul’s interview on the show. A subsequent Associated Press review of an audio recording of the show determined that the transcript had dropped the word “don’t” from that quote, and Paul actually said, “They don’t want somebody who wants to round people up, put them in camps and send them back to Mexico.”

Hat tip to National Review, by way of Instapundit.

Thing I Know #415. No practical or effective thinking can proceed from a fundamental confusion of a thing with its opposite.

Yeah, but it was fake but accurate! I’m sure Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert — apparently our Media Integrity Czars — will correct this gross misstatement made by the Associated Press.
- Severian | 02/19/2013 @ 11:10
Yes, they quoted Fox News concerning a Fox News interview. They then discovered the error and corrected it. So?
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 10:19
Blame Fox, huh.

Is that going to go on as long as Blame-Bush? A decade or more?
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 10:25
mkfreeberg: Blame Fox, huh.

It was their mistake. A.P. corrected the reporting. That’s what they’re supposed to do.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 10:33
Actually, Fox included flawed wording in a transcript, which they fixed almost immediately. The decision to run with it and put it in a headline, without checking anything, was AP’s, and fifteen hours later it remains uncorrected on some of their services.

So it seems AP’s reliance on Fox is rather heavy here. How then can we regard Fox as a flawed news organization not to be trusted, and at the same time the AP does not share in these flaws and therefore should be better trusted, even as AP relies so heavily on Fox, to the point of allowing the resulting errors to go uncorrected for so long?

The point to the story is that logically, the error is quite severe, given how lightly AP seems to be taking it. You can’t get much worse than equating “A” with “Not A.”
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 10:40
Are your eyes so blinded by hate you cannot see the fraud that was committed? This was not an error, a missing word or a typo. This was fraud, committed because they knew that many more people would see the lie then the retraction, an art mastered by the New York Times. Pathetic. You cannot even give us an example of a Fox “misstatement”, and yet you have no problem with deliberate fraud so long as you get the fig leaf of a “Oops, never mind……”.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/20/2013 @ 10:44
Actually its very simple, Robert.

Fox is flawed. AP is not because they fix their glaring errors, just like CBS has a bloodletting session about “fake but accurate” documents — when & if they get caught.

AP relies on Fox. Fox can’t be trusted but AP can.

You need an ultra-flexible, almost peanut-butter-consistency logic to get this all to work. Well, break it out, and that’s what you use. Smooth or crunchy, either works fine.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 10:48
mkfreeberg: How then can we regard Fox as a flawed news organization not to be trusted, and at the same time the AP does not share in these flaws and therefore should be better trusted, even as AP relies so heavily on Fox, to the point of allowing the resulting errors to go uncorrected for so long?

They’re all flawed. The key is to correct the error.

Robert Mitchell Jr: Are your eyes so blinded by hate you cannot see the fraud that was committed?

Then the fraud was on the part of Fox News, which provided the transcript.

mkfreeberg: AP relies on Fox. Fox can’t be trusted but AP can.

Generally, you would expect Fox News to at least be able to provide a reliable transcript for their own interview. But mistakes happen. It was a typo, which they corrected.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 10:58
The key is to correct the error.

No. The key is your weird logic:

AP is reliable, because they eventually correct their errors when they feel like it. And get caught at it.

Fox is not reliable.

AP relies on Fox.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 11:05
mkfreeberg: AP relies on Fox.

That was obviously a mistake, wasn’t it?
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 11:17
mkfreeberg: AP relies on Fox.

Z: That was obviously a mistake, wasn’t it?

You’d have to answer that yourself. It’s your defense of AP.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 11:40
mkfreeberg: You’d have to answer that yourself.

So you can’t answer even a simple question.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 11:46
It is a simple answer. As the AP has gained a well earned reputation of hit jobs and dishonest reporting, like the rest of the MSM, they are finding it harder to “get the news”. So they are having to piggy back on Fox news. Because Fox, with it’s reputation for accuracy and honesty, is known for doing actual reporting. “You may not believe me when I say the Wolf is Coming, but the town Priest saw it this time! Don’t you believe him? (Please don’t check, please don’t check…..). The AP has to rely on Fox because there’s no point to a smear if no one believes it, and who’s going to believe any “reporting” from the AP in this day and age?
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/20/2013 @ 11:58
Robert Mitchell Jr: Because Fox, with it’s reputation for accuracy and honesty, is known for doing actual reporting.

Tee hee!
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 12:04
So you can’t answer even a simple question.

Not here I can’t. You’re asking if it’s a mistake, and if it is then you’re the ones who made the mistake. I can only go by what I see.

But what I see, for the reasons given, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 12:08
mkfreeberg: Not here I can’t.

“Can any of your neighbors tell, Kate? I’ll ask them.”

mkfreeberg: I can only go by what I see.

What we see is that a Fox News transcript of a Fox News interview had a typo. AP used the faulty transcript. Both organizations corrected the error. So?
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 12:31
Right. Zachriel logic:

Fox is not to be trusted (“tee hee!”).

AP can be trusted (“so?”).

AP relies on Fox (“Fox News transcript…had a typo…AP used the faulty transcript…so?”).

This brings to mind the conversation under Memo For File #164:

Given the choice between a sound knowledge base of verifiable & verified factual information, and the ability to think logically, I would choose the latter.

If I have a good understanding of how to figure out what a fact means, but my head is crammed chock full of silly “factoids” that aren’t really true even though they may be repeated by others verbatim, I should be able to ultimately determine some of these conflict irreconcilably with others. From there, I should be able to figure out which ones are suspect and, eventually, which ones should be questioned, and then reconsidered.

If I have a good solid repository of verified fact, but I don’t know how to figure out what these facts are really telling me, I might as well have nothing.

You’ve proven the wisdom of my little doctrine, there. Thanks, I’ll stick with the logical techniques I have already.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 12:36
mkfreeberg: AP relies on Fox

Was that a mistake?
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 12:41
mkfreeberg: AP relies on Fox
Z: Was that a mistake?

In this case, it wasn’t a mistake. It was a gleeful “GOTCHA” in the making. “Lookit what this eeeeevul guy said on that eeeeeevul Faux News ZOMG look everyone!!!eleven!!” If the transcript had been accurate from the beginning, AP would have ignored it.

I can deduce this from a simple timeline: Fox corrected their error almost immediately; AP waited a good long while and then said, “Oooops, their bad.” If they were that dedicated to accuracy, AP would never have run the error – they would have seen the transcript and done one of two things, maybe even both of them: 1. called to verify, 2. watched the original interview at that point . They would have then learned that the transcript omitted a key word. But then, they would have no reinforcement of the conclusion they already have – namely, “Fox News is eeeeeeevul,” so they didn’t bother.

Anyone else here want to take a stab at why you approve of the “conclusion is more important than the facts” approach, or is it patently obvious by now?
- nightfly | 02/20/2013 @ 12:55
nightfly: In this case, it wasn’t a mistake.

They had to retract their story. Can’t see how relying on the Fox News transcript wasn’t a mistake.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 13:09
nightfly: AP waited a good long while and then said, “Oooops, their bad.”

How long did it take? Days? Weeks?
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 13:10
They weren’t relying on the Fox transcript. They found a typo which they were able to use to slur Republicans and ran with it, and issued a quiet retraction after the lie was national news. Perhaps if you could give us and example of them to that to a Democrat, we might take them at their word. As it is, it’s real obvious they are playing Eddie Haskell. It is fun to watch you argue this point, insofar as you were the one passionately claiming that Fox was not a reputable news source, and that they had a big problem with “uncorrected misstatements”. You have shown that the new sources you do trust rely on Fox, and that Fox corrects their typos quick quickly. And this is the best you can do……..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/20/2013 @ 16:24
“Perhaps if you could give us an example of them doing that to a Democrat”. Sigh.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/20/2013 @ 16:25
For what it’s worth…
The Union Leader, New Hampshire’s de facto state paper, by default,
announced it would no longer be using Associated Press “sources” or service in their reportage.

They graciously declined to expound on exactly why, but I suspect it had nothing to do with the fee for the “service”. This was about six months (ish) ago after simular bits of AP “errata” consistantly “erred”, “unexpectedly” (systematically?) reflecting ONLY a Conservitive Derangement Syndrome.

While The Union Leader is center-right in it’s editorials, printed letters to the editorreflect ample (too much IMHO) center-to-scripted “progressive” Socialist/Facist balance of NH readers.
- CaptDMO | 02/20/2013 @ 16:44
You know, Z, I explained completely and succinctly how AP went about this. Like I said, they didn’t make a mistake – they saw something that furthered their conclusion and never bothered to check it. If they had only seen the correct transcript, they would never have reported anything at all, because “Republican has sensible immigration position” doesn’t tingle the legs of AP copy editors. They decided not to fact check it, because it might have spoiled their fun. So this is not Fox News’ mistake. That begins and ends with forgetting the word in the transcript. AP’s mistake wasn’t “relying” on Fox News, it was in willfully neglecting their duty to factual reporting, and then their further willful sloth in issuing the correction.

For emphasis: AP ran the story because they could make their chosen enemies look bad. No other reason. It didn’t matter to them if it happened to be inaccurate. In fact, they were all the more quick to run the story because they could use as cover “Well they transcribed it wrong whooops.” Well, they could have double-checked, and didn’t. That brings us to the point everyone else is making – if Fox is so “unreliable,” why did a “reputable” news source not double-check them? Nope, took it as gospel.

As it happens, I majored in journalism back in college… doing what the AP would have gotten me a resounding F on any assignment. By all means, keep on gleefully ignoring this. The journalism is settled!
- nightfly | 02/20/2013 @ 19:15
Robert Mitchell Jr: They weren’t relying on the Fox transcript.

Of course they were relying on the transcript. And then they retracted the story.

nightfly: Like I said, they didn’t make a mistake – they saw something that furthered their conclusion and never bothered to check it.

Of course they made a mistake. They relied on a rush transcript rather than checking the original source.

nightfly: So this is not Fox News’ mistake.

Of course Fox News made a mistake. Duh.
- Zachriel | 02/21/2013 @ 04:07
Yes, Zachriel, they did, once they had gotten the lie out. The primary source was public, but checking to see that this “news worthy” quote was accurate was just too hard I guess. Funny how careful the Press was when it came to the John Edwards Adultery story. “They couldn’t talk about it because they only had one source” is what you said, right? So what was A.P.’s second source? Funny how the Press only follows your rules when it might make Democrats look bad. You are, of course, encouraged to give examples of them showing such control when it comes to Republicans……….. (good luck with that!).
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/21/2013 @ 10:24
nightfly: So this is not Fox News’ mistake.
Of course Fox News made a mistake. Duh.

Ah. Now I see the problem.

“This” does not refer to the transcript. “This” refers to the AP rushing to promulgate that error, without bothering to fact-check it, because they were afraid that their story would go away. THIS – AP’s willful negligence – is not Fox’s error. And this carelessness with double-checking facts is in fact worse than a simple error, because it inverts the whole reason for being a reporter: to convey accurate and factual information. They didn’t do it ON PURPOSE because they were afraid that they wouldn’t have anything at all to say. Information as a contaminant, FTW.

But that was painfully clear. And you folks in the Collective make a great deal of noise about all your brains and the degrees that go with them, so I’m afraid I can’t give you the benefit of the doubt here. You’re doing the same thing the AP did – willfull misunderstanding to score a cheap debater’s point. Kind of makes the bunch of you a passel of liars.
- nightfly | 02/21/2013 @ 11:21
Robert Mitchell Jr: Yes, Zachriel, they did, once they had gotten the lie out.

Too late. It was already put out by Fox News.

nightfly “This” refers to the AP rushing to promulgate that error, without bothering to fact-check it

They relied on a Fox News transcript of a Fox News interview. They should have checked the original video.

nightfly THIS – AP’s willful negligence – is not Fox’s error.

AP was negligent to trust without verifying the Fox News transcript. Fox News’s error was the faulty transcript. They were both negligent, but both corrected the error. That’s what they’re supposed to do.
- Zachriel | 02/21/2013 @ 12:29
Try again Zachriel. They put out, in your best case scenario, a accurate news story, followed by a transcript with a typo. If Fox had headlined this, you would have something. The only possible liar here is the A.P., which saw something they (Not Fox at any point in this process) thought was newsworthy enough to headline, but not important enough to actually do their job, and check the event in question. And you still haven’t dealt with your “One source is not enough” standard……..
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/21/2013 @ 13:01
Robert Mitchell Jr: And you still haven’t dealt with your “One source is not enough” standard……..

Of course we did.

Zachriel: AP was negligent to trust without verifying the Fox News transcript.

“If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
- Zachriel | 02/21/2013 @ 13:07
Ah, you have no proof that A.P. was negligent. Sad that you can’t be bothered to “check it out”. That is a possibility. And a poor one, unless you can show us an example of such an error by the A.P. that hurt a Leftist. Another one is that the A.P. is biased against Republicans. Another is that the A.P. committed a deliberate fraud. That you go with choice one for the A.P., when they caused actual harm (Please. I still hear that Mrs. Palin is the one who said, “I can see Russia from my House!”) and choice three for Fox news, when you can not show an example of them causing such harm, shows how well the propaganda you favor has trained you.
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 02/21/2013 @ 13:53
Robert Mitchell Jr: Ah, you have no proof that A.P. was negligent.

There’s no proof that they acted nefariously either, but negligence is the most parsimonious explanation. It was a Fox News interview and a Fox News transcript.
- Zachriel | 02/21/2013 @ 13:57

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Rand Paul Was MisquotedTuesday, February 19th, 2013

Rand Paul Was Misquoted
Tuesday, February 19th, 2013