Even accepting the NY Post as accurate, which is a major concession, it only gave one example of a factual error, and it was very minor. And the WaPo DID note the error when it changed it.
“Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story reported that White “has long been bothered” by the Lauber incident. White later clarified in a subsequent interview that he has been disturbed by the incident since he learned of it several weeks ago from a former classmate, before being contacted.”
The other “errors” the NY Post notes, and claims are worse, are not errors at all. One is that the victim’s sister objects to his depiction in the article, and the other is that one of Romney’s old pals apparently doesn’t think that the incident disqualifies Romney from being President. Both people are entitled to their opinions, but that has nothing to do with the facts of the incident.
Oh? And why should I believe anything the NePo says?
Seriously? The “WaPo”? Although I guess it’s nice for people to give us a heads up. It’s like people who spell America with a K - as soon as you see that, you know you can safely ignore everything else that person is saying.
I thought he meant the New York Post, which was covering the Washington Post’s “errors.” And I agree there is nothing partisan about the WaPo abbreviation.
That would be harder than it looks (see below). But it wouldn’t be that hard: There’s a pretty straightforward campaign playbook for this sort of thing. Give the story to a relatively friendly reporter, match it with an interview casting it as youthful errors and a subsequent reckoning/remorse/growth experience, etc. Set aside whether this is an accurate portrayal in this case. If that story would have come out, matched with an interview with Romney explaining how he was a bit of a bully as a kid but then learned the error of his ways, I doubt very much that story would get a lot of traction outside of folks really determined to dislike the guy. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/05/question_of_the_day_12.php?ref=fpblg
So why didn’t something like this happen? Why does Romney deny remembering the time he had his crew pin an underclassman to the ground while he attacked him with sheers? Bullying was quite common at the time: but chopping at a guys hair was a little more unusual, if not unheard of.
I think there are a number of reasons. One is Romney’s sense of entitlement. This is a guy whose been running for President for close to a decade, yet chooses to release only 2 years of tax returns. That breaks with a longstanding Presidential tradition. I guess he figures it won’t matter. Similarly in this case: he just doesn’t think his high school brutality is a huge deal.
And it wouldn’t be, if he just manned up about it and showed some contrition. IMHO. This is bad ethics, bad politics and just bad for the country. Part of the Presidential description is Communicator in Chief. The boys-will-be-boys schtick isn’t helpful in 2012.
Also, Romney may be deficient in empathy. I honestly can’t evaluate this, but we shouldn’t rule out this possibility.
But the big complication is his career at Bain. Romney’s restructuring left thousands of men and women out of work: it’s not an exaggeration to say that his team ruined lives. And the dirty little secret of the era -which I trust Romney knows- is that much of the efforts of the VC groups didn’t involve a lot of diligent reworking of the production process, nor were they limited to companies in trouble. A lot of the deals involved reneging on implicit contracts with workers and suppliers, loading the company up with debt, cashing in on the firm’s reputation by lowering product quality and selling the shell to another sucker. Implosion would occur during the next recession. There’s a great deal of money to be made at such a game, but there’s not a lot of value added. He also funded good ideas of course, but it’s fair to wonder how many of them would have found funding anyway. A detailed, fair minded look at Bain’s legacy would be interesting.
Anyway, if Romney apologizes to one of his childhood vics, that would empower those who lost jobs to express their outrage. Now there are ways of dealing with that: there are answers that could have been prepped years ago. But remember the tax return example. It appears that Romney hasn’t really done all his homework, surprisingly. So apologizing for one of his transgressions might contain greater hazards than it first appears. And heck, it seems that a lot of guys were made miserable by Romney’s high school antics. It’s hard to single out his worst victim for special treatment.
Perhaps I’m wrong. But it seems whenever I see the Washington Post being called WaPo, it’s some blog that’s trying to downplay some story that they reported. Sort of like a blog talking about Faux News.
Here’s the top hits that came up on Google for “wapo”.
For comparison, here are the hits that come up when you search for “Washington Post” (in both cases I eliminated hits from the Washington Post itself).
Now out of the ten WaPo hits, all ten were negative and were questioning the paper’s credibility. Out of the ten Washington Post hits, six were neutral, one was positive, two were mixed, and one was negative and critical. So there does seem to be a connection between calling the paper WaPo and questioning its credibility.
Just to clarify my comment, I don’t have a high opinion of the Washington Post or the Huffington Post, but I use WaPo and HuffPo simply as an abbreviation, not as a pejorative.
Why would you do that, unless you’re cherry-picking data? IMO a reasonable person would acknowledge that the very existence of hits from the Washington Post show that you are wrong.
And just by the way, your original goalposts were not that the articles are negative from a source using “WaPo,” but that the source can be dismissed out of hand.
Actually I was trying to avoid cherry picking the evidence. The majority of hits from the Washington Post used the name Washington Post not WaPo. And not surprisingly, the majority of hits from the Washington Post were positive on the subject of the Washington Post. So including Washington Post hits would have skewed the results towards the positive.
I was trying to conduct a neutral survey so I took links made by people who weren’t connected with the Washington Post. And I divided them into two groups: one group used the term WaPo and the other group used the term Washington Post. And I took the first ten hits from both groups.
I posted what I found. The group that used WaPo was significantly more negative than the group that used Washington Post.
I thought that part was clear. It’s not that people can’t report negative things about the Washington Post. My position was that people who report on the Washington Post using an inherently negative term are displaying bias to a degree that their opinions are suspect.
To make an analogy (which I’m becoming increasingly reluctant to do) if you were reading an article about same sex marriage and the writer used the word fags, you can assume that the writer was anti-gay to the point where he wasn’t able to be objective on the subject. A person who’d use the word fags is almost certainly going to be negative about same sex marriage regardless of what the reality is.
Well, I think the Washington Post is a fine newspaper and don’t really have a problem with it, and I’m more likely than not to refer to it as WaPo. I think dismissing posts from people who abbreviate that way out-of-hand is misguided on your part.
I believe I first read the Washington Post referred to as WAPO at Talkingpointsmemo.com, a liberal website. I have sense adopted that term. NYT and WSJ are standard abbreviations.
Americans love abbreviations, to the occasional consternation of the brits.
PS: Interesting pattern by Nemo. I had not noticed it though. Don’t know what to make of it.
This is how I feel. If it was totally unlike him, he’d know he didn’t do it. If it only happened once, it’d be memorable. So either he’s lying about forgetting, or he did this sort of thing so often that he genuinely can’t remember whether or not this one particular kid was one of his victims.
I’d absolutely be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he’s changed in the intervening years, but his non-apology demonstrates he clearly hasn’t changed enough to feel bad about it.
I’d like to hear either “Yes, I remember doing it, it was wrong, and I’m sorry”, or “I don’t remember doing it, but I did things like that, they were wrong and I’m sorry”, or even “I would never on my worst day have done anything remotely like that, and these accusations are a vicious lie.” But to say:
(bolding mine) With no acknowledgement that it’s even wrong or that anyone should be hurt or offended (plus minimizing it by calling it a prank)… These are not the words of a man who even takes bullying seriously as a problem, much less who has come to regret his own acts of bullying.
