# Was Maureen Dowd's Comment Correct, Spin, Innocent Error, or Flat-Out Lie? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2003, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273 "2003-05-14T20:32:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/121 "2003-05-20T21:23:31Z")
Errata: “italics removed by you” -\> “text in italics removed by you” heh. ---
**Author:** ![SpartanDC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b2d939/32.png) [@SpartanDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpartanDC)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/122 "2003-05-20T23:06:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > \*\*One expects opinion columnists to play spin games. What’s Bush’s excuse? \*\* He’s a politician. I expect _far_ more spin out of them than I do opinion columnists. Remember, it’s only spin if you’re trying to pass it off as fact. Since Dowd’s column is on a page with the word “OPINION” in big letters up top, one can assume she is not trying to do this, or that at least people will know right away to take whatever she says with a grain of salt, as they should with any opinion columnist. (And any politician regardless of party, but I’m afraid not everyone is that smart.) ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/123 "2003-05-20T23:39:57Z")
**SNenc** : _“Remember, it’s only spin if you’re trying to pass it off as fact.”_ Says who? _"Since Dowd’s column is on a page with the word “OPINION” in big letters up top, one can assume she is not trying to do this, or that at least people will know right away to take whatever she says with a grain of salt, as they should with any opinion columnist.’_ Let me get this straight–when we read op-eds in the New York Times we should assume that they are non-factual? That what is asserted as fact may be true or may just be fabricated? That’s just a little too much salt for me, nor does fit my impression fo the typical NYT column–and I read them almost everyday. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2003, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/124 "2003-05-21T13:52:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RandySpears \* > \*\*That’s a whole lot of text Shodan. Still i can’t seem to find the place where you adress the fact that when you quoted me, you edited out two paragraphs of text. Without indicating you had done so. > > That’s what you did, right? While you at the same time seem to claim that you find such behaviour dishonest? Are you gonna say something about that or just leave us hanging? > …So what happened to those two paragraphs? Did they just disappear through magic? > \*\* No, what happened was that I clicked on the “quote” button to respond to your post. When you do that, the parts that you actually wrote yourself come thru, but the part that you cut and pasted from the link you provided did not. I then cut and pasted the examples you provided, because it was important to show that all the examples referred to instances of triads creating rhythmic eloquence. Bush’s speech does not have this structure, as your analysis alleged. In other words, I included the **quoted examples** because I was referring to the **quoted examples**. Which is why I said “ **quoted examples** ” when referring to the **quoted examples** , after cutting and pasting the **quoted examples** , so that the board could see the **quoted examples** I included when analysing the **quoted examples**. I am sure the topic of how to quote posts to which you are responding is covered in the “About This Message Board” forum. Have a look there if you are still having trouble understanding the quote function. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RandySpears \* > \*\* > Would you rather see we talk about something else? \*\* No, we can talk about that, if it will help. I have my doubts that it will, as most of my previous dissection of your analysis seems to have gone over your head, but the cut-and-pasted paragraphs that do not come thru the “quote” function don’t support your argument either. > [@](#): > > \*Originally cut and pasted by **RandySpears** - > > One of the most frequently used techniques throughout the history of eloquence is the rule of three, sometimes referred to as the triad. As a means of communicating rhythmically, memorably, and persuasively, the rule of three is one of the most valuable tools available to trial lawyers. This is true because the conscious mind is able to best deal with three items in terms of reception, retention and recall. > > The idea is to communicate in threes in any unit of language: words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, or the development of the entire argument. A rule for advocates is to try to convey three major messages to your jury in such manner that the messages can be remembered. Instead of trying to cover every minor point and persuade on every minor issue, we develop themes which are repeated throughout the trial. You may wish to develop three themes which you will try and convey to the jury or one theme with three messages within the theme. From the viewpoint of trial lawyers the rule of three can be used for everything from effective use of three words through effective persuasion on three themes. > \* > Consider the following well-known examples in which the triad achieves rhythmic eloquence: Note the last sentence, which I addressed earlier. No triads achieving rhythmic eloquence in Bush’s speech, therefore none of the examples you cut and pasted apply to that speech. Unfortunately for your analysis, the structure of a triad as otherwise described in your cut-and-paste does not apply to the Bush speech either. It does to Dowd’s misquotation: ## quote: ## Busy chasing off Saddam, the president and vice president had told us that Al Qaeda was spent. “Al Qaeda is on the run,” President Bush said last week. “That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated. . . . They’re not a problem anymore.” Sure enough, three sentences there. You could call that a triad. The problem being, as was pointed out in **december** ’s OP, this is a misquotation of the Bush speech. Dowd left parts out, to distort the President’s meaning. I thought you had grasped that concept. The actual quote is as follows: ## quote: ## Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they’re not a problem anymore. Your cut-and-paste defines a triad as follows: > [@](#): > > "The idea is to communicate in threes in any unit of language: words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, or the development of the entire argument. So, in what “unit of language” does the original, un-misquoted speech form a triad? In words? Nope, there are 44 words in the passage. Phrases? No, I count at least five. Clauses? Five or six. Sentences? Four. Paragraphs? Just one. Entire arguments? Nope, only one. As I mentioned earlier, this rhetorical structure is that of first stating the conclusion, and then giving the evidence that underlies the conclusion. Sort of like this: > [@](#): > > **RandySpears** ’s analysis of the Bush speech is completely wrong. None of his quoted examples match the case. Counting up the elements a half-dozen different ways still never finds any groups of three - in any case, he is mistaken. He gets upset because he doesn’t understand how the ‘quote’ function works, and wastes his time on red herrings instead of concentrating on the analysis. And he shows no evidence of actually addressing the points that refute him. See the structure? Now I am sure that Maureen Dowd could cut up practically any post in this thread to make it into a triad, and to substantially alter the meaning. But that is just the problem. I really think this particular horse deserves a decent burial. Dowd misquoted the President to make him say something that he did not. Spin to justify that spin winds up making the lefties sound dizzy. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2003, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/125 "2003-05-21T15:21:15Z")
> [@](#): > > _Shodan_ > No, what happened was that I clicked on the “quote” button to respond to your post. When you do that, the parts that you actually wrote yourself come thru, but the part that you cut and pasted from the link you provided did not. So? The Straight Dopes technical aids for quoting are not idiot-proof. Your responsibility to make correct quotes still remain. Your defence is actually the equivalent of Dowd saying “Only some parts of what the guy said was interesting so I just wrote those parts. Sure, I could have indicated that in the text, but why bother?” > [@](#): > > I then cut and pasted the examples you provided, because it was important to show that all the examples referred to instances of triads creating rhythmic eloquence. Actual consequence: You edited out parts in the middle of the quote but left stuff you felt was needed to make a point in your argument. The parts that were left out, you felt were “less important”. You did not indicate that you had left them out. > [@](#): > > In other words, I included the quoted examples because I was referring to the quoted examples. Which is why I said “quoted examples” when referring to the quoted examples, after cutting and pasting the quoted examples, so that the board could see the quoted examples I included when analysing the quoted examples. And you are free to do so. **If** you properly indicate that you have indeed left out part of the original text. By the use of “…” or “[…]” or “\”. What you are **not** allowed to do is just remove stuff at will without telling people that you have done so. The parts you removed were in the middle of the passage you quoted. And the reason why you should have indicated your editing is that anyone who read your post had no way of knowing from reading it that what I had originally posted (“cut and pasted” to use your terminology) were **not only** those examples, **but also** the preceding description of “the rule of three”. That is why we have rules for proper quoting my friend. > [@](#): > > I am sure the topic of how to quote posts to which you are responding is covered in the “About This Message Board” forum. Have a look there if you are still having trouble understanding the quote function. Utterly irrelevant. These are not rules of proper quoting in the SDMD; these are rules for proper quoting **at all times**. To conclude this: Your way of quoting me were formally incorrect. In an academic or journalistic context it would count as a far worse distortion than Dowds quoting of Bush or the selective quoting of Chirac. You were “breaking the law” so to speak while the others were only “bending” it, to suit their respective purposes, granted. Now given that you are actually trying to defend, and explain away your behaviour, what does that make you, given your assertion that Dowd’s quoting techniques are dishonest? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/126 "2003-05-23T02:43:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Now given that you are actually trying to defend, and explain away your behaviour, what does that make you, given your assertion that Dowd’s quoting techniques are dishonest? Logically consistent. I quoted all the parts of your post that were relevent to your argument, and refuted them. I included all the parts on which I was commenting, in order to show that what you said was horseshit. I even included the parts that did not come thru the quote function, because I was demonstrating that they were incorrect and did not demonstrate what you claimed to be happening. Then you complained that I didn’t include the part of your post that you cut and pasted from another website. I did include the link, as well as all the parts I was commenting on. I did not leave out any of your logic, I did not change your meaning in any way - I just demonstrated that your post was (and remains) wrong. But you complained that I did not include the part you cut and pasted. So I included that, and refuted it just as soundly as the rest of your nonsensical pseudo-intellectual foolishness. Now you are clinging to your silly self-righteous whining about how the quote functions on the SDMB without addressing the fact that none of your arguments can hold water. You haven’t a logical leg to stand on. I did not change the meaning of anything you have quoted. I included every relevant part of every one of your arguments. There were no distortions, no deletions of antecedent references, no deception of any sort. You got your ass handed to you analytically, and you are whining about non-existent offenses because you haven’t got anything else to complain about. Pathetic. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/127 "2003-05-23T07:37:24Z")
Spinsanity is a site that analyzes media manipulative rhetoric. Although the writers are liberals, they criticize both sides. In this column, they point out that [Dowd’s misrepresentation has been repeated by a number of others](http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030522.html). > [@](#): > > An outrageous new falsehood is circulating about President Bush. Last week, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd misrepresented a Bush statement to imply that he said the Al Qaeda terrorist network is “not a problem anymore,” and the distorted quotation has since been repeated by MSNBC “Buchanan and Press” co-host Bill Press, CNN’s Miles O’Brien and others, including numerous foreign press outlets. At a time when the New York Times is under fire for its conduct in the Jayson Blair scandal, Dowd’s creation of an exploding media myth is cause for serious concern… > > Bush was obviously saying that the Al Qaeda operatives who “are either jailed or dead” are “not a problem anymore,” not that Al Qaeda itself is “not a problem.”… > > Critics have every right to object to Bush’s statement if they believe it mischaracterizes the threat from Al Qaeda. But they also have a responsibility to accurately represent what the President actually said, rather than repeating Dowd’s distorted quotation. The New York Times - and the other outlets that have disseminated the myth - should let their readers know the full context of Bush’s statement. The rapid spread of this myth is yet another sad commentary on the state of American political journalism. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/128 "2003-05-23T08:00:48Z")
Recap. So, Bush said Al-Qaeda is on the run, and are being slowly and surely decimated and added a sentence, which if interpreted in good faith, implies that the top half of Al-Qaeda operatives are not a problem. Dowd adds ellipsis to interpret it as Bush claiming that Al-Qaeda is not a problem anymore. Case 1: Dowd deliberately wanted to spin Case 2: Dowd interpreted the “in either case” differently. The sentence construction wasn’t 100% clear. Well… let us assume the worst case scenario (Case 1). Not a good thing to do. Weakens her reputation but seriously, given the scale of lies, deception and nonsense spouted in the media, this is supposed to be egregious enough to be a freaking ISSUE?!? Anyone feels otherwise? In either case (ha!), it was CRYSTAL CLEAR that Bush was implying that Al-Qaeda is a terribly weakened organization. Those who use Dowd’s statement (as per december’s citation above) only want to criticize Bush for implying something, which in the wake of current developments looks apparently wrong. Any objections to this criticism? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/129 "2003-05-23T11:42:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > Well… let us assume the worst case scenario (Dowd deliberately wanted to spin). Not a good thing to do. Weakens her reputation but seriously, given the scale of lies, deception and nonsense spouted in the media, this is supposed to be egregious enough to be a freaking ISSUE?!? Anyone feels otherwise? From a political POV I agree that this is small potatoes. Bush was making an upbeat comment. The important issue is whether we win or lose the war on terror, not the precise degree of enthusiasm in the leader’s pep talk. OTOH from journalistic POV, it is a major no-no to change the meaning of a quote by selective omissions. Such a practice would have been unthinkable in the New York Times of 50 years ago. It fits into a pattern with the Jayson Blair scandal as well as other manipulative rhetoric in the Times (listed at the end of the Spinsanity article). It shows how the Times has deteriorated. It’s a big deal that this was done by a regular columnist for America’s leading newspaper, and that the Times has chosen not to make a correction. The Times sets the standard for the rest of the media. If this practice is OK for the Times, it must be OK in general. **litost’s** casual acceptance of this practice, along with several other posters, shows that our standards of integrity have gone down. One would like to see the Times elevate our standards, not pull them down farther. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/130 "2003-05-23T12:21:54Z")
_One would like to see the Times elevate our standards, not pull them down farther._ To be sure, **december** , but one would also like to see you applying the same skepticism and rigor towards the bloggers and conservative publications whose info and opinions you depend on as you do towards the Times. Your rhetoric suggests that you want the Times to _lead_ the standards. Your practice, however, shows that, in actuality, you want to hold them to a _unique_ standard while giving just about everyone else a free pass. Why don’t you devote about two weeks out of every month to following-up on bias over Fox News, the WSJ op-ed page, the National Review and so forth ;). Perhaps then you’ll be in a better position to offer judgments on what exactly has and hasn’t deterioriated in journalism. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/131 "2003-05-23T13:22:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > \*\*Why don’t you devote about two weeks out of every month to following-up on bias over Fox News, the WSJ op-ed page, the National Review and so forth 😉 \*\* I have followed your advice [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=185832). ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/132 "2003-05-23T15:35:55Z")
\*\* december\*\*: _"I have followed your advice_" Ah, a reformed **decmeber** … 🙂 In no time at all we’ll be changing your name to **May** ;). Well, to return the favor, sorta, [here](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030602&s=alterman) is an Alterman column on a related theme that you’ll probably enjoy; but, to be fair, you might want to read [this one](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030519&s=alterman) too. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/133 "2003-05-23T15:40:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > Ah, a reformed **decmeber** … 🙂 In no time at all we’ll be changing your name to **May** ;). Alterman deserves congratulations for his honorable defence of an ideological enemy. Change my name to **May**? Nah. Too permissive for a conservative. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2003, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/134 "2003-05-23T16:45:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **litost’s** casual acceptance of this practice, along with several other posters, shows that our standards of integrity have gone down. One would like to see the Times elevate our standards, not pull them down farther. I didn’t casually _accept_ the practice. I said that, in comparison to the degree with which lies and deception and nonsense are spouted in the media on a daily basis on every freaking issue, I thought this was not egregious. In other words, if you were genuinely concerned about the issue of spin, you would have chosen other examples, not this particular one. And, what **Mandelstam** said. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/135 "2003-05-28T13:48:16Z")
Maureen Dowd managed to include the entire, unelided Bush quote in her [column today](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/28/opinion/28DOWD.html). So, in a sense, she has corrected her error. However, she didn’t admit that her original elided version of Bush’s quote was misleading or or even point out the problem. Readers of the this thread and certain web sites know why she included this full quote, but most readers oh her column will not. Her non-specific correction won’t lead others in the media who relied on her original column to make corrections in their columns. This is a cowardly, half-hearted attempt at integrity. BTW note that the new column supports the prior one by implicitly misusing the word “decimated.” > [@](#): > > But Al Qaeda, it became horrifyingly clear a week later in Riyadh, was not decimated; it was sufficiently undecimated to murder 34 people, injure 200 and scare the daylights out of Americans everywhere. Of course, “decimate” does not mean “fully destroy”. It actually means \*1. To destroy or kill a large part of (a group). 2a.To inflict great destruction or damage on: The fawns decimated my rose bushes. 2b. To reduce markedly in amount: a profligate heir who decimated his trust fund. 3. To select by lot and kill one in every ten of. \* Bush’s word was precisely accurate; Dowd wasn’t willing to admit that she made a mistake. And, the _Times_ was willing to let her get away with a non-admission. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/136 "2003-05-28T15:07:18Z")
BTW the Daily News today ran a column criticizing Dowd’s column. [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas\_opinions/story/87255p-79552c.html](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/87255p-79552c.html) > [@](#): > > …New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis says the paper is “looking into” the column. > > If Dowd intentionally misrepresented the President’s words, she is guilty of a journalistic offense much worse than Bragg’s intern problem, or even Blair’s fantasies. > > Blair is a kid, after all, who made things up for fun and profit. Dowd is a major figure at The Times, a role model. A syndicated role model… ---
**Author:** ![SnoopyFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d07c76/32.png) [@SnoopyFan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnoopyFan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/137 "2003-05-28T16:07:25Z")
Just weighing in with my vote here … **OTOH, in the complete quote, it seems clear that Bush was referring not to all of al Qaeda but to those who are "either jailed or dead."** This is what I, personally, got out of his statement. Never heard of this O’Dowd lady so I don’t know if she’s the type of reporter that is just incompetent or out to twist words. Either way, since when do you expect the media to get anything right?! ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2003, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/138 "2003-05-29T01:43:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RandySpears \* > **To conclude this: Your way of quoting me were formally incorrect. In an academic or journalistic context it would count as a far worse distortion than Dowds quoting of Bush or the selective quoting of Chirac.** This is extremely weak. As Shodan has already suggested, please point out how his method of quoting you misrepresented your viewpoint, how it took something out of context to imply a false meaning, how it was anything other than an inadvertent use of the quote button. Sorry, dude, you lost this one unless you can do better than this. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/139 "2003-05-30T01:53:36Z")
[The _Lufkin (Texas) Daily News_ has higher standards than the _New York Times_](http://www.lufkindailynews.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2003/05/29/1054239236.03033.5074.1841.html). > [@](#): > > Until she explains to our satisfaction her own ethical transgression — an apparently deliberate distortion of a comment by President Bush — you will not find the work of Times columnist Maureen Dowd on this page… > > The storm clouds have now moved over Dowd, also a Pulitzer Prize winner whose work has appeared here and other newspapers across the country — and coincidentally, like me, a graduate of The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. A Times spokeswoman said the newspaper is “looking into” a column, which we did not publish, in which Dowd apparently twisted to fit her point of view Bush’s assessment of the danger posed by al-Qaida terrorists just days before a terror attack in Saudi Arabia. > > Dowd, it seems, may have taken the title of her column — “Liberties” — way too far… > > Dowd quietly “corrected” herself by including the full quote in a subsequent column that appeared in The Lufkin Daily News on Thursday. > > That’s not good enough, and until Dowd, and her newspaper, fully account for her infraction, her column will not appear on this page… > > …Here in Lufkin, at least one reader thinks she has dragged The Lufkin Daily News into the muck with her, noting that we frequently publish her work…Hopefully, our decision to suspend Dowd from these pages will help restore our credibility with the caller and other readers. Because of the _Times’s_ arrogance, I find this a delicious comeuppance. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/140 "2003-05-30T05:30:05Z")
Considering that Dowd’s columns are usually all style and no substance, and are mainly there to tickle your funny bone, I don’t think much of the discrepancy one way or the other. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273.md?page=8)