- Image via Wikipedia
When I teach my critical thinking class I make use of the infamous “Rathergate” incident of 2004. As some will recall, Dan Rather presented the Killian documents which were highly critical of Bush’s military service. Unfortunately for Dan Rather, the documents seemed to be lacking in authenticity. So, rather than adding another major news story to his record, Rather became the story and thus sustained a career ending injury.
The point I make when discussing this incident is that people, most especially those who claim to be purveyors of facts, need to be careful in confirming claims before accepting them (let alone broadcasting them). I also note that being critical is especially important when the claims are very appealing.
Now, fast forward to 2010. After hearing a bit of chatter about Obama’s $200 million a day trip, I decided to follow the anti-Obama chatter beasts to their usual lairs: Fox News and other conservative pundits (the liberal chatter beasts generally make their home at MSNBC). A little investigation (well, clicking links) “revealed” that Obama’s trip involved naval vessels, three thousand people, helicopters and more. However, the truly impressive graphics and burning outrage failed to reveal the source of this figure.
A little more investigation (clicking more links) revealed that the source for this figure was identified as an anonymous government official in India. Some actual fact checking on the size of the entourage and the like cost of the trip revealed that while such state travel is expensive, it is not $200 million per day.
On one hand, I am pleased that this occurred: my 2004 example was getting a bit stale and it will be nice to have this fresh example on hand of how folks in the media can take an unverified source of information and run far with it. However, I doubt that anyone at Fox or any of the other pundits will suffer from their actions.
On the other hand, I am dismayed at this sort of thing. While the pundits can be expected to believe (or at least seem to believe) any claim that matches their agenda (or what their audience craves to hear), they should be more critical. This is especially true of Fox. They claim to be a news agency and this creates an obligation on their part: they need to at least take some minimal effort to check the facts before presenting a story. Naturally, the audience should also engage in some critical assessment, but Fox’s core audience seems to be no more critical than Fox itself-at least when it comes to what matches their belief system. In this case, such folks want to believe Obama is wasting their money and hence they accept such reports without even pausing to wonder about the veracity of such claims.
Interestingly, the facts seem to have little actual impact in such matters. Folks on the left and right seem to believe what they want to believe (that is, whatever matches their belief system) regardless of the actual truth of the matter. Such folks seem to feel more than assess and when they are critical it is generally only in regards to what they disagree with. The pundits and “news” feed and feed on these qualities, making America more irrational and polarized place.
MSNBC is, ironically, trying to fight Fox and the conservative pundits by being more like them. This is, of course, a bad idea. First, MSNBC is simply not up to matching its competition in this area (even with Olbermann back from his suspension). Second, the way to counter such “news” is by engaging in correct reporting techniques: that is, objective investigation and critical assessment. Unfortunately, there is probably not much in the way of ratings in such an approach.
Mike,
You take on Fox for not sourcing their story. But you don’t source your “bit of chatter”.
I knew last week from watching the Pentagon channel that Obama would not have 34 warships escort him to India, as some claimed. I watch Fox sometimes, too. I never felt like I didn’t know the truth and I didn’t hear anyone going on about it.
I think you’re taking things too far about people taking things too far.
Well, the chatter reference was just saying that I heard/read/saw some stuff about the matter. I then go on to say that Fox News, Rush and so on had presented the story. Also, that such claims were made seems to be rather well established and hence the need to cite specific sources and provide links to prove that such things were said seems to be minimal or even lacking. Are you implying that I just made up the assertion that pundits claimed the trip would cost $200 million a day or that I am somehow relying on unsupported, anonymous sources to make an assertion that is questionable?
So how much per day is the trip costing?
Lots. While it is almost certainly not $200 million a day, such trips are pricey. It is reasonable to ask if the game is worth the candle in such cases. That is, could the money be better spent to get better results? Or is it a good investment that will have a profitable return?
So you don’t know how much the trip will cost?
Lots. Politicians are expensive beasts.
NEW DELHI: The White House will, of course, stay in Washington but the heart of the famous building will move to India when President Barack Obama lands in Mumbai on Saturday.
Communications set-up, nuclear button, a fleet of limousines and majority of the White House staff will be in India accompanying the President on this three-day visit that will cover Mumbai and Delhi.
He will also be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast during his two-day stay there beginning Saturday. The measure has been taken as Mumbai attack in 2008 took place from the sea.
Arrangements have been put in place for emergency evacuation, if needed.
Obama is expected to fly by a helicopter — Marine One — from the city airport to the Indian Navy’s helibase INS Shikra at Colaba in south Mumbai.
From there, he will drive down in Lincoln Continental — the Presidential limousine — to the nearby the Taj Hotel.
Two jets, armed with advanced communication and security systems, and a fleet of over 40 cars will be part of Obama’s convoy.
Around 800 rooms have been booked for the President and his entourage in Taj Hotel and Hyatt.
The President will have a security ring of American elite Secret Service, which are tasked to guard the President, along with National Security Guards (NSG) and personnel from central paramilitary forces and local police in Mumbai and Delhi.
Similar arrangements will be in place in Delhi, with the Air Force One to be kept in all readiness throughout Obama’s stay here from Sunday afternoon to Tuesday morning.
Maurya Hotel, where the President will stay, has already been swarmed by American security personnel and protective measures have been put in place.
Security drills are already been carried out at the hotel as well as Rajghat which he will visit.
Read more: 34 US warships to guard Obama in India – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6871415.cms?prtpage=1#ixzz14shcnvuZ
We really should eliminate security for this president and reinstate it for the one elected in 2012
Why?
To balance the budget, silly
Amusing that you would compare this little story screw up, which I presume Fox News has retracted by now, with CBS’s rather pit-bull tactics regarding the outright faking, i.e. lying, contained in the Killian documents. Something that Dan Rather took a looooong time addressing, even after the lie was exposed quite dramatically by Charles Johnson. A lie that put words in the mouth of a dead man. And in spite of the obviously partisan move by CBS to alert the Kerry campaign about the story ahead of going public with it.
And all this less than two months before the election.
Even now, CBS has only stated that they had failed to authenticate them, not that there was a considerably high probability that they were fake. And Rather and Mary Mapes still stand by the story after all these years. To put these two stories on the same plane is laughable.
Excellent riposte.
When you say Fox News retracted are you talking about their entire channel or just their news segment because they are not as intertwined as people think. For instance, I asked the original poster how much the trip costs and I have not heard an answer, real life can keep us busy, and since I haven’t seen a response yet I went snooping on my own. Low and behold I found the best estimate where else?….on the Fox News channel lol. Last night, 11/09, Bill O’Reilly said he rejected the 200 million as unrealistic right away and then had some investigating done. He found out from his research/researchers that the trip probably costs approximately 5 million per day. We still really don’t know though as the administration will not release the costs. Imagine that, somewhere on Fox News I found the total being vetted. Isn’t that ironic Mike?
My point is that professional news agencies need to verify such sources properly. I made no attempt to claim that Fox was as bad as CBS in this specific case.
“Now, fast forward to 2010….” “…On one hand, I am pleased that this occurred: my 2004 example was getting a bit stale and it will be nice to have this fresh example”
By juxtaposing these two stories and stating that you, just now, have a fresh example? What, nothing for six years until now? To claim that you “made no attempt” to say one is as bad as the other is quite misleading. You made an attempt, just a weasely one. If you truly need some fresh examples, kernunos’ link above provides enough to keep your lectures fresh. I could provide a few of my own from the Orlando Sentinel, if you would like. Though they’re not quite as fresh, if that is so important. Well, they are fresher than say, Socrates…
I should have clarified that the example is in the textbook. This incident just happened to coincide with me teaching that section. As such, I must confess that examples slip my mind when I am not thinking about the specific chapter. Hence, I lazily rely on the text (a 2009 edition).
That is quite an inference into my true intentions. I thought I was merely using a timely example in class and you have somehow found my secret motives (secret even from me), presumably to do something nefarious.
Not vetting seems far different than fabricating which is what happened in the Dan Rather instance. Here are more examples of fabrication.
http://mediamythbusters.com/index.php?title=Fabrications/Lying
Speking of which, I think CBS/ABC/NBC/MSNBC/CNN/New York Times….etc are guilty of the biggest ‘non vetting’ sham in history. That would be the current president and their coverage of him before and after the election.
My favorite of those is the Stephen Glass affair. I was a subscriber to TNR at the time and read several of his stories and thought they couldn’t be for real. The one that did me in was his story on attending some super-secret Republican meeting where all sorts of cliche, lefty-perspective anyway, BS was going on. And well read, intelligent (supposedly), elitist snobs fell for it hook, line, and sinker. It was only when he finally went waaaay over the edge with his twenty-something programmer story that they finally caught on. These were supposed to be sophisticated people he was duping. I cancelled my subscription. It wasn’t until years later that I heard about him getting caught. Shortly before they made the movie.
Faux News is more like what CNN, CBS, etc. put out. Fox News is just a crappy news channel with different slant.
My favorite is the exploding pickup gas tank hoax. It wouldn’t explode for them so they set charges for the filming. Ah, the end justifies the means for so many of these people.
Making stuff up in the news is something I also address in class. That is ethically worse than a failure to confirm a source.
Sure. But my point was not about who was worse or who was better. Even if CBS was super bad, this does not entail that my point about Fox’s failure is incorrect.
Truly the best thing the administration could do is be transparent as Obama claimed he would be with ushering in a new era and end all of the hoopla that surrounds this story. No matter what it costs this attention is just giving focus to the fact that it will cost the tax payer something and probably quite a bit. The questions start coming up in the area of “….can we really even afford the trip at all?”, “….what is he really doing there in the first place?”…etc. Mystery and not being staright forward and transparent like he promised and we remember him doing is beating him about the head and shoulders badly. His ‘transparency’ will end up being his ‘….no new taxes/ read my lips’. The longer this keeps going the worse it is for him. Sort of like the Ground Zero Mosque.
No matter how expensive this trip is, we are spending buckets of money in Pakistan right now. Pakistan is a key player in our “war on terror”, and has suffered lots of civilian casualties.
And so now, we snub Pakistan by visiting their arch enemy India.
Our concern with a few dollars, and total disregard of snubbing an ally, says a lot about our country.
Pakistan is an interesting sort of “ally”: one who provides considerable support and assistance to our enemies. It is worth considering whether Pakistan is actually worth keeping as an ally, or whether we would be better off improving our connections with India even at the expense of annoying the Pakistanis.
So where is the link to Fox news misreporting the $200 M/day? Is this it?
http://www.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&external=553154.proteus.fma&pageNum=-1
India Preparing for Epic Obama Entourage
Nov 04, 2010 8:35 PM EDT
A foreign force this size probably hasn’t been in India since the era of British colonization.
But with a security entourage the size of a modest army supposedly buffering President Obama on his visit Friday, the Indian government is welcoming its long-awaited guest for three days of talks aimed at strengthening ties and trade between the world’s two largest democracies.
The logistical details of the trip are mind-boggling and if not for an historic midterm election surely would have dominated the headlines over the past week. With the president and his staff making a point to stay at the Mumbai hotel ravaged by terrorists in 2008, the security arrangements have become the stuff of legend before Air Force One even takes off.
The details on the trip, extensively reported in the Indian media but disputed by U.S. officials, read like lyrics for a hawkish version of “The 12 Days of Christmas.”
The president will be accompanied by 40 aircraft, 3,000 people, a fleet of cars and 34 warships, according to a string of blow-by-blow news updates. The Press Trust of India quoted an official in the state of Maharashtra pegging the cost at $200 million a day.
Obama’s said to have booked the entire Taj Mahal Palace hotel and, according to The Wall Street Journal, Mumbai officials have ordered coconuts plucked from palm trees outside a memorial the president is scheduled to visit to ensure there are no bumps on the noggin. In Delhi, the president’s second stop, monkeys have been the subject of a municipal crackdown.
The Obama administration has pushed back on the some of the more sensational claims about the trip.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor shot down the $200 million-a-day figure — to put the outrageous sum in context, that’s 5 million times Rachael Ray’s recommended $40 a day.
“The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality. Due to security concerns, we are unable to outline details associated with security procedures and costs, but it’s safe to say these numbers are wildly inflated,” Vietor said.
Asked about the report that 34 warships will patrol the Mumbai coast, a military official told Fox News the claim was inaccurate. The official knew of no such plans and said, besides, a carrier strike group typically has 10-12 ships at most.
Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, stressed at a briefing last week that the precautions are all rooted in security concerns.
“We take our guidance from the Secret Service and our security personnel as to what precautions are necessary to ensure that the president has a safe visit,” he said when asked about the booking of the entire Taj hotel. “That decision … is not made by us. It’s made by the professionals who know what the requirements are. So we follow their guidance.”
The Taj hotel was the scene of the final standoff between Indian commandos and terrorists who rampaged across the country’s largest city during the 2008 attacks. That attack was staged by sea.
But Rhodes sought to quiet any suggestion that the administration is not confident in India’s own preparations for the president’s visit.
“I would underscore we think that India is a strong and safe and resilient country that is, with effective counterterrorism,” he said. “But again, with respect to our security requirements, we’re just guided by the Service.”
Indian security officials are planning extensive measures to ensure the security of the president’s entourage. The Times of India reported that Delhi police will send out 2,000 officers and personnel to secure the president’s travel routes.
Obama heads to Delhi, India’s capital, after participating in a business summit, a town hall with university students and other events in Mumbai. In Delhi, he is expected to dine with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife, formally meet with the prime minister and other officials and eventually deliver an address to the Indian parliament.
India is just the first stop on a multi-leg Asian tour through Indonesia, Japan and South Korea. The president is leaving just after his party suffered historic losses in Congress, in an election that saw the Republicans take control of the House and pick up at least six seats in the Senate.
In advance of his visit, the president released a statement Thursday marking the Indian holiday of Diwali.
“This holiday reminds us all that we should commit ourselves to helping those in need. For many, this is also a time to gather with family and to pray. To those celebrating Diwali in India, I look forward to visiting you over the next few days,” Obama said.
Yes, could you please give a link to your original source Dr. L’?