A gaffe, strictly defined

Michael Kinsley once memorably defined a “gaffe” as what happens “when a politician tells the truth.”

Barack Obama has committed a gaffe, telling Jewish leaders in Cleveland:

This is where I get to be honest, and I hope I’m not out of school here. I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have a honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress. And frankly, some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is nonmilitary or non-belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition, that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward. And that, I think, is something we have to have an honest dialogue about.

Hillary Clinton definitely has an opening at tonight’s debate. And I’ve worked in my second Michael Kinsley reference in one day.

Rumors, and rumors of rumors

Michael Kinsley mocks the New York Times’ attempts to, uh, recontextualize its John McCain story:

What I wrote was that some people had expressed concern that the Times article might have created the appearance of charging that McCain had had an affair. My critics have charged that I was charging the Times with charging McCain with having had an affair. Such a charge would be unfair to the New York Times, since the Times article, if you read it carefully (very carefully), does not make any charge against McCain except that people in a meeting eight years ago had suggested that other people eight years ago might reach a conclusion — about which the Times expressed no view whatsoever — that McCain was having an affair.

Compare Kinsley to this actual excerpt from an online conversation with readers that Times executive editor Bill Keller and other editors and reporters conducted last Thursday:

The point of this “Long Run” installment was that, according to people who know him well, this man who prizes his honor above all things and who appreciates the importance of appearances also has a history of being sometimes careless about the appearance of impropriety, about his reputation. The story cites several examples, and quotes friends and admirers talking of this apparent contradiction in his character. That is why some members of his staff were so alarmed by the appearance of his relationship with Ms. Iseman. And that, it seemed (and still seems) to us, was something our readers would want to know about a man who aspires to be president.

The similarities are striking, no?

Goose-stepping into oblivion

Adam Bond has removed his post in which he says he just can’t help but be reminded of the Nazis whenever he thinks about opponents of the proposed Middleborough casino. Now I wish I’d quoted an excerpt when I alluded to it yesterday.

Oh, wait — Bellicose Bumpkin has it here. It’s nice to know that Bond’s brilliance lives on.

Josh Marshall 101

Noam Cohen profiles Josh Marshall in the New York Times following Marshall’s winning a Polk Award for his coverage of the U.S. attorneys scandal. Cohen kindly quotes me at some length.

As I noted last week in a blog post for my students, Marshall’s Talking Points Memo and related sites have pioneered a new kind of investigative reporting that combines the journalistic expertise of Marshall and his crew with the decentralized knowledge of their readers.

As citizen-journalism pioneer Dan Gillmor has memorably put it, “my readers know more than I do.” Marshall has figured out how to tap into that knowledge and make sense of it.

Hail, Tito

Red Sox fans will not get better news all year than this: Terry Francona will be here for the next three to five years. Bruce Allen wraps up the coverage.

There’s something “well, duh” about saying Francona is the best Sox manager in my lifetime. After all, he’s won two World Series, and everyone else had won none. As Francona is always quick to say, he’s benefited from a lot of great moves on the part of the people above him.

But Francona’s preparation and on-field managing skills are unparalleled. His handling of players is amazing, from his ability to keep Manny Ramírez productive year after year to having Jonathan Papelbon spring-training fresh going into the post-season last fall. He’s the anti-Belichick — I don’t think Francona loves the media, but as best as I can tell he is unfailingly polite and respectful in his dealings with other people. He’s just a good, decent human being, and that comes through every time he talks.

A couple of years ago, we were all worried that Francona’s health might not allow him to enjoy a lengthy managerial career. But he seemed to be healthier last year, and now he’s signed a long-term deal. May he continue to manage the Sox for years to come.

Photo (cc) by bunkosquad, and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Hoyt doesn’t buy it, either

New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt joins with the rest of the world in criticizing Times editors for passing along the concerns of anonymous former aides that John McCain was having sex with a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman during the 2000 presidential campaign.

Hoyt specifically disagrees with executive editor Bill Keller’s contention that sex wasn’t the point of the story, writing, “I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room.” And he closes with this:

I asked Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, if The Times could have done the story and left out the allegation about an affair. “That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed,” she said.

But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed.

Hoyt is absolutely right, of course. The question is why Times editors are being so obstinate. I wonder if the problem is that they know too much, and I don’t mean that in a good way. I imagine they have heard more about the sex allegations than they’ve been able to report, and thus feel more confident than they should about the story that appeared on Thursday. (I continue to think McCain’s sex life is no one’s business but his and his family’s, but that’s another matter.)

Still, we have to assume that if they had anything approaching proof, they’d let us know. And since they haven’t, the story remains an object lesson in how not to practice journalism.