« An "Attack" On The Church | Main | Still Snags In Michigan »

Kristol Fails To Check His Sources, And So Bungles Key Fact In Anti-Obama Column

17 Mar 2008 07:11 am

Bill Kristol's New York Times column about Barack Obama this morning contains a major, prejudicial error.

Paragraph five:


But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That’s when Wright blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.

The error is in trusting the source without checking.

The truth is that Obama did not attend church on July 22.

He was on his way to campaign in Miami.

(Here is some video evidence.) This was before he signed an agreement forbidding himself from campaigning in Florida.

Here is the original, false, Newsmax story:
Obama Attended Hate America Sermon.

One of his correspondents allegedly attended a service last summer where Rev. Wright preached on the "United States of White America." Kessler writes that Obama "nodded" his head while Wright preached along these lines:


Addressing the Iraq war, Wright thundered, “Young African-American men” were “dying for nothing.” The “illegal war,” he shouted, was “based on Bush’s lies” and is being “fought for oil money.”

Now, a simple Google search suggests that Obama spent most of the day in Miami. But a simple e-mail or telephone call to Obama's campaign might have cleared things up.

Comments (171)

In many ways Rev. Wright is correct. America is racially divided and black people seem to be taking the worst of what the US has to offer. Do the research and look at the statistics. Our prisons, our failing schoools, our military, poverty, hate speach, hate crimes. You do the math.

We are suffering from prejudice born from slavery and still 150 years after liberation we are fighting about race. Sure blacks are upset. Sure the situation calls for people who are oppressed to try to find solutions.

Does this mean that Barack Obama has these beliefs that inter-city blacks have. I don't think he does. He doesn't have the background. A Harvard education, A white mother, a desire to bring America together so we can all live as Americans instead of as Blacks, Whites, Asians, Jews. We can make a difference. The road will be frought with perill both personal and social.

Their are those who want to keep the status quo. Who benefits; businesses like McDonalds, Wallmart and other low paying oppressive companies who pay employees below poverty wages. Defense contractors who want us to always be at war. Oil companies who want to stop green energy and green technologies of any kind.

People, think about where you want the US to be. I want us to be our very best going forward in a positive way. The peanut gallery will always be biting at our ankles trying to turn us on our heads but we must not lose sight of the future we want. "Yes we can" bring this future into reality.

In many ways Rev. Wright is correct. America is racially divided and black people seem to be taking the worst of what the US has to offer. Do the research and look at the statistics. Our prisons, our failing schoools, our military, poverty, hate speach, hate crimes. You do the math.

We are suffering from prejudice born from slavery and still 150 years after liberation we are fighting about race. Sure blacks are upset. Sure the situation calls for people who are oppressed to try to find solutions.

Does this mean that Barack Obama has these beliefs that inter-city blacks have. I don't think he does. He doesn't have the background. A Harvard education, A white mother, a desire to bring America together so we can all live as Americans instead of as Blacks, Whites, Asians, Jews. We can make a difference. The road will be frought with perill both personal and social.

Their are those who want to keep the status quo. Who benefits; businesses like McDonalds, Wallmart and other low paying oppressive companies who pay employees below poverty wages. Defense contractors who want us to always be at war. Oil companies who want to stop green energy and green technologies of any kind.

People, think about where you want the US to be. I want us to be our very best going forward in a positive way. The peanut gallery will always be biting at our ankles trying to turn us on our heads but we must not lose sight of the future we want. "Yes we can" bring this future into reality.

What? You mean, Bill Kristol, that Serious, Respected conservative "journalist", said something untrue? After all those times he has been correct about Iraq?
Seriously, will nothing get this hack fired?

Ouch. Well caught. Don't they have fact-checkers at the NYT? The whole column pretty much turns on that 'fact'. Unforgivable, really.

Now, please excuse the self-indulgent off-topic question: but wouldn't it be a good idea for President Clinton to renounce his own title?

http://marbury.typepad.com/marbury/2008/03/one-president-i.html

marc, could you please send this to media outlets?!!!

i've already heard this on tv and not everybody is going to get their information online or have the discipline to fact check it!!

please i urge you! this is complete swiftboating!!!!

In Kristol's defense, that's a pretty honest mistake since it's not his job to make sure that every source he references wasn't later debunked. It's a lapse in judgment to think for a second that it's true because we'd undoubtedly have pictures or video of Obama nodding along w/ Wright if he were actually there, but it's not much of a journalism faux pas on his part.

Whoever edits his pieces, however, should be out at the NYT immediately. It's an item that screams "CHECK ME, CHECK ME; THIS IS AN INFLAMMATORY STORY AND WE'RE FUCKED IF WE'RE WRONG!" Wups.

Lucky for Clinton that Kristol et al keep bringing this up so her campaign can take the high road... oh wait: http://alchemytoday.com/2008/03/16/rep-nita-lowey-apes-mark-penn/

So, Marc Ambinder becomes Obama's campaign spokesperson? We knew that already.

You don't get it Michael: Marc is actually doing what a real journalist does.

Kristol could learn a thing or two.

So, right-wing hack gets story factually incorrect? Shocking. Let me know when it gets to "dog bites man". If Kristol thought that reporting the sky was green would help out his cronies, he'd report it without looking up first.

He took a charter flight back for the church service.
Marc, you better check your fact checker.

If he were Dan Rather, he'd already be out of a job. Liberal media, my you-know-what.

Someone from newsmax was with him in the pew and saw him spoke with him according to WPHT in Philly Michael Sperconish and saw him approve of the speech given by the Pastor. Call the station and speak with the nationally known MSNBC person.

Perhaps the Newsmax correspondent that saw Obama "nodding his head" during the service mistook another black man for Obama. I hear black people all look alike to many Newsmax correspondents.

Add me to the chorus of Americans who agree with Wright's point in essence. He could have found a better way to say it, but God damn America sometimes.

The thing nobody seems to be asking is why all the furor trying to find out about the "real" Obama? What about Barack Obama, who has written a self-revealing memoir, has opened his tax records, earmarks, and campaign contributions for public inspection- what makes some people so suspicious that they feel obligated to research his PASTOR?

Is it his name? Would we be hearing about his pastor if his name was Tim Smith? What if he was of Greek descent, and attended a church that decried the materialistic society we live in and claimed support of Ancestral Greco culture?

Why not research the other candidate's pastors? Why did Mike Huckabee get a pass on his OWN sermons?

This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to me. Obama has been completely open, maybe too open, giving some folks the idea that it is appropriate to literally tear the man apart so we can see what's inside.

Apply the same test to ALL the candidates, or to none. Enough of this evil.

And, for what it's worth, I'm white. But in America, that's not supposed to matter.

I'm with McClum ... What has this minister said that is not reasonably true? I'm sure Obama would love for him to have used slightly less confrontational language over all these years, but this guy is no different then our country full of Evangelical fearmongers telling their congregations about all those sinners out there going straight to hell to burn for all the interwebbing/TV watching/healthy sex/fun seaking we do.

Who's more inflamatory?

Krisotl is getting his "facts" from Newsmaxx???

Bwaaahaaaahaaa!!!! Hilarious!

How many times is this that Kristol has got his facts wrong in a NY Times column? Why is he still getting a paycheck from the "paper of record"?

Charter flight records will prove it....it's the cover up that kills ya.

This is the problem of the gotcha politics that all of us have colluded with. I am truly worried that the opportunity for the United States to move beyond fear and insecurity is being destroyed by the punditry in its attempt to frame a narrative that it can predict, control and make financial hay out of. For most part Senator Obama's campaign has managed to frame things in a fairly optimistic and compelling way. This will now change.

It is not just a shame for the US but also for the rest of the world. An hopeful United States is a boon for the rest of the world as there will be less wars and increased opportunities to trade and cooperate. Senator Obama is the best candidate for this potential . The current establishment whether in the media or otherwise will try to stop this. The true worry is that the average voter over 45 is also fully entrenched into this myopic perspective. There is so much to be worried about right now.

Zach,

Maybe if the source weren't a right-wing dumping ground that would be a fair point. But you don't trust a source with a well-known political bias on a fact that serves their bias.

NYT, WHY does this man have a column? Jeez louise.

I'm sure Tim Russert will confront Bill Kristol about all this the next time they meet. And if you believe that, I have a lovely bridge for sale...

Hey Kefa, any proof or link, or just another baseless accusation?

Charter flight records will prove it..
Goddamn Kefa, you are stupid.

The stock market is in danger of collapse. A new CENTCOM commander had to be cashiered because he publicly said Bush's plan was Bull.

Kristol's smear just seems like desperation to me.

just FYI, for people who don't know, if you see the name 'William Kristol' next to a piece of writing, that means by definition that what is written there will be un-supported by facts. Kristol does not believe in using 'facts'.

Given that the Obama campaign site is now claiming that Obama was not at the service on the 22nd, I would expect they have more than enough evidence to back up the claim. In other words, yes, Kefa's an idiot.

Kristol by all rights should lose his job for something like this. The funny part to me is that his second sentence in the first quote is basically an admission that the Newsmax story is likely false. It's almost like he's saying, "Well, even if this isn't true,...". The guy is total slime.

It is up to who ever writes a story,to know what they are writing is correct.
Kristol has never cared about facts.Never.
Perhaps if the US would stop meddling in other countries politics,we would have no reason for preachers,or for that matter for anyone to be negative about the US.
Waiting here for some news organization to lay into Preacher Hagge,ha...

It is up to who ever writes a story,to know what they are writing is correct.
Kristol has never cared about facts.Never.
Perhaps if the US would stop meddling in other countries politics,we would have no reason for preachers,or for that matter for anyone to be negative about the US.
Waiting here for some news organization to lay into Preacher Hagge,ha...

I have always suspected this Kristol guy. Is a wingnut front in the NYTimes. Now this has been proved true.

How about demanding a list of every Obama appearance at the church? Ambinder needs to be less invested in obama's candidacy.

Please send an email to the editorial board on this. Will they fire Kristol? Of course not, but perhaps they might make a public retraction. Since the error is actually pretty egregious by journalistic standards, IMHO.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to letters@nytimes.com.

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
To write to the editorial page editor, send to editorial@nytimes.com.

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Clark Hoyt, who represents the readers, e-mail public@nytimes.com or call (212) 556-7652.

I wish your story were more specific, Marc. Although I'm inclined to believe it, it's certainly possible to be at a church service in Chicago in the AM and be giving a speech in Miami in the afternoon or evening.

More details, please.

So now I'm an idiot for stating a way to prove or dis prove a fact????? If he was at the Church service it will prove it. The Obama people will be the idiots if they are wrong....I will have my wonderful world bro. Believe me I will be fine. It will you that will be the idiot. Have a nice day Jake or should I say IdiotJake.

Kefa,

A charter flight could disprove the claim, but it can't be used to prove it. And yes, you're an idiot for stating otherwise.

What has become of the much vaunted integrity of the New York Times? I emailed their Public Editor this morning voicing my grave concerns regarding their lack of editorial oversight. Kristol's key assertion in the article is that Obama's integrity is now gone because he said he would remove himself from the church if he heard any inflammatory comments, and now there's this "proof" that he was there during a sermon in question. However, this "proof" including such details as Obama "nodding his head in agreement" turns out to be factually false. Libel anyone? Even the day before Kristol's article was published, Obama's web site flatly denied that he attended church on the day in question.

Marc Ambinder is quite correct. An elementary phone call to the Obama campaign would have cleared this up.

Just this morning, the low information hosts of "Fox and Friends" were parroting that the "NYT's is reporting" that Obama was present during one of these controversial sermon's. This so-called reporting was Kristol's hit piece on Obama. When will this madness end. Or is it just the beginning?

In Kristol's defense, that's a pretty honest mistake since it's not his job to make sure that every source he references wasn't later debunked

There is no defense for Kristol. It is exactly his job to reference sources that are not later debunked. That's part of his job.

Using Newsmax as a source? He's already cited and quoted Michelle Malkin in an earlier column. What's next, Debbie Schlussel?

you have to be brain dead to publish anything based on newsmax. my god

Morons like Kristol and media needs to understand that what matters to people is ECONOMY, Bear-Sterns going down th drain, jobs, etc and not what Wright preached. These morons need to understand that Wright may have said some wrong things but Obama has rejected it.

So move on prickheads. What affects me and others is ECONOMY
JOBS
HEALTH CARE
WARS
Bear Sterns going down the drain.

Speak about these issues if you have any brains.

Is there no fact-checking done by the Times? Do they just trust whatever this hack says is the truth??

The irony here is that some mud on the faces of Fox and Friends might just be the splash of cold water this story needs.

Zack,

Kristol doesn't make many "pretty honest mistakes". Kristol is a notorious liar. That fact has earned him a reputation. So for him not to double check his source, a 'journalist' from Newsmax, an organization overflowing with other notorious liars, that isn't "making an honest mistake", that's knowingly and notoriously spreading lies.

The editors at the New York Times have their work cut out for them having hired Bill Kristol. They should know that. If they don't they are useless as editors. If they do know that and let lies like this pass they are complicit. Either way, publishing Kristol's lie was no small thing.

I think the worst part isn't even that he USED Newsmax. But rather, that he didn't even CITE that it was his source. Saying that his source is "a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry" is very different from saying "Ronald Kessler from Newsmax". He's making it sound like a legitimate story when it might as well have come from the National Enquirer. What a tool.

It appears that the standard of journalism at the NY Times has sunk so low that it is nothing more than a clipping service for right-wing rags like NewsMax. Apparently fact checking by its columnists is considered an optional activity.

this has being the problem with Hillary Clinton Camp, they overreach, and does make errors that come back and make the central issue about them instead of About Obama

I wrote Kristol this morning wondering why he so blithely labelled the Pastor's comments as anti-American. I suggested that getting up in the public square to complain about some aspect of our society, albeit using the words "Damn America" for emphasis is very American. Rather, Kristol's labels and not defending the right to make speech is the true definition of anti-americanism. Although I didnt ask Kristol, I would have no doubt that his Rabbi has sermonized about the anti-Semitism one finds in our society and while probably not using the rhetoric popular in black churches, maybe questioning what our nations leaders are doing to quell that racist behaviour.
We know what is going on. Kristol is happy to bring Obama down a notch with this latest media generated "issue".
Has anyone taped the sermons of McCain's Pastor?

If the NYT had any standards whatsoever these days, this would be a firing offense by Kristol. But notice that I said "if".

I think the worst part isn't even that he USED Newsmax. But rather, that he didn't even CITE that it was his source. Saying that his source is "a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry" is very different from saying "Ronald Kessler from Newsmax". He's making it sound like a legitimate story when it might as well have come from the National Enquirer. What a tool.

When I initially read the story, I was dumbfounded that a journalist had been present during the service in question and confirmed Obama was present. I thought to myself, Howard Fineman? Michael Gerson? Someone like that, but then to learn that it was Newsmax, I was stunned, angered, and researched further to find out that the story in question was entirely fiction!

You are quite right Anna. By not clearly sourcing his quote, he's being disingenuous, and leaving the impression that the story is factually true. I second your "what a tool" comment.

Does Kristol expect Obama to walk out of his church in protest because his preacher says something controversial? If he does, then he is a moron who doesn't understand church, plain and simple.

Has anybody reputable confirmed Wright's use of the phrase “United States of White America”? If searched for minus the use of the word "routinely" from worldnetdaily's story, hits concerning Wright drop considerably.

Since when does Newsmax have reporters? This isn't snark. I'd say the chances of a Newsmax "reporter" being in the pew with Obama is about as high as McCain's chances of surviving a walk through that market in Iraq without any protection. And aren't services held in the morning? Is Obama superman? Does he have the power to reverse the rotation of the earth and turn back time? Someone tell Kristol to stop sockpuppeting as Kefa. It's embarrasing.

To Kristol's audience it is true, and saying that Obama wasn't there is a lie. The fact that Obama is proven to have not been there is entirely irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but isn't this an illegal war fought because of lies and for oil money? Even if Obama had been there and heard this, what is there to object about in these assertions. They're true--even if "thundered."

So it's supposed to be a big deal that Wright said:

1) America is racist, and
2) The Iraq war is wrong, and an example of American arrogance.

I mean, shit. The pastor at the (white) UCC church I went to during high school said that stuff all the time. I guess I'd better not run for public office.

Look, I'm part Irish. If an Irish priest got up in front of the congregation and complained about the treatment of Irish boys, do you think Kristol would cite it as some kind of damning evidence? How about Italians or Greeks?

I think not. It's not a hit piece, its a race bating piece. Obama is just an uppity n****r. That's what Kristol is saying.

I want a list of the leading Republican figures' appearances at their church's cross checked against a list of sermons or Bible readings denigrating women, Jews, Catholics, etc.

I think we should use the evidence standard of the Administration. Everything Rev. Wright says is true unless you can disprove it without a doubt.

Remember, the 'fact-based universe' is passe.

The more I read about the inflammatory statements, including the teeniest bit of context (not even a full sermon or service), the more I say "Ummmmmm....is this not a point a lot of people have been making for some time?" Consider:

Young African-American men”
Well, not just them--the army has other races and genders--but they're certainly included in disproportionate numbers.

were “dying for nothing.”
"How do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?" A major point of Obama's campaign has been that this war was a bad idea, making our situation with Islamic terror and its root causes even worse. The construction that our soldiers will continue to die over there until Bush and Cheney look right rather than wrong is hardly original.

The “illegal war,” he shouted, was “based on Bush’s lies”
Well, I don't think it's illegal. I do think we've all agreed that there was a disgraceful amount of massaging of facts and hiding of inconvenient facts and exagerating of marginal intelligence. ie lies.

and is being “fought for oil money.”
Anyone remember the start of the war? Just after victory, when Sen Clinton severely annoyed me as one of the politicians arguing that we (the US) should agree with ourselves (the provisional authority in Iraq) to loan Iraq reconstruction money to be paid out of oil revenues (by Iraqis)? And supporters of the war were saying, with Iraq's oil wealth, this war could be a net economic gain? Anyone?


This seems a lot like the "slander" that 9/11 was caused by our foreign policy, which in the reality-based community seems self-evident: that's why they say they attacked us. I don't think the attacks were justified--never that--but the case that we were sitting at home minding our own business when these people attacked us for no reason is silly and can't be used as the basis for any sound future policy. "We should support Israel." Ok, I agree. "However, this will have no impact in the Arab World's view of our country and values." WHAT? Every foreign policy decision will have pluses and minuses, groups that approve and groups that disapprove. If the basis is going to be "all our foreign policy flows from our being very nice, well-intentioned people, and thus cannot have any negative impact" I want off now. I'm all too reminded of the administration's evident belief that all its actions in the Arab world would be ignored by the people there if Karen Hughes pulled together a nice advertisement.

My guess is that the NY Times is so dug in on Kristol that it'll take a lot to get them to fire him. I trust that they WILL print a correction. But Kristol shouldn't be able to skate by blaming some fact-checker. This is vintage Kristol, pure and simple. I'm still amazed the Times hired him.

I'm also amazed that a few controversial remarks -- very few, taken in the context of 30-plus years of preaching -- from Rev. Wright have caused so many people to go crazy and call for Obama's head. By all accounts I've read, Trinity has done outstanding work for its community and beyond. But a few comments taken completely out of context have caused such an incredible stir. And frankly, I don't see Wright as being so far off with his comments. And I sure don't see anything "anti-American" in trying to get your country to do better.

Sadly, I'm starting to wonder whether Obama will be able to recover from this. I heard Scarborough this morning saying how terrible it is for Obama that the new pastor said something yesterday about the church being persecuted. Why is that terrible for Obama? Isn't it true? And wasn't this the same Joe Scarborough who was saying last week that we needed to look at Ferraro's comments to see whether what she was saying was true? Why is there such a double standard? Hell, I don't even attend the church (or any church) and I'm angry for them.

Rev. Wright is outspoken, says whatever he is thinking, which may not be what people want to hear, and doesn't always agree with the powers that be. That makes him a "Maverick."

Okay.

I'm not sure where white America has been the last 200 years but let me give you a refresher.

1. Blacks were brought over from Africa as slaves in chains, were 'owned' by white colonists, and were treated as property.
2. They were finally afforded legal rights in 1962 amid lynchings, riots, and violence aimed AT THEM because they wanted equal rights. The legislation didn't turn things overnight...it was, afterall, just legislation.
3. When they were intergrated into schools they were threatened by the National Guard (in Alabama) or had rocks tossed at their buses (in Boston). These were kids who were terrorized...not adults.

And anyone can wonder why some black people speak with inflamatory rhetoric, the same rhetoric that white people have used against Arabs since 911? Shocking! Stunning!

Hey all you Ron Paul supporters...you shrugged off the racist articles in HIS newsletter
Hey all you McCain supporters...you allowed his religious supporters to attack other religions, suggest strongly that America is being punished by God for it's immoral behavior.
Hey Mitt Romney supporters...his church didn't fully recognize blacks until 1977.

Stop flipping the script.....was he there? Taking the Axelrods word for gospel is not gonna stop the drip, drip, drip. You goofs are in a state of denial. Was he there? Are there pics??? If there are he is toast.

er ... wasn't Kristol's magazine,THE WEEKLY STANDARD, the one who led the charge to "out" Private Beauchamp, to "disprove" him, and to publicly horsewhip and humiliate The New Republic for running a story that they claimed wasn't "factual"?

Wasn't STANDARD Online Editor (and Kristol employee) Michael Goldfarb the one who insisted on *personally* carrying the story of the Army's "investigation" to the New York Times and the Washington Post?

Now, if Kristol's magazine can do everything they can to destroy TNR (claiming another "Stephen Glass" type "fabulist") and a soldier serving in combat in Iraq, then why should Kristol get a pass?

I mean nobody screamed louder last summer about "fact checking" than Kristol's Murdoch-owned, money-losing WEEKLY STANDARD.

Hoist him by his own petard, I say.

Don't dismiss this. If it's enough for his minions to try and destroy an Army private and TNR Editor Franklin Foer, then obviously the same fate should await Kristol -- by his own, implicit, weakly "standard"s.

"In Kristol's defense, that's a pretty honest mistake since it's not his job to make sure that every source he references wasn't later debunked," posted Zach.

Bill Kristol is listed as the editor of the Weekly Standard. One of the primary jobs of an editor is to ensure the journalistic integrity of the news and its reporters. Even though Kristol is writing for the Times as a columnist, one would think that the habit of fact checking sources before making an assertion of a fact would carry over.

This episode merely underscores what people have been saying about publications like the Weekly Standard, Newsmax, the Drudge Report and Fox News. It's basically interested in smearing and propaganda—not real news buttressed by basic journalistic standards.

I read that Kessler article and when i saw "Newsmax" mentioned i totally disregarded everything that was stated.
Kristol should have been as smart, but what do i know, i don't right op-eds for the NYTimes.

This is the right wing MSM playing 'catch out'.

I don't think Barack Obama said he 'never' heard Wright say anything controversial. I thought he said he didn't hear the clip shown on the MSM.

Some people need to get a life!

Some of what Wright says I'd agree with and think it applies to my country too - UK.

I'm a forty six year old white woman.

People like Kristol like things just the way they are....

"In Kristol's defense, that's a pretty honest mistake since it's not his job to make sure that every source he references wasn't later debunked," posted Zach.

Bill Kristol is listed as the editor of the Weekly Standard. One of the primary jobs of an editor is to ensure the journalistic integrity of the news and its reporters. Even though Kristol is writing for the Times as a columnist, one would think that the habit of fact checking sources before making an assertion of a fact would carry over.

This episode merely underscores what people have been saying about publications like the Weekly Standard, Newsmax, the Drudge Report and Fox News. It's basically interested in smearing and propaganda—not real news buttressed by basic journalistic standards.

Mr. Kristol is hardly a good moral barometer and he misses the sad political and moral truth of this story. The problem is not that Mr. Obama was a member of the Reverend Wright’s church or that he may have attended services where the Reverend Wright condemned America's racism. The problem with Mr. Obama is that he didn't defend his friend and pastor.

Why has no one asked the obvious questions: Would the Reverend Wright story be a story if after 9/11 he had simply echoed the white evangelical clergy who back John McCain, George Bush and the Republican party? If he had blamed homosexuals, secularism and abortion for the carnage of 9/11 like Jerry Falwell and his Southern Baptist Convention colleagues did, would we be discussing this?

The sad truth is that the Reverend Wright is right. Where his white brethren conjured magical links between personal morality and cataclysmic events, the Reverend Wright stated what any mid-level CIA hack would agree to: there are negative consequences to American foreign policy and economic exploitation. The good news that comes with the Reverend Wright’s message is that we can change our foreign and economic policies.

Sometimes God's ways are not so mysterious as the right wing evangelicals would have us believe. Where their magical thinking renders us powerless to control our fate except through the ritual practices of ritual moral purification, the Reverend Wright stays true to the prophetic tradition, speaks truth to power and demands that those who wield power change and act to achieve God's justice. Whereas the false prophecy of the religious right renders us powerless and waiting for the rapture, the Reverend Wright calls upon us to take up our cross and make God’s kingdom a reality.

The promise of Mr. Obama's campaign is inseparable from the Reverend Wright's message of prophetic change. We are not powerless, we can change and we are called to seek and work for justice in an unjust world. Mr. Obama should state clearly and without apology that he shares his pastor's commitment to social justice and change, even if he is not as provocative in the way he states it.

"In Kristol's defense, that's a pretty honest mistake since it's not his job to make sure that every source he references wasn't later debunked," posted Zach.

Bill Kristol is listed as the editor of the Weekly Standard. One of the primary jobs of an editor is to ensure the journalistic integrity of the news and its reporters. Even though Kristol is writing for the Times as a columnist, one would think that the habit of fact checking sources before making an assertion of a fact would carry over.

This episode merely underscores what people have been saying about publications like the Weekly Standard, Newsmax, the Drudge Report and Fox News. It's basically interested in smearing and propaganda—not real news buttressed by basic journalistic standards.

NYT gets it WRONG AGAIN! FIRST McCain, NOW Obama...MEDIA....Lay off the SMEAR ATTEMPTS and you won't find yourselves in the ditch. ON WITH THE ISSUES!

Well, that worked out well for Kristol. He got his smear in, and no skin off his nose if there's a correction.

Evil f*ckers.

Hey Kefa, any proof or link, or just another baseless accusation?

rhetorical question, right?

I think this is another example of how "group think" influences people to reach conclusions that are untrue.

It's also one more example of sloppy journalism.

Depressing.

Neocons like Kristol often care little about facts. They know that just by saying something, they will make it so in the minds of many. That is why it is appalling for a publication such as the New York Times to allow him to spread his disinformation.

The media has attempted on many occasions to discredit Mr. Obama. I didn't stop going to the Catholic Church because of a priest racist or unamerican remarks made by a priest. I didn't stop going to church because of all of the sexual abuse that occur plus the convenient cover up.
Why should Obama leave his church.
The President of the US has been unamerican by lying to the American people and putting us in harm's way. Has he resigned?

The media is so bias, they don't know how to report fairly, he should be fired for not checking out his story.

In the Kristol NeoCon world, the more WRONG you are about things the more esteem you get.

Kristol wrote: "But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22."

This is factually correct. That is Kessler's claim, not Kristol's claim. Kessler may have been wrong, but Kristol was not.

Why check with the Obama Campaign? They are having their own problems with the facts. The LA Times blog pointed out that the campaign initially claimed Wright was not at the Obama campaign kickoff because of bad weather. They later admitted under questioning that Wright was told not to come because he was too controversial. How could they know he was so controversial when Obama himself said he had no idea of Wright's rhetoric until last week?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/throughout-his.html

Sounds like Obama is caught in his own web of lies. Kristol was just passing on what somebody else said.

THS,

The reporter mentions being at the service on a "Sabbath morning." TUCC has Sunday services at 7.30 and 11.00 AM. A flight from Chicago to Miami takes three hours on the clock (only two really, but there's a time change). Call it four hours travel time counting to and from airports, and that's best-case-scenario. Obama was scheduled at a rally in Miami at 1.30 PM on that day. So if you assume the service is a couple of hours, and it would be hard for a presidential candidate to get in and out superfast, it's quite a stretch. Moreover, Chicago magazine happened to have run an article on Obama's campaign travel that week and it seems that he flew to Miami from Iowa, not Chicago:

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/October-2007/Wheres-Obama/

This whole wright blowout always smelled to me a Neocon hit job and that has been confirmed true.

Surprise !
Bill Kristol is lying !!
Where's the news there ?

Bill Kristol, along with Hillary Clinton and John McCain supported the Iraq war that Rev. Wright is criticizing.

Rev. Wright's ciriticism of the Iraq War is NOT off target or out of bounds.

This was an illegal war, built on lies.
Lies about WMDs, al Queda and anthrax.

It was an arrogant action by the Bush/Cheney/McCain/Clinton 'axis of evil'

African Americans are bearing a disproportionate load of the suffering and death.

A definition of “Groupthink”

“Groupthink” occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment”. Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups.

"...A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making."

DaMav,

Obama never claimed that the first he heard of Wright's controversial statements was last week. He says in his recent post: "When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments."

No contradiction.

Attack artists using misleading "facts" will probably not only continue but proliferate as we approach the election. Did he deliberately do that in the piece in question? Only he knows.

In my defense, now, I'm not saying that Kristol isn't a fuck-up and didn't make an obvious mistake, just that the NY Times Op-Ed editorial staff fucked up a lot worse. Kristol trolls them with questionably sourced material and they get hammered, Kristol helps reinforce the already running narrative that the Time has... issues... with journalistic integrity. Works out just fine for him since the buck doesn't stop with him when it comes to sourcing his Op-Eds at the Times.

DaMav: Kristol wrote: "But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22."

This is factually correct. That is Kessler's claim, not Kristol's claim. Kessler may have been wrong, but Kristol was not.

This is the standard used by tabloid journalists.

Pleeease.

It's not Kristol's fault. He can't help that news organizations continue to hire him. I blame the NYT who apparently does not have a quality control system or employment standards.

Mark, where's the prejudicial error? Kristol says that a journalist claims that Obama was in the pews on a given date. That's true: the journalist claimed it. That it was falsified is a snafu, not prejudicial error, a fortiori since the very next sentence points out that it misses the forest for the trees to focus on one particular sermon: whether Obama was present or not on that day, says Kristol, "[i]n any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain."

Simon.

Your logic does not hold water.

Kristol was using the example as a "supporting argument" for his "conclusion" that "....the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain."

Since the conclusion is not supported by any facts, I would definitely consider this a prejudicial error. C'mon!

That's what Kristol gets for relying on Newsmax for his news.

So this is the depths to which the Times has sunk. A Times columnist relying on a bunch of crackpots as his news source.

Simon,

Sure, if the facts don't fit your version of reality, just posit a hypothetical that does.

Give me a break.

Stay focused on important issues. It's sad that Obama is forced to run against Hillary, the Republicans, the DNC (king of the rules change).....and even the media. But through it all....he maintains strength, class and Presidential calm.

Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org (A Multi-Racial Organization)

It will be 5 years in Iraq....almost 4000 dead heros, thanks to Hill, Bush and McCain....where's Hillary's tax return....why does she keep saying she won Florida and Michigan (is she unstable)....where's the secret contributors list....what's going to happen in her on-going voter fraud trial in L.A. with Pa. Gov. Rendell, is she a true Democrat or a closet GOP? She cares nothing about the Dem Party....even endorsed McCain.....there are SOOOOOOO many questions that the media needs to be asking.....DEMAND THE FACTS.....CONTACT THE MEDIA !!!!

I don't know if the Times deserves its liberal reputation, but my hometown paper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, is decisively liberal. It also employs outright nutjobs and slobs as its conservative columnists, like Katherine Kersten, who recently called a Somali school a scary Muslim school on the testimony of a witness who says he never said or believed anything of the sort.

The most innocent explanation is that the editors believe there is no such thing as a credible or intelligent conservative columnist, and that therefore hacks like Kersten and Kristol are the best there are to represent the conservative perspective.

Has the Times issued a correction yet? If not, why not?

Surprise !
Bill Kristol is lying !!
Where's the news there ?

Bill Kristol, along with Hillary Clinton and John McCain supported the Iraq war that Rev. Wright is criticizing.

Rev. Wright's ciriticism of the Iraq War is NOT off target or out of bounds.

This was an illegal war, built on lies.
Lies about WMDs, al Queda and anthrax.

It was an arrogant action by the Bush/Cheney/McCain/Clinton 'axis of evil'

African Americans are bearing a disproportionate load of the suffering and death.

Now I wonder. Might the country be better off with the cynicism of the Clintons than the conceit of Obama?

Any Democrat who considers Kristol's commentary of use forming an opinion for the primary should watch the princess bride.

But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can