AP's Bush 'Straw Man' Story: News Analysis Or Unlabeled Opinion?
By Joe Strupp
Published: March 22, 2006 12:55 PM ET

NEW YORK Did a recent Associated Press story examining President George Bush's alleged tendency to use a "straw man" approach in his speeches cross the line from news to biased opinion? Or was it just a long-overdue, in-depth review of the president's public speaking approach?

The viewpoint, as often happens in Washington, depends on whose blog you are reading, and what you consider opinion and analysis. Still, the article by reporter Jennifer Loven sparked an interesting debate on the blogosphere, and in some newsrooms, over how such an examination of a public figure can cross the line from reporting to opining. Since the piece was not labeled a column, or even analysis, it raised some eyebrows as it veered into a sharp attack on Bush's use of such tactics.

The article has drawn reactions ranging from a supportive mass e-mailing from MoveOn.org to criticism by the conservative Powerline blog and American Federalist Journal. But an AP spokesman says editors want more of these types of wire stories.

The story, posted by AP last weekend, cited the president's habit of using phrases such as "some say" or "some believe" when introducing a viewpoint that challenges his own. One example Loven noted was Bush saying "some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day." She also cited his recent statement that "some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free."

Loven then contends that "hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions." But she notes that Bush, in presenting opposing views in such a "straw man" way, sets himself up well to fire back, often appearing in defense of his viewpoint or as an underdog.

"The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents," Loven writes about the "some" to which he refers. "In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position." She adds that "he typically then says he 'strongly disagrees' -- conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making."

Loven then quotes others she describes as "experts in political speech" who supported her point that Bush's approach was misleading.

The article, however, offers no comment from Bush supporters or anyone on the president's staff, or gives any indication they were sought for comment. It also does not explore whether such straw-man tactics are common in political figures past or present, including Democrats; although one expert does say "all politicians try to get away with it to a certain extent."

Loven, based in Washington, D.C., could not be reached for comment Wednesday as she was out of town, while AP Washington bureau chief Sandy Johnson did not return a request for comment.

AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll said the piece was "a good way to explain to readers what rhetorical devices people, in this case the president, use to make their point." She also did not believe the article should have been labeled opinion or needed to include any White House comment. "This was not a piece that was critical, it was explanatory," Carroll said.

In a statement, AP spokesman Jack Stokes wrote: "Jennifer Loven's story was one of an ongoing series of fact-checking stories that dig beyond the rhetoric. Editors tell us they want more of these stories." But Stokes did not comment on what kind of reaction the piece had sparked from readers or editors.

On Monday, Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin called Loven's piece "a bold departure for Associated Press," adding that Bush's straw-man arguments are "extensive and generally unchallenged." MoveOn.org's Media Action sent an e-mail to media outlets urging support for Loven, claiming "some reporters take notes on what President Bush says and don't bother to research what is and isn't true. But the AP took a bold step this week and engaged in exactly the sort of strong watchdog journalism MoveOn Media Action members have been calling for."

Moveon also set up a Web page where readers could find an e-mail address to write to AP and send their support for Loven's piece.

Reaction also came from Loven's critics, such as Powerlineblog.org, the Minnesota-based site that has chronicled Loven going back to her coverage of the 2004 presidential election. Among its complaints is Loven's alleged conflict as the wife of Roger Ballentine, an environmental consultant who has worked in the Clinton Administration and has written for liberal outlets such as New Democrats Online.

"Loven has written some astonishingly biased 'news' articles attacking President Bush," Powerlineblog.com claimed this week. It then called the straw-man piece "a new low" that "masquerades as a straight news article, but reads like a DNC press release." It ends by saying "there must be someone at AP who wants the organization to be taken seriously as a news source. If that's true, sacking Jennifer Loven would be a good first step."

Carroll said Loven's marriage should not come in to play as any kind of conflict. "If she was covering something and her spouse was directly involved, that would be a problem," Carroll said.

At American Federalist Journal, which Powerlineblog.com credits with finding the Loven piece for them, bloggers called the Loven analysis "a partisan hit piece" and "a prime example of egregious bias." The Web site also set up its own page seeking comment on Loven's work, but from critics. As of today, the page had received two comments.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1002234267
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Whenever the other side be it donkey or elephant replies to any attempts by either journalists, oppossing party members or general public they always use catch phrase words such as "a partisan hit piece" and "a prime exampel of egregious bias." Never any attemp at disecting and disproving what is being said as false. They just write it off as the other side slinging mud and that's that.

"The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." -George Washington

The straw man is the rhetorical advise that has enraptured the right in this country. It's always been a conservative favorite... it's just that in the last 7 years in particular, common people are buying it at an alarming rate.

It's complete bullshit. It kills any possibility of real debate because it refuses to engage with the issues. It's a facade, covering up the utter lack of intellect on the right.

Bill O'Reilly uses it constantly.

ah yes - the left wing is where all of the nuanced opinions are brought forth - if only i could gain membership to the club and allow my opinions to be shaped by true members of the intelligentsia.

thinking like this is a big part of why the left wing is failing so miserably in their attempt to push their agenda. most americans think it's a condescending load of bullshit.

the problem with Loven's article is that it doesn't really seem to understand exactly what a strawman is. every single one of the examples posed are opinions that have been espoused by "mainstream" participants in the political debate. see john murtha, hillary clinton, etc.

Speaking of condescending bullshit, see President Bush.


Or a distortion that somewhat resembles opinions espoused by such people. You see, if they had actually said those things, he wouldn't need to call them "some people".

The press needs to start calling this president out far more ofteh on the meaningless bullshit he spouts. Ever since 9/11 this administration has had pretty much a free ride in the press. It's only now that they're starting to realize how much they've been lied to and starting to turn up the heat on them.

so - you're of the opinion that john murtha doesn't favor a complete and immediate withdrawl from Iraq, and hillary isn't a proponent of socialized medicine?

All I'm saying is that if the President had the ammunition to actually shoot down something that one of them said, and to be able to attribute the quote directly to a favorite target like Murtha or Hillary, don't you think he'd do it?

BTW, I find this practice just as distasteful from Democrats as from Republicans.

fair enough. i find the practice distasteful myself, i just don't think the article did a very good job of providing examples.

i read it via news.yahoo.com earlier this week and was very surprised it wasn't in the opinion section. i commend her for undertaking the issue and her editors publishing it, but it could have used a little more balance.

how hard would it be to rephrase these statements to "some people, such as [insert evil liberal name here], think we should kill all kitties. i, as president, strongly disagree."? if somebody in a legitimate position has taken a stand against bush's policies, why doesn't he call him/her on it instead of using the vague "some people" that leaves it up to the listener to try to figure out who---if anybody--actually has said/believes what he covers up with "some"? i realize that was kind of a run-on sentence, but i am going to continue on without editing it.

unless i know who a politician is referencing by a "some", i tend to disbelieve anything following one of these "some people" statements. when you are as unpopular as bush is right now, i guess you gotta make up people that are less-appealing than yourself.

I read this story in my local newspaper this week, tucked in the back of the Nation section. A very small-town conservative paper mind you.

Just went to Drudge and this clip was on it: http://www.heavy.com/heavy.php?videoPat ... -bush-iraq

They do say these things. And it's not just Murtha or Clinton. Just the other night you had Diane Fienstein on the TeeVee saying that we were responsible for the mosque attacks and should pull out because of it. You have large number of top Democrat officials out there saying a bunch of BS. Kennedy, Corzine, Feinstein, Clinton, Conyers, Reid. I mean, it's almost dizzying.





This is patently false. Ever since Bush came into the limelight the media has incessantly attacked Bush. You need not look any further than the medias handling of both elections. The number of negative articles in both elections was far heavier in favor of Bush. The number of positive articles in favor of Gore or Kerry were far higher. Even before he was president it was non stop Bush bashing. They picked apart his speaking ability, his grades in school (while failing to note that Gore failed out of the same school as Bush), his military career, his connections to big oil.

To be perfectly honest, the only time the media gave him a free pass was in about the nine months following 9/11. Ever since it's all negative press. Everything is negative. The media seems to REFUSE to show anything that might possibly highlight the positives of this administration. Just once, just one fucking time, it'd be nice to see an op-ed piece in the New York times about a school being built in Iraq. But instead, I gotta go to Stars and Stripes for that.



He does have it. And he doesn't use it. I think pulling punches like is something cheap and low ball. Something that should be left for Crossfire and the Cindy Sheehans of the world. Calling people out like that is something that the president of the United States just shouldn't do. I think it's a good, solid way to rebutt his opponents.

If Bush began name dropping, the media would shit itself.

Intellectuals tend to lean left, yes, however, the left wing as such is every bit as useless as the right.



What, thinking that the right doesn't load itself full of straw man "they want us to negotiate with terrorists" arguments?

And stop pretending that you speak for "most Americans". You speak for maybe 25%, if that.



This isn't the first time I've seen you misconceptualize the straw man. The examples provided are largely accurate. Find me a direct quote from Hillary or Murtha not taken out of context, and match them up against the way the right restate them, and we can start talking.

the problem with Bush is that he doesn't attack their actual beliefs. instead he just calls them anti-american. if he referenced socialized medicine and debated its merits instead of inferring people were communists, i'd listen. i would even respect him. but he doesn't. he never has and never will actually discuss the issues.

is it 2008 yet?

what the hell does a term like 'socialized medicine' mean anyway?

There isn't a single aspect of life in this country that isn't socialized in some capacity. It's just a scare word devoid of substance, and the visceral reaction it produces in some people is frankly embarassing.

http://sunsite.tus.ac.jp/pub/academic/m ... gislation/

and

It couldn't possibly because this is DESERVED, is it? The world is not a balance of right and left, as you've told me many times. Truth is truth, and sometimes it hurts, as you've also told me many times.


Well, that and the whole lead up to the war in Iraq thing.


The media doesn't show positive things period. It has nothing to do with Bush or a liberal bias in the news. Exhibit Clinton's BJ.


I agree with you, I think that dropping names like that should be below the president (BTW, the term "pulling punches" refers to what the president is doing by NOT calling them out). At the same time, by being specific to people and their actual words, the president's "defense" of his policies would gain a great deal more legitimacy and honesty. But his fence-straddling strategy of calling out the straw man and his approximate quotes is really a pussy way out. He doesn't stay above the fray, and yet he doesn't really get into the muck either. It's kind of like a guy sitting on top of a ten foot wall throwing stones into a street fight below him.

Or a chimp in cage hucking his poop at you. Maybe that's the better analogy.

I think he can't remember names very well and often doesn't know the details of issues. So he may appear to be using the straw man and playing coy, but in actuality he is just that inarticulate.

I don't buy that. He actually seems quite good at remembering the sometimes complex names of foreign leaders.