False Reporting on the Medicare Vote

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 25 November 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

My article was not addressed to whether this bill is a good idea or a bad idea. Not a word of my column was addressed to that subject.

All I did here was to put up the facts on how this unique vote actually took place. Then I castigated the press for getting the story wrong. I did not even discuss press bias -- just the point that they violated the first requirement on Journalism 101 -- get your facts straight.

John / Billybob

[Gritty]

GASP! Dishonest reporting by the mainstream Press?

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!, I tell you!!

[Congressman Billybob]

The CQ guy you reported on is continuing the same spin after the fact. Here's the comparison of the two parties in voting on this bill:

The Republicans had 11% defect on this bill, 24 out of 229. The Democrats had 8% defect, 16 out of 205. You'll note that the R & D numbers add to 434, not 435. The remaining one is Sanders of Vermont, who lists himself as an "independent," is actually a socialist, and who votes with the Democrats.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

The CQ guy you reported on is continuing the same spin after the fact. Here's the comparison of the two parties in voting on this bill:

The Republicans had 11% defect on this bill, 24 out of 229. The Democrats had 8% defect, 16 out of 205. You'll note that the R & D numbers add to 434, not 435. The remaining one is Sanders of Vermont, who lists himself as an "independent," is actually a socialist, and who votes with the Democrats.

John / Billybob

[billbears]

But from reading the ENTIRE article, your own bias is showing, that it somehow matters that Republicans did or did not switch, that it should have been reported as if one party was right or wrong

We already know the press is bias from the NYT to Fox News. That's not a story. What should be a story is that 'conservatives' gleefully passed a $400 billion entitlement and nothing was said about it, except from the Democrats in that it should have been more

[mdwakeup]

From the November 21 Congressional Record:

Mr. MILLER of Florida and Mr. CULBERSON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Messrs. ISTOOK, FRANKS of Arizona, OTTER, MARSHALL, DOOLEY of California, and SCOTT of Georgia changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

So, that's Miller of Florida (R) and Culberson (R) who first voted yes and changed to no. And Istook (R), Franks of Arizona (R), Otter (R), Marshall (D), Dooley of California (D), and Scott of Georgia (D) who first voted no and changed to yes.

[mdwakeup]

What actually happened is that after the yeses took the lead, several more flipped from no to yes.

[4CJ]

How hard is it to watch television, and then write down on a piece of paper what you've just seen? Apparently for the American press on the Medicare vote story in the House, this was an impossible task.

I thought the stories/slants were written beforehand, and enough "facts" thrown in to make the story believable. Good catch, but I wish neither party was so keen on giving out money away.

[cgk]

In my Sophmore statistics class, I learned that with statistical manipulation, you can make anything say whatever the heck you want it to say.

I can think of a couple people here on FR who employ that very tactic!

[Congressman Billybob]

Nope. All of these stories were written AFTER the fact, when it was clear that the same number of Republicans (204) voted for the Medicare bill at 5:53 a.m. when it passed, as had voted for it at 3:00 a.m. when it had apparently failed.

You're probably right, that the Associated Press reporter, Mark Sherman, whose article created a cascade of dishonesty across the country, probably had written much of his article in advance. However, EVERY reporter has a basic obligation to change or abandon such an earlier draft if the facts do not support it in the end.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

Thanks for putting on this thread your excerpt from the Congressional Record. I didn't have access to that when I wrote my article, but it confirms what I wrote, that there was "no net change" in the Republican vote on this bill between 3:00 a.m. and 5:53 a.m. The whole net change occurred on the Democrat side of the aisle.

Your excerpt does not mention the one final change to produce the final result. Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.) initially did not vote, but voted aye on the final tally.

Thank you.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

I realize you have a hot button that this Medicare bill is a bad idea. But you are allowing your prejudice to infect what you read.

The "bias" in my article is in favor of honestly and accurately reporting the facts as they occurred. After that, the chips can fall where they may. The truth is that changes in Republican votes had NOTHING to do with the passage of this bill. It passed SOLELY because of changes in Democrat votes.

I did not, in my article, either "blame" or "praise" either Republicans or Democrats for the passage of this bill. In fact I took no position on the bill itself. I only blamed the press for doing its job incompetently.

You should try to read with more care.

John / Billybob

[Quicksilver]

Rush is reading your column now. Good job!!!

[StriperSniper]

Q - Thanks for bumping this, I was just looking for it.

CBB - Another fine job!

[Southack]

Outstanding!

[sausageseller]

I read it this morning then heard Rush read it! AWESOME!

[Gritty]

1:35 EST.

Rush Limbaugh reads a large part of your article on his show! He refers to you as "a columnist from North Carolina". No reference to FreeRepublic!

"... as Mr. Armor concludes his brilliant piece... as you read anything in the press, the good first question to ask is, 'what if they're wrong?'" - Rush

Congratulations! Bulls-eye!!

[Quicksilver]

AFAIK, the only place Rush could have read John Armor's article is this thread. Maybe my "tag" isn't as tongue-in-cheek as I thought ...

[Constitution Day]

Congressman Billybob/NC ping!
Please FRmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.

[4CJ]

However, EVERY reporter has a basic obligation to change or abandon such an earlier draft if the facts do not support it in the end.

Congressman, that is so true, I'm sorry if I was obtuse in my reply. In your article you credit Sherman as a "reporter", as in one who reports the news. That might have been true in days gone by, but I was inferring that most "reporters" now have a pre-fabricated opinion (either their's or their editor's), and include only the facts necessary to support their slant to the story.