Condi and the NYT -- The Last Word

Alex Safian, associate director of CAMERA, in a Page One Feature at The Jewish Press (“How the Times Sandbagged Condi Rice”), reviews the bias behind the questions in the New York Times interview of Condoleezza Rice, as well as how the Times distorted her answers.

Lynn-B, writing at In Context, posts a dissent (“Reinventing Rice”).  She acknowledges the transcript of the Rice interview “does, in fact, reveal that the ‘quote’ is completely misleading” and that Rice's words “were taken completely out of context,” but argues that “the totality of the interview [does not] really contradict the general sentiment supposedly fabricated by the Times.” I got a different general sentiment from the interview, but in any event journalists shouldn't be putting quotation marks around their sentiments.

Daniel Pipes, in his post on the Times’ manufactured quote (“1,378 Words Later – Or, How to Mangle an Interview with the Secretary of State”), ends with a question:

Why did the secretary of state's office, which surely noted this mangled quotation, not correct it?

I believe it was corrected.  To understand what happened, let’s pick up the story after the Times report came out.

The State Department must have understood immediately that the Times had created a diplomatic problem.  On the day the story appeared (August 18), the Jerusalem Post reported that one of Sharon’s cabinet members called for an emergency meeting:

Rice's comments prompted Agriculture Minister Yisrael Katz, a disengagement opponent, to call on Sharon to hold an emergency cabinet discussion on the matter.

"Rice's comments prove there is no basis to the prime minister's statement that there will not be an additional disengagement," he said.

That same day, at the State Department daily press briefing, there was a contentious exchange about what the Times had reported:

QUESTION:  I mean, the fact that she -- I mean, I thought the two sides decide such things.  Is she decided that Israel must withdraw from Palestinian cities?  And could you tell us some of the cities she has in mind and does she have Jerusalem in mind, for instance?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well --

QUESTION:  Or is she being misinterpreted?

MR. MCCORMACK:  Well, first of all, I think you're kind of --

QUESTION:  I'm reading the newspaper.

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right.

QUESTION:  I have it in text, we didn't get the transcript --

MR. MCCORMACK:  Right, and you're extrapolating from their --

QUESTION:  I'm not extrapolating anything.

The State Department may have contacted Israel immediately to disavow what even knowledgeable people (such as Israeli cabinet members and State Department reporters) were drawing from the Times’ manufactured quotation.  The Jerusalem Post story included the following:

[A] senior official in the Prime Minister's Office warned against blowing Rice's words "out of proportion."

The official said that whereas some would automatically want to interpret her words as evidence that the US would now begin pressuring Israel to begin a second stage of disengagement, this was not what she said.

The following Monday (August 22), the State Department released the transcript of the New York Times interview, and we now know that the Times in fact took Rice’s words out of context and spliced together a misleading quote from unrelated remarks and then made the "quote" the centerpiece of its story.  

Finally, on the next morning (August 23), President Bush had this exchange with the members of the press pool:

Q  Mr. President, Israel has withdrawn from the final settlement.  What does the Palestinian leader Abbas need to do next?  And are there any specific plans for restarting negotiations based on the road map?

THE PRESIDENT: . . . [T]o answer your question, what must take place next is the establishment of a working government in Gaza, a government that responds to the people.  President Abbas has made a commitment to fight off the violence . . . .

You asked about the road map.  Of course you want to get back to the road map.  But I understand that in order for this process to go forward there must be confidence -- confidence that the Palestinian people will have in their own government to perform, confidence with the Israelis that they'll see a peaceful state emerging.  And therefore it's very important for the world to stay focused on Gaza . . .

In other words, Bush made a statement fully consistent with what Rice had repeatedly tried to impress upon the Times:  the “next step” is “the Palestinian Authority is going to have to deal with the infrastructure of terrorism” (to use Rice’s actual words).  Bush’s answer also dovetailed with the statement Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom made to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai Al-Aam the day before the Times story:

[Shalom] said Israel was now expecting Palestinian "actions," not excuses. He said Israel was focused on the day after disengagement, and waiting to see whether the PA would rise to the occasion and – when it gains control of Gaza – dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and govern responsibly.

Between August 18 (when the Times story appeared) and August 23 (when the President next spoke with the press) -- there was undoubtedly a discussion between Bush and Rice about how to correct the misimpression the Times had created, and do so in a manner that would leave no doubt about the U.S. position.

Secretaries of State do not write letters to the editor.  The mangled quote was corrected by the Chief of State.

Comments

[Yael]

Awesome work. I don't know how you do it, but I'm glad you do. Kol hakavod!

[Smooth]

Hi Rick, I found out about your site via Yael who commented on my site with a link to this post of yours. You've done great research here. I'm still going to hold out on reversing my current opinion on Rice because she still believes in a palestinian contiguous state and I do not. Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading your other work, thanks again.

[Rick Richman]

Yael -- thank you for your generous comment and referral.

Smooth -- I very much appreciate your comment, since your August 18 post, seconded by Lynn-B's post on August 23 -- both posts understandable without the transcript -- seemed to me examples of the deleterious effect of the Times' shabby journalism.

[Isaac B2]

I'm still not entirely sure I like what the Bush administration has been doing in the Middle East, but I will happily acknowledge that Bush (like pretty much every modern President) is making a nice, obvious stand of supporting Israel.