There is no way to defend this. It's as clear as can be. Whatever Simon's motivations, he has proved himself to be unethical.

And it wasn't just cutting off teh end o the quote. He completely mischaracterized the gathering. Forget Fred - you think a fireman would be unhappy to be next to that pretty babe? And she DID look cute as hell in the hat. Yummy.

Maybe Roger is jealous of Fred?

Anyways...another lie revealed. Thank you.

Roger Simon wrote a book about the 2000 election in which he confused Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter. Anyone who can't tell a Jewish liberal from PA from a Mormon conservative from UT has no business covering politics.

Is the Politico in the business of hiring deceitful morons?

Guess so.

The worst thing about this whole episode, for me, was the credulity it was treated with over at HotAir. That and when people disputed the account, AP accused Fred's supporters of being a step away from Paulbots.

Notice that Simon interprets "silly" to modify "hat", when it actually refers to "rule", as in "hat rule", a rule about hats. Thompson has a silly rule about hats. By cutting off the second half of the quote, Simon makes it more difficult to imagine that Thompson might have meant something other than what Simon says. Ahem. When you actually listen to Thompson, it's obvious that he's referring to the rule, rather than the hat. The rule is the focus of the sentence, as you can see from the dependent clause, "which I'm about to violate." Simon is a biased incompetent.

I wouldn't be too hard on the guys over at Hot Air and Michelle. They did post an update, and we all get a little hot-headed from time to time, myself included.

So is CBS's John Bentley. Or maybe both are simply deaf.

One of the quote doctors over at TNR (where else) just adored Simon's story.

I don't remember which of their phony journalists it was -- not Fabricating Frank Foer, because I'd remember if it was his byline. One of the others... Ruth Shalit?

Another editorial statement (thinly disguised as fact) in Simon's Politico article on Fred Thompson, is that Fred did not walk down the mainstreet of Waverly, even though it is a main street kind of town. The implication by Simon is that Fred should have, and that the explanation by the campaign, citing concern for winter weather (ice/snow) is implausible. Two questions occur: 1.) is Waverly, in fact, a "main street" kind of town?; 2.) what is implausible about a concern for slipping on ice in December in Iowa, particularly when Weather.com shows a high in the 20's for most of this week, and a major snow storm went through that region last week?

(Note that Hillary's campaign is traveling by helicopter across Iowa, according to a chicago tribune article I cannot link to due to the comments engine)

The Hillary article mentions the snow storm that hit Eastern Iowa, and a search on google map reveals that Waverly is, in fact, in Eastern Iowa.

Sounds to me like The Politico hires has-been liberal journalists that (Fox) RINO News Network sets out to pasture.

This is not journalism. It is fiction. And should rightly be labeled as such. It looks like there is coming a time when the MSM is going to have to start putting ratings on their stories like Hollywood productions.

Read the original piece. Thompson's people refused to allow Simon to sit in on Fred's meeting with the local newspaper editor, and Simon was peeved about it.

He decided to show them a thing or two . . . "Never pick a fight with a fellow who buys ink by the barrel," the old saying went. Update to " . . . who buys bandwidth by the terabyte."

I mean, how picky is it to criticize Thompson for not walking down Main Street? Simon claimed there were shoppers in one of the stores he could have greeted . . . the whole piece is a hit job. Extremely unprofessional.

Simon does what all liberals do, he lies.

Politico is internet warmed over MSM. Jonathon Martin's snide coverage of the Republicans tends to raise the bile. Frankly, the Beltway crowd is all the same, no matter how they distribute their hits.

I have found politico to be suspect ever since they co hosted the first ridiculous debate for the Reps in the summer.

On that note, I don't think that the Politico has much sway in the Republican primary and thus I don't know how much effect this article will have. Whenever media like this try something like this it almost always hurts them more than the person they are trying to hurt themselves.

I think the Politico's reputation will take a much bigger hit than the Thompson campaign.

I will point out that Thompson is by no means the only Rep to be the subject of a hit piece.

Here is my analysis of a hit piece on Rudy...

http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/10/hatchet-job-masquerading-as-political.html

I have found Politico to be suspect ever since they cohosted the ridiculous debate with MSNBC in the summer. I would add that I doubt they have much sway among the Republican primary voting electorate and frankly blogs like yours have more sway and as soon as your piece and others like it make their way around the right blogosphere, it will wind up hitting politico back and gain some sympathy for Thompson.

I think that the media hurts themselves a lot more than their intended target when they try nonsense like this.

I would also point out that Thompson is not the only Republican to have a hit piece directed at them. I think most have. Here is my analysis of a hit piece on Rudy...

http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/10/hatchet-job-masquerading-as-political.html

The article is a biased hit-job even without the doctored quote.

Simon expects all politicians to conform to his and his colleagues' (extremely tired old) standards for how granular, local, "retail" politics ought to be done, and is done, in Iowa. We've all been reading the same damn stories about Candidate X eating the damned corned dog or Candidate Y kissing the baby for at least the last six elections, haven't we? That's their narrative.

To use a phrase that Fred's also recently used in Iowa, reporters like Simon want the candidates to "behave" (i.e., comply) like "trained monkeys, performing on command" -- and that includes giving (self-)important reporters like Simon practically unlimited access to the candidates everywhere they go.

Comes now Fred Dalton Thompson, a dignified and serious man who (politely, jokingly, and very wisely) refuses to wear the damned fireman's hat himself; who doesn't see fit to include big internet reporter Simon in his face-to-face meeting with a local newspaper editor; and who perhaps has other priorities right now than walking up and down snowy streets of a tiny town trying to find a small handful of locals who might possibly have a baby he can kiss, or a corned dog, or whatever.

Confronted with such "non-cooperation," then it's out with the truth, and on with the narrative ("Fred's lazy, it's true, I saw it with my own eyes, and who are you going to believe, me or that lying videotape?")

Fred has a spine. He won't pander. That puzzles and even confuses some people, but I think voters will ultimately recognize that it makes him a better candidate to actually be president (even if he's not the press corps' ideal campaigner).

Thompson won his 1994 Senate run by defying the "conventional wisdom" about how campaigns should be run.

Seems he is doing the same thing here, and, as Beldar points out, the MSM is peeved about it.

It will be interesting to see how the people that really matter--that is, the voters, not the talking heads--view Thompson's approach.

No one is going to even remember he was running by March.

That type of article fits well with a topic of discussion I listened to while driving home. The topic was the possibility of filing suit for journalistic malpractice, which, I think, would make for an interesting court battle.

Bob, I don't always agree with you, but wow do I love it when you get hold of something that piques your ire.

Maybe the chief was handing Fred a new helment. I wouldn't want anyone trying on my helment since it's been in a few fires and crashed vehicles. No telling what kind of contamination is on/in it. We wipe them down with a bleach water solution before letting anyone handle them. Oh, I forgot. Simon is simply a lying and biased ahole.

You're a firefighter, Scrapiron? May I go off-topic and thank you for being one of those that runs into danger when everyone else runs out?

To critique clazy's critique:

The amputated quote does the job of indicting the author of the article well enough without grasping for straws by trying to analyze which word was being modified by "silly."

Silly hats in political campaigns go back a long, long way--one of the most famous is Calvin Coolidge in the Indian chief's headdress. Think also of Dukakis in the tank commander's helmet. These gaffes have been discussed again and again over the decades, and there's no doubt that Thompson actually meant a "silly hat" rule. There's also no doubt that the phrase is simply shorthand for "unusual headgear worn with the object of endearing oneself with a targeted voter bloc," rather than an attack on firefighters and their helmets.

Who cares whether he said he was about to violate the rule or not? He didn't, in fact violate it. The point of this stupid anecdote is that Thompson didn't want to wear the hat because he has a rule against wearing hats that might make him look foolish in a shot. Why does it matter that he briefly indicated he would wear it but then changed his mind?

Reminds me of when the media continually said that Al Gore claimed he'd "invented" the Internet.

Um, the omitted second half the quotation doesn't alter or otherwise modify the first half so as to change the meaning or context of his comment.

Aka, including the omission would not have salvaged the "gaffe."

Aka, all this hot air is over nothing.

I ran into Roger Simon way back when reporting on nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. He wanted to hear ABSOLUTELY only one side of the story. It was a real shocker to meet a journalist who not only had a slant, but refused to hear the opposite side.

Attack Monster, it matters because, among other things, it puts a whole different spin on the event and makes a joke sound like an ill-tempered remark.

I'll be durned... I am actually finding myself in agreement with Novanom.

Parsing the sentence is secondary, what should be of primary importance to this story is the fact that the sentence was cut off and thus taken out of context--very much out of context, in fact.

I also tried to submit comments and contact Simon and the Politico regarding this story. The Waverly Democrat also offers a much different description of the events.

The only thing new media has to differentiate itself is its credibility. Lacking that, the MSM has superior distribution, marketing, production, news-gathering, newsfeeds, etc.

The Politico has to decide if it's going to engineer an early death or not on whether it terminates this fraud and sets a clear standard for credible, ethical reporting. Lacking Simon's termination, there's no reason to read yet another tired Firedoglake-inspired liberal opinion blog.

Simon got it right. There is no dispute that Thompson admitted he has a silly hat rule. That it was followed by "that I am about to violate" makes absolutely no difference. Thompson didn't have the courage or courtesy to put the hat on. And, being the weakling that he is, he left it to his wife to bail him out. Just as Bill relies on Hillary.

Thompson knows he blundered. That's why he referred to the incident in his request for more money filmed on his bus in Iowa by saying "We don't raise our hands when we're told to and we don't wear hats that aren't our own." before putting on a cowboy hat that made him look like a drugstore cowboy.

There are three things that are totally overrated: Young women (That's the polite version.), imported beer and Fred Thompson.

Richard, can I borrow you for a few days? I need to drill some holes, and you spin well enough to be an excellent drill.

I'm as big an opponent of liberal media bias as you'll find, but I don't see the problem here with Simon's report. Simon quotes the "silly hat rule," but ignores that Thompson also (1) first said that he was about to violate it, and then (2) changed his mind and said he would adhere to the rule. Simon is exactly right in the substance here, because (1) and (2) cancel out. Would it have been more accurate to say that he initially said that he would violate the rule and then changed his mind? I guess, but it would have taken additional space, and would have added zero content to what Simon actually said about the episode. Right?

Best regards,

CThomas

C-C-G: The problem with the blogosphere is people such as yourself who mouth off without backing their mouths up with logic. So, we'll give you a chance to prove yourself.

State intelligently and cogently why my observations are wrong.

And remember, no smart-mouthing-just logic.

"I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused." Anonymous although it may have been Elvis Costello.

Simple, Richard... Thompson did start to put the hat on, as reported above.

Therefore, at the time he uttered it, he intended to break the rule he had just mentioned. I call your attention to the statement "Thompson then takes the Chief's helmet and starts to raise it if he is going to put it on," which appears above in the main article. Therefore, the statement is germane and should have been included.

That he later changed his mind has no bearing on his frame of mind at the time he uttered the statement... he is not prescient, he could not have known he'd change his mind at a later time.

Therefore, logically, the full quote should have been included.

Please do not take my sharp tongue (fingers?) as evidence that I lack a similarly sharp brain. Quite the opposite, my sharp brain empowers my sharp tongue (or fingers, as the case may be).

Good day, sir.

Got an error first time, if this is a double post, I apologize.

Simple, Richard... Thompson did start to put the hat on, as reported above.

Therefore, at the time he uttered it, he intended to break the rule he had just mentioned. I call your attention to the statement "Thompson then takes the Chief's helmet and starts to raise it if he is going to put it on," which appears above in the main article. Therefore, the statement is germane and should have been included.

That he later changed his mind has no bearing on his frame of mind at the time he uttered the statement... he is not prescient, he could not have known he'd change his mind at a later time.

Therefore, logically, the full quote should have been included.

Please do not take my sharp tongue (fingers?) as evidence that I lack a similarly sharp brain. Quite the opposite, my sharp brain empowers my sharp tongue (or fingers, as the case may be).

Good day, sir.

Richard, C-C-G can't state why your observations were wrong because you didn't make any observations; you just offered a bunch of bitchy value judgments and meaningless insults. If someone that you approve of had done exactly the same thing as Thompson did, then your value judgments would have been exactly the opposite. It would have been courageous _not_ to put the hat on. Instead of his wife's actions showing him for a weakling, it would have shown him for being strong enough to rely on his wife. Instead of the cowboy hat making him look like a drugstore cowboy, it would have made him look like a movie-hero cowboy.

If you don't want bitchy responses, you should stop making such a bitchy comments.

Remember Michael Dukakis' tank ride while wearing headgear? Remember how silly he looked? Apparently, Fred Thompson remembers too.

"That he later changed his mind has no bearing on his frame of mind at the time he uttered the statement... he is not prescient, he could not have known he'd change his mind at a later time."

Right. He fully intended to, but two seconds later he discovered that the intention had gone away. Happens all the time. Disgraceful that Simon denied him credit for those two seconds of sincerity.

You *do* have a sharp brain, CCG!

C-C-G and Doc Rampage: The news quote was accurate because it reflected what happened. Thompson was too cowardly to put the hat on and he let his wife bail him out. Thompson should have put the hat on and been done with it. It's that simple. Now, we have another example of a candidate's supporters blaming the candidate's cowardice and stupidity on the media. That's why Thompson is a loser.

You are both fortunate to live in a country in which people such as yourselves are allowed to post opinions that sound as if they are 15 year girls having their first menstrual cycle. (I am guessing, perhaps wrongly, that you are both "male.".) You are both classic examples of what Rush Limbaugh calls the "chickification" of America.

Ya know, Richard, it seems rather crude of you to resort to insults after asking me for "no smart-mouthing."

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Perhaps he didn't put it on because he won't wear hats which he is not entitled to wear.

Why is there so much angst and virtual ink spilled over the inoccuous phrase "captive audience"? It implies absolutely nothing other than the fact that a politician spoke to on-duty fire fighters who were not at liberty to leave the fire hall. It's not derogatory, factually incorrect, nor misleading. It "would almost go unnoticed" because it is scarcely worth noticing.

Really, is this what following and debating campaigns is all about? Restaurant tips? Silly parsing rules, and endless high dudgeon?

It seems the MSM is not the only bastion of hypersensitive delight in the trivial.

Speaking of hypersensitive delight in the trivial, Pazuzu, where is the "angst" and "virtual ink" about that phrase? CY mentioned it twice, but you're the very first commenter to do so, after more than 40 comments.

Pot, meet kettle.

C-C-G;

I stand corrected. No commenter did mention it; just the author. I should have referrred to the ink spilled about the article in its entirety, not just that phrase.

My argument about the phrase stands - it's inoccuous.

As for the 'pot/kettle' trivial charge, CY put the phrase into play for discussion, and thus invited debate. So 'sloppy writing' - not 'trivial' - is the only accusation I'll accept from you.

You completely misunderstood my argument, Pazuzu. The phrase "pot, meet kettle" referred to your own "angst" and "virtual ink spilled" over that statement, while you decry CY's.

To make it even simpler, while you are busily denouncing CY for his "angst" and so on, you are demonstrating your own "angst." Thereby proving that you are just as guilty of the errors you blame CY for.

Ergo, you are a pot, calling a kettle black.

Ain't logic wonderful?

Richard Graham:
"The news quote was accurate because it reflected what happened. Thompson was too cowardly to put the hat on and he let his wife bail him out. Thompson should have put the hat on and been done with it. It's that simple. Now, we have another example of a candidate's supporters blaming the candidate's cowardice and stupidity on the media. That's why Thompson is a loser."

Replace the negative adjectives with positive ones and the comment would have the same value - zero. As was noted above, your post has nothing to object to because it IS nothing but a series of value judgments that have no objective backing. And using your logic, it's a catch-22 - Thompson's silly if he puts the hat on and cowardly if he doesn't. What kind of objectivity is THAT?

How do we determine that this misquote is more than just leaving out two seconds? Well, maybe it's because Roger Simon gets so much else wrong here. Example: Thompson's expression is not sour as Simon describes, it's half-laughing. Example: Later in the article, Simon refers to a Waverly Democrat reporter who calls Thompson's response to her question about farming "glittering generalities" (HER question was vague, and he said he would try to reduce subsidies on farming and support funding for soil/land conservation programs).

Thus we can see that Simon goes beyond simple bias to dishonesty.

By the way, your complaint about "smart-mouthing" seems misplaced given that you're busy calling the candidate a coward and a weakling, and given that unlike many smart-mouthers, these two didn't use theirs to cover for a lack of logic. What is generally objectionable about foul language is that it's used IN PLACE OF logic - Doc Rampage at least used the language to COMPLEMENT his logic.