Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry's new TV commercial is based on a lie. Will reporters say so?

The ad starts with a Barack Obama quote: ''We've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades.''

To which Perry responds:  ''Can you believe that? That's what our president thinks is wrong with America? That Americans are lazy? That's pathetic. It's time to clean house in Washington.''

Now, it would be rather unusual for a president to say that.

Obama didn't.

The quote comes from an event where Obama spoke about efforts to woo corporations to do more business in America. Obama's response was that government should being doing more to improve the business environment for corporations--to "make it easier for foreign investors to build a plant in the United States."

If anything, Obama is saying the government has been lazy in its approach to pleasing corporations. As MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell explained last night, this is the kind of thing you can imagine coming from the mouths of Republican politicians and candidates.

So how are media doing fact-checking Perry's claim?

Today (11/18/11) the New York Times has a piece headlined "Perry's Latest Attacks Distort Obama's Words and Past." That's pretty good--though it's a little strange to see the paper's somewhat passive description of Perry's mendacity: "Some of his recent attacks have drifted into the realm of falsehood." How on Earth did they drift into that realm?

But the piece is an improvement over the Times' take on the ad a day earlier, written by the same reporter (Richard Oppel). That article led with the news that that the  commercial "takes a sharper tone" than Perry's previous ads, and that it "may be an effort to shift attention from Mr. Perry's recent stumbles by attacking the White House."

In the sixth paragraph, readers are finally told that "the ad takes Mr. Obama's remark out of context."

Mitt Romney has also been twisting Obama's "lazy" comment, with little push back from the press. Another Times piece described Romney's attack:

Mr. Romney's critique sounded a familiar theme in the Republican primary contest--that the president is out of touch with the ordinary American worker.

Later in the article, an Obama spokesperson says Romney is taking the comments out of context--which is the kind of thing journalists should point out themselves.

In the Washington Post, Chris Cilizza reported the Perry ad this way:

His latest ad, which began airing Wednesday in Iowa and on national cable stations, takes Obama to task for a recent comment that America has grown "a little bit lazy" in attracting foreign investment.

He added:

Romney also took issue with the comment this week, accusing Obama of calling Americans lazy. "I don't think that describes Americans," he said.

And once again, an Obama spokesperson steps in, near the end of the piece, to try and set things straight.

If this is any indication of how the press is going to handle campaign season lying, things look pretty bleak.

One bright spot came on the CBS Evening News (11/17/11):

SCOTT PELLEY: As we get pulled into this campaign season, you'll be seeing a lot of ads by the candidates. And from time to time, we're going to offer some background on the claims that all the candidates are making. This one caught our eye today. Texas Governor Rick Perry is running a spot about what he describes as an outrageous comment made by President Obama.

OBAMA: We've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades.

GOV. RICK PERRY (R), TEXAS: Can you believe that? That's what our president thinks is wrong with America, that Americans are lazy? That's pathetic.

PELLEY: That would be pathetic. So we hunted down the full comments the president made during an interview Saturday at the Pacific Economic Summit. He'd been asked about U.S. businesses marketing themselves overseas.

OBAMA: There are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the U.S. as a great opportunity. Our stability, our openness, our innovative, free-market culture. But, you know, we've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted, well, people will want to come here, and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America.

PELLEY: There it is in context.

There--that wasn't so hard, was it?

UPDATE: Syntactical glitch in first sentence fixed.

The Michele Bachmann presidential campaign--formerly treated as atop-tier juggernaut by Beltway media--has been floundering for weeks. Which makes right now as good a time as any for them to grab some headlines by shouting about liberal media bias.

The Bachmann campaign was furious about email correspondence concerning a possible Bachmann appearance on a CBS Web show after the Saturday night debate.  The network's political director, John Dickerson, was lukewarm on the idea, mentioning that Bachmann's poll numbers are quite low and that she wasn't likely to be much of a factor in the debate.  Even though Dickerson is correct, these are generally not good reasons to exclude candidates, as FAIR has argued over the years.

The value to the Bachmann campaign was pretty clear, as the New York Times reported today:

"Last night, as Michele prepared her plans to debate on CBS, we received concrete evidence confirming what every conservative already knows--the liberal mainstream media elites are manipulating the Republican debates by purposely suppressing our conservative message," Keith Nahigian, Mrs. Bachmann's campaign manager, wrote in an e-mail to supporters.

Back in reality, Bachmann's message was still being suppressed on Sunday morning--as she appeared on NBC's Meet the Press to talk about her candidacy.

The truth is that the corporate media have been remarkably generous, granting Bachmann an extraordinary amount of coverage. And the CBS Sunday morning show Face the Nation, as FAIR noted here, has produced factcheck articles on its website after Bachmann has made appearances on the show--without ever telling its much larger viewing audience about her wildly inaccurate claims.

In case you missed it, Bachmann's Meet the Press appearance included, among other things, a call to make Iraq compensate the families of American servicemembers killed in the invasion of that country. A few million dollars would suffice.

Just because he wears cowboy boots and drops his G's doesn't mean he's a dummy. Perry may be a small-town boy who went to an ag school (Texas A&M University), but he's an extremely cagey and strategic politician who has been among the state's most successful governors at getting what he wants. Put another way: Even if he's not book smart by University of Chicago standards, he's plenty street smart - and street smart is still smart. The better lens through which to regard Perry is inside vs. outside, establishment vs. anti-establishment, elitist vs. jus' folks. Don't make the mistake of thinking that jus' folks is jus' dumb.

--Evan Smith ("5 Myths About Rick Perry," Washington Post, 8/21/11)

Whatever his brain power is, he was elected three times governor of Texas. He is now a first-tier presidential contender. He's smart enough to be President of the United States. He's smart enough to be elected, I think. At this point, I think we can stipulate that. So whatever his book smarts are, I think that's irrelevant for this discussion. He has clearly met the bar in Texas several times. The voters in Texas have said three times he's smart enough to be governor, and he's had a record that he's now running on.

--ABC World News senior Washington editor Rick Klein (Fox News' On the Record, 8/29/11)

Liberals often say Republicans are stupid, but they really believe it with regard to Gov. Perry. For liberals, credentials and holding fashionable opinions are more important markers of intelligence than knowledge or accomplishment.... Gov. Perry scorns their opinions, and he went to Texas A&M, not Harvard or Yale. So when a new book said his is "the brainiest political operation in America," liberals were shocked.
--Jack Kelly ("Kicking Rick: Mainstream Media and Democrats Fear the Texas Governor, So They Smear Him," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/4/11)

What those dummies Bush and Perry have in common, other than having been Texas governors, pilots and cheerleaders (what is it with Texas?), is that they're not stupid at all.... They're smart enough to know that most people in this country didn't go to Ivy League colleges -- or any college for that matter.... Until someone emerges to remind Americans of who they are in a way that neither insults their intelligence nor condescends to their less-fortunate circumstances, smart money goes to the "stupid" politicians, who are dumb as foxes and happy as clams when their opponents misunderestimate them.
--Kathleen Parker ("Not So Dumb After All," Washington Post, 9/18/11)

I will tell you: It's three agencies of government, when I get there, that are gone: Commerce, Education and the--what's the third one there? Let's see.... OK. So Commerce, Education and the-- ... The third agency of government I would--I would do away with the Education, the ... Commerce and--let's see--I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops.

--Rick Perry (Republican presidential debate, 11/9/11)

ABC This Week host Christiane Amanpour (11/6/11) kicked the show off with a pretty funny joke:

Clash of the titans in Texas last night, as Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich met for the first of a series of one-on-one Lincoln/Douglas-style debates.

Less funny was the show's very imbalanced roundtable discussion:

So let's bring in our roundtable: George Will, the Huffington Post's Arianna Huffington, former George W. Bush strategist Matthew Dowd, and historian and Newsweek columnist Niall Ferguson, author of the new book Civilization: The West and the Rest.

Three conservatives and the left-liberal Huffington.

But if anything, ABC's panel was teetering leftward.  On NBC's Meet the Press:

Finally, our roundtable will discuss if the state of the Republican race in flux now that the front-runner is engulfed in controversy. Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Kim Strassel, author of the new book Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero and host of MSNBC's Hardball Chris Matthews, and Politico senior political writer Maggie Haberman give their views.

Two conservatives, a Beltway reporter and Matthews, who described himself recently as a George W. Bush-voting pragmatist.

And on CBS's Face the Nation:

The guests are Ed Gillespie, former Republican National Committee Chair; Ed Rollins, former Bachmann campaign manager; Ken Blackwell, Perry supporter, Liz Cheney, Republican consultant and John Dickerson, CBS news political analyst.

So four conservatives and a reporter.

NBC's  Chris Matthews Show (10/30/11):

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Welcome back. Bob, tell me something I don't know.

BOB WOODWARD: That the White House has a secret plan to win the election and it's complex and it's secret, but it--look, Barack Obama wants to win so badly, as I understand it, everything in the White House is driven by the election and that level of commitment will take them to a point where he's going to show some leg in a way that people are going to say, wow, he really wants the job and this emotional connection could take place.

MATTHEWS: Wow. I do--I am impressed by that.

When he's not sharing his thoughts about Barack Obama's birth certificate, Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry is apparently unveiling a tax plan. It's a flat tax, with a few other details explained by the Washington Post (10/26/11):

Perry also would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent; eliminate taxes on dividends and capital gains; make deep, unspecified cuts in federal spending; and establish individual retirement accounts outside the Social Security system.

The article, by Karen Tumulty, gets approving quotes from a Republican adviser and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. But it also says this, in the reporter's own voice:

The proposal would be a boon to the wealthiest Americans, and that is one reason why previous flat-tax proposals, though appealing in their simplicity, have never gone far politically.

Indeed. If there's one thing that doesn't go far politically, it's tax policy that favors the wealthy.

Liberal writers are zeroing in on a new study from Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism that found Barack Obama has been subjected to far more "negative" coverage than any of the Republican presidential candidates. The graphic accompanying the study is dramatic:

Slam dunk, right?

One of Eric Boehlert's blog items at Media Matters is headlined "So Much for the Liberal Media." In another post he acknowledges that there have been criticisms of the Pew methodology in the past, but the real issue here is how right-wing critics will react to the numbers.

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly makes a similar point:

It's simply taken as a given in Republican circles that President Obama enjoys favorable coverage from major media outlets. This is generally pretty hard to believe among non-conservatives, but it's helpful to take this out of the realm of perception and into more quantifiable analysis.

If the point that liberals are making is that the liberal media conspiracy that exists in the minds of conservatives bears no resemblance to reality, they're right. But we didn't need a new study to confirm this.

A more important question (for media critics at least) is whether the study's methodology is sound. And this is where things get a little muddy.

Part of the  Pew study is attempting to measure "tone." This involves making some decisions about how you would measure that, as the study makes clear: "The unit of measure of tone is each assertion or statement contained in a story or blog post." Pew set up a computer algorithm to capture news content and code it accordingly.

The report gives an example of a Gannett story about Herman Cain's poll numbers. The report stated that he was making "good impressions," according to the poll's findings. Thus this would be coded as a "positive" assertion. A story that quoted someone speaking about Michele Bachmann's migraines is a "negative" assertion. The report explained, "A story that is entirely about a poll showing Mitt Romney ahead of the Republican field--and that his lead is growing, would be a good example to put in the 'positive' category."

It doesn't take long to spot the problem here. Candidates performing well are far more likely to rack up "positive" coverage, even if that coverage is, strictly speaking, unremarkable campaign reporting about fundraising, polls and so on. Newt Gingrich's campaign scores a lot of "negative" coverage. But given the state of his campaign, that is completely unsurprising--and does not reveal a media "bias" against Gingrich.

This would seem to be the main explanation for "negative" coverage of Obama. A number of Republican politicians are running to challenge him, and are thus likely to criticize his record. Those comments would be recorded as "negative" coverage. But so would coverage that simply relates bad news--Pew explains:

Even the week of May 2-8, immediately after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, Obama’s coverage was overwhelmingly negative. One reason is that many of the references to his role in the hunt for bin Laden were matched by skepticism that he would receive any long-term political benefit from it. Another was that the bin Laden news was tempered with news about the nation's economy.

"A nation surly over rising gas prices, stubbornly high unemployment and nasty partisan politics poured into the streets to wildly cheer President Barack Obama's announcement that Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted man, had been killed by U.S. forces after a decade-long manhunt," stated a May 2 AP story. "The outcome could not have come at a better time for Obama, sagging in the polls as he embarks on his re-election campaign."

They don't make it perfectly clear, but one can assume that a story like this would be coded as "negative"--because it mentions things like unemployment and partisanship.

The problem is that a study like this seems to confuse media bias with bad news. It's doubtful that Pew's point was to suggest that there is an overwhelming anti-Obama bias in the national media. But that's one conclusion people are likely to draw when a study talks about "positive" and "negative" media coverage.

It's hard to suggest with a straight face that politicians deserve coverage that is half friendly, half critical at all times. But without some non-arbitrary way to determine the tone of coverage a politician should be getting--and what would that look like, exactly?--it's hard to turn a count of "positive" and "negative" coverage into a gauge of media bias.

With all the chatter about the inevitability of Mitt Romney winning the Republican nomination, it might be useful to recall the last time the media were sending the same message about an early favorite, at least according to the national polls:

The New York Times has an interesting profile today (10/18/11) of a retired Wall Street trader named Robert Halper who, it turns out, made an early donation to Adbusters to help with the Occupy Wall Street movement:

Mr. Halper, who lives on the Upper West Side, had long been a supporter of the magazine, donating by his estimate $50,000 to $75,000 over the last 20 years since he was first attracted by the magazine's spoofs on corporate logos and advertisements. So he wrote a check for $20,000 and returned to his life in New York.

Interesting. But the Times clearly buried the lead here:

He recently gave $2,500 to Mitt Romney's campaign for president, after meeting him at a neighbor's fund-raiser.

Based on my understanding of conspiratorial chalkboard flowcharts, this must mean that Mitt Romney is funding Occupy Wall Street.

Someone tell Bill O'Reilly!

The New York Times had a headline on Saturday that read, "Imagining a Christie Campaign for President."

That seems appropriate--if we're talking about how it's the corporate media doing the imagining.

On ABC's This Week (10/2/11), Jonathan Karl announced that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's speech at the Reagan Library "was  the most electrifying event of the campaign so far."

That speech was treated like a big event on the NBC Nightly News (9/28/11), with anchor Brian Williams saying up front that Christie is  "the man whose every word is being watched and listened to so very carefully." Reporter Chuck Todd--you know, the voice of the voiceless--explains that there is a "twist" in the presidential race:  "Chris Christie opened the door a crack to running for president."

What does that mean? Apparently he didn't say he's not running:

It's what New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie did not say at the Reagan Library Tuesday night that froze the Republican presidential race in place. He didn't say no.

In the NBC segment, Christie tells people to go check out a Politico story--which is a compilation of all the times he's said he's not running for president. Which kind of sounds like he doesn't think he's running for president, right?

And if that doesn't convince you, surely this will:

TODD: But when an audience member pleaded with him:

Offscreen Voice #2: I mean this with all my heart. We can't wait another four years to 2016. We need you. Your country needs you to run for president.

TODD: Christie stopped joking and left an opening.

Gov. CHRISTIE: I thank you for what you're saying and I take it in and I'm listening to every word of it and feeling it, too.

TODD: Everything about Christie's speech screamed national campaign.

Everything except, you know, the part where he says he's running for president.

ABC This Week (9/25/11):

CHRISTINE AMANPOUR: And coming up, Rick Perry on the ropes.

PERRY: Yep, there may be slicker candidates and there may be smoother debaters, but I know what I believe in, and I'm going to stand on that belief every day. I will guide this country with a deep, deep rudder.

AMANPOUR: Can the new frontrunner come back from a shaky debate performance? Or is Chris Christie waiting in the wings to steal his thunder?

New York Times (9/26/11):

After Perry's Debate Showing, Eyes Turn Toward Christie

Washington Post (9/26/11):

Texas Gov. Rick Perry's recent stumbles--his rambling attempt at last week's GOP presidential debate to attack former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's flip-flopping is a prime example--have renewed speculation that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie might rethink his "no go" decision on the 2012 race.

Michael Moore on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC (9/19/11):

Or, if you prefer reading:

But last week when Wolf Blitzer and CNN had that debate, the CNN/Tea Party Express debate, and Wolf sat there and called them his partners--I just thought, this was amazing, because would you ever see the CNN nurses union debate or the CNN teachers union debate? Because I think there are a few more teachers and nurses in this country than there are members of the Tea Party.

But we'll never see that in the mainstream media. And liberal organizations which have many more members just don't get the attention. A thousand people arrested in front of the White House a couple of weeks ago on the tar sands environmental issue -- hardly any coverage of this.

Can you imagine if 1,000 Tea Party members had been arrested in front of the White House? It would be at the top of every news story.

People are down on Wall Street right now, holding a sit-in and a camp- in down there--virtually no news about this protest.

This goes on with liberals and the left all of the time, and it gets ignored. And, fortunately, there are shows like yours and others who aren't ignoring it. It doesn't mean it isn't happening, and it will continue to happen.

Politicians beware: Thomas Friedman is still threatening to launch a third party.

In his New York Times column today (9/21/11), Friedman moans:

One would hope that our politicians would rise to the challenge by putting forth fair and credible recovery proposals that match the scale of our debt problem and contain the three elements that any serious plan must have: spending cuts, increases in revenues and investments in the sources of our strength. But that, alas, is not what we're getting, which is why there remains an opening for an independent third party candidate in the 2012 campaign.

Hmm, spending cuts, revenue increases, investments that are supposed to help us win the future.... Does that remind you of any politician you know? Poor Barack Obama--he's trying his hardest to be President Tom Friedman, and he still can't get any love from the original.

It needs to be said that the columnist the president seems to be trying most hard to please (especially now that David Brooks has jilted him) is absolutely bonkers when it comes to economics.  His column begins: "It becomes clearer every week that our country faces a big choice: We can either have a hard decade or a bad century." By "hard" he presumably means like we've been having--and somehow keeping 9 percent of our workforce out of productive employment for a decade is going to make things better up through 2111? What this is really is sadism masquerading as masochism.

The front page of USA Today (9/19/11) tells us that Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry is taking "the heat," but not to worry--he says he can handle it.

That's especially true with reporters like Susan Page on his side:

He's not worried, he said, because only one issue really matters to Americans in this election. It's the one he plans to ride first against his Republican rivals and then against President Obama.

Jobs.

"I'll be asked about a hundred different issues a thousand different ways," he said in the interview Friday, one of only a few he has done since announcing his candidacy last month. "But it is about who has the record, who has the vision to get Americans working again." That's what "Republicans, independents and even, I think, a number of Democrats … are looking for."

As he told those at a county GOP dinner in Jefferson, a coffeehouse crowd in Newton and workers at a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Atlantic, he can cite job-creation statistics in Texas that are the envy of the nation's other 49 governors. The Lone Star State has accounted for 40 percent of the jobs created in the United States since June 2009.

We've been through this before (and we'll go through it many, many more times).

It's likely that a competent governor--and certainly a competent reporter--would be more concerned about the unemployment rate in a given state, which takes into account not only how many people have jobs but how many people need jobs. On that score, Texas is right in the middle of the pack. So there are plenty of governors who actually wouldn't envy Texas.

Page goes on:

Now Perry is pouncing on [Mitt] Romney with the brio of a rodeo cowboy lassoing a bull.

To every audience, he ridicules Romney's record on jobs when he was governor (Massachusetts ranked 47th nationwide)....

The unemployment rate in Massachusetts is more than a point lower than it is in Texas. Something Page could have found out even without a lasso.

A Washington Post story on Sunday (9/18/11) argues that many recipients of Social Security aren't really paying attention to what the GOP presidential front-runners are saying about Social Security. The real story, then, is what kind of narrative the candidates are trying to establish. As reporter Amy Gardner puts it:

In many ways, it doesn't matter to the candidates whether people are attuned to what they are actually saying about Social Security. For them, the issue is instead serving as a proxy for the narrative each is trying to establish about himself.

For Perry, standing by his brash statements on Social Security--he has called it a "Ponzi scheme" and a "monstrous lie"--presents a chance to show that he's a straight-shooter unafraid to confront the nation's toughest challenges.

"I don't get particularly concerned that I need to back off from my factual statement that Social Security, as it is structured today, is broken," Perry said in an interview published in Time magazine last week. "If you want to call it a Ponzi scheme, if you want to say it's a criminal enterprise, if you just want to say it's broken--they all get to the same point. We need, as a country, to have an adult conversation."

This is actually a great illustration of a terrible problem with political reporting. How candidates are using policy discussions to frame their candidacies is actually much less important than whether what they're saying is nonsense.

Perry's Social Security claims are wildly misleading. Press coverage should explain that to readers (and, you know, voters) instead of talking about how his inaccurate claims means he's a "straight-shooter."