The Media Interview

During a meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader’s editorial board on May 23, 2008, which was streamed live over the internet, Hillary Clinton mentioned the assassination of Robert Kennedy in a passing comment about nomination campaigns historically lasting into June. That mention became the centre of a firestorm.

Here’s the headline from the newspaper that apparently (see the end of this article) started the whole controversy, the NY Post on May 23, 2008: Hillary Raises Assassination Issue

Here’s a typical transcript from Clinton’s interview, this one happens to be from the Huffington Post:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.”

Compare that sloppy and context-less quotation with my own transcription from video:

Clinton: …there has been this urgency to end this… and… you know, historically that makes no sense um, so I… I find it a bit of a mystery.

Reporter: You don’t buy the party unity argument [inaudible]

Clinton: I don’t, because again, I’ve been around long enough, ah….you know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary, um… somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy… was assassinated in June in California, ah… You know, I don’t understand it, and you know there’s lots of speculation about why it is, but ah…

Only in this longer version do we get the referent of “it” when she says “I don’t understand it” and only in this version do we get the sense of her fishing around for what to say; that it was not said without hesitation, etc.

Even without the accurate transcription, it’s still hard to accept that anything less than intellectual dishonesty allows reporters to come away from that video accusing Clinton of “raising the specter of assassination” instead of saying she was referring to June as the common denominator in her two examples.

And to see how the public picks up on misinformation by reporters and commentators, listen to some of the comment frenzy from the MSNBC website:

OK, I have been trying to give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt, but this bit of insanity does it for me.
please make them stop.
Kathleen (Sent Friday, May 23, 2008 4:28 PM)

OMG! Do any of you Clinton supporters have a defense to this??? This woman isn’t just immoral–she’s AMMORAL!!!
Liz in SD (Sent Friday, May 23, 2008 4:30 PM)

NOTE: To Clinton’s chagrin, there is VIDEO of her making this invocation which will be playing all weekend long on this long family weekend. YOu can get the video on the Arbus Leader website and, soon, I am sure, on YouTube
Geoff in Brooklyn (Sent Friday, May 23, 2008 4:31 PM)

It is ridiculous Mo Elleithe, saying that Clinton should stay in because you know other candidates have been assassinated before the convention. This is sick that Hilliary Clinton would even raise this as a reason for her to stay in the race. She has gone absolutely crazy!
MK, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Friday, May 23, 2008 4:31 PM)

It’s enough to make politicians or anyone refuse to speak another word in public…

Full disclosure: I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton or even the Democratic Party. I am a supporter of being as accurate as possible in reporting.

UPDATE:

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post had one of the most level-headed comments I’ve seen on this issue:

What Clinton meant seems clear. Previous nomination fights have gone well into June and, therefore, there is no reason for this one to be cut short before every state has its say. (South Dakota is one of the last two states to vote, on June 3.)…

Unfortunately for Clinton, using the RFK assassination to prove her point was — at best — a poorly chosen example. Many in the black community have expressed fear about the possibility of assassination as it relates to Sen. Barack Obama — the first African-American candidate likely to be one of the major parties’ nominee for president and raising the matter (in any manner) is widely regarded as poor form.

He also links to a commentary by Sioux Falls Argus-Leader Executive Editor Randell Beck, part of which I’ll repeat here for the record because it illustrates how these things can happen:

Clinton, visiting South Dakota for the third time in the weeks leading up to our last-in-the-nation June 3 primary, met with our editorial board May 23 for a 50-minute session focusing on state, regional and national topics. And like a handful of other newspapers across the nation, we live streamed the interview on our Web site. That means you could go to argusleader.com and watch, in real time, as Clinton answered our questions about energy, ethanol and a host of other topics.

And you won’t be surprised to learn that we asked her about the mounting national pressure on her to withdraw from the race for the Democratic nomination.

Responding to our questions on that point, Clinton offered historical context (and justification) for staying in. Among her comments: “You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June. …We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um, you know, I just … don’t understand it.”

Sitting just a few feet from Clinton, that didn’t seem like news to me.

Ditto for Argus Leader publisher Arnold Garson, editorial board members Greg Robinson and Barb Facile and Voices Editor Nestor Ramos. Out in the newsroom, editor Jeff Martin, viewing the live stream and filing news updates to our Web site, didn’t see a story out of her reference to Kennedy either, focusing instead on Clinton’s strenuous denial minutes earlier that her aides were negotiating terms of her exit with Obama’s campaign.

The New York Post, viewing the interview live, apparently picked up on something I didn’t. Minutes after the Q&A was over, that newspaper posted on its Web site a story that began this way: “Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.”

Vaguely connecting Clinton’s comments about the Kennedy assassination to threats against Obama, the first African-American to advance so far in the race for the White House, the story quoted part of what Clinton said in our interview. Then it went to Obama’s campaign for a response: “Sen. Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.”

Viewed from a certain philosophical vantage point, Clinton’s comments might have been news, maybe even big news. But at least for a few hours, in the superheated environment of a national political campaign, context didn’t matter much.