Sniping McCain's earmark history? Or just snipe hunting? (Updated)

In my previous post I took PolitiFact to task over its grading of John McCain's statement that he had neither sought nor received earmark benefits for Arizona during his congressional career.

The PolitiFact page contained links to two mainstream press accounts that purported to challenge McCain respecting his avoidance of earmarks. One occurred in The New York Times in 2006, the other in The Washington Post in 2007.

In my earlier post, I provided background on the definition of "earmark," particularly the manner in which some of the more nuanced definitions emphasize "specificity of the entity receiving funding, congressional origin, exemption from normal competitive requirements for agency funding, and presence in statutory text."

We shall see that other organs of the mainstream press commit fallacies of equivocation just as cheerfully as does PolitiFact.

• The New York Times

The Times' story emphasized a bill co-sponsored by John McCain and fellow Arizona senator Jon Kyl. The bill itself was supposedly the earmark. So much for "exemption from normal competitive requirements for agency funding, and presence in statutory text."

The Times also used Pete Sepp as a source:

"If it doesn't meet the technical term of earmark, it would probably meet the public idea of one," said Pete Sepp, a vice president at the National Taxpayers Union, who is an ally of Mr. McCain in the fight for new rules.

The story also includes some appropriate comments indicating that the McCain-Kyl bill does not qualify as what lawmakers typically call "earmarks"--but all of it under the headline "Foe of Earmarks Has a Pet Cause of His Own," clearly intended to tarnish McCain's image.

• The Washington Post

The Post's attempt is no better.

The WaPo focuses on a McCain request to the executive branch that a wastewater treatment condition receive federal funds. Out the window with "exemption from normal competitive requirements" and "presence in statutory text."

The story, by John Solomon, makes no attempt to distinguish one understanding of "earmark" for another. It might as well not be an issue.

Is it any wonder that the general public tends to disdain journalists?


I'll make clear at this point that I am in no position to confirm McCain's claim that he has never asked for nor received earmarks for Arizona. But the reasoning used by PolitiFact, The New York Times and The Washington Post to assert that McCain has sought earmarks doesn't cut it.


Update:
To zero surprise on my part, I found a Newsweek story authored by Factcheck.org staffers that essentially agrees with my analysis of the two stories mentioned above.

There are two other gray areas in McCain's past. A Nov. 2003 Roll Call article questioned the senator's actions in securing $14.3 million for an Arizona Air Force base, funding that was part of a military appropriations bill but was not requested by the president. The Roll Call report included critical quotes from the House Appropriations Committee spokesman, who said the funding violated McCain's own rules on pork-barrel spending. McCain told the newspaper that he first sought approval for the project in the 2004 defense authorization bill. Later that month, Roll Call ran a correction, saying that McCain hadn't violated his own rules and that Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, chair of the appropriations committee, said McCain didn't ask her to put the project in the appropriations legislation.

(...)

Also, in 2006, he proposed legislation that would give $10 million to the University of Arizona to create a center honoring former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. But was that pork-barrel spending? Answer: It depends. An Arizona Republic editorial said this wasn't pork because it wasn't slipped into some bill in the dead-of-the-night, but was a separate piece of legislation. A Chicago Tribune editorial, meanwhile, criticized McCain, saying the request was "not much better" than a hidden earmark, and a New York Times article included this assessment by Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union: "If it doesn't meet the technical term of earmark, it would probably meet the public idea of one." As a separate authorizing bill (that died in committee), it doesn't meet CAGW's definition of pork.
(Newsweek)

Props to Newsweek for publishing fact-checking by people who know what they're doing (if I can say so while preserving what's left of my humility).

I'm pondering whether to try contacting Pete Sepp about the use of his words by the Times and by PolitiFact. Sometimes journalists mine the quotation that fits the story rather than letting the facts dictate the presentation. I have my suspicions.

*****