Not to be picky, but if they were trying to deceive, wouldn't they not have had a headline that says "Bush and Kerry Evasive"?

I mean, the way it reads now, if you think Arnold called Kerry straightforward, the quote contradicts the headline.

This makes me think it's just sloppy quotation, not an attempt to deceive.

Sorry, Jake, I can't agree. While the headline might mention both Bush and Kerry, the dowdified quote makes it look like Arnold said that Kerry was "straighforward with the people" when in fact he was specifically saying just the opposite. The Governor felt the need to state a specific criticism of Kerry and it's grossly misleading to omit the example to make it look like a complement instead.

I'd be more inclined to give them benefit of the doubt if this kind of "error" didn't seem to break the same way all the damn time.
I hope somebody is working on an (objective) chronicle of media behavior this election-- it would be a stunner!

I'm aware of the quote's effect, Bryan. But if you want to make a convincing case for intent to deceive you kinda have to account for the headline.

Notice also that the quote as it stands is confusing: Arnold says that Bush did the "same thing." But the same thing as what? Being straightforward?

The quote is sloppy--in fact, it's misleading. But evidence of bias? That's a stretch.

And then they also linked to the full article with the unedited quote-- if I were going to deceive I'd try to cover my tracks a little bit better. You could argue that this shows how truly shameless they are, I guess. I really see no reason to think that.

As far as "everything breaking the same way all the damn time," Old Grouch-- have you actually tried to rigorously count? As I understand it, many sports fans perceive that all the calls go against their team all the time. Is this necessarily different?

Not that there isn't media bias out there. Brit Hume and Dan Rather for example. I'd say it'd be better to focus on clear cases like that instead of trying to divine bias from every ham-handed quotation.

You've GOT to be kidding. You can't see the bias in the "creative alteration"?!?

ABC's article makes it sound like Arnold implied "Kerry is straightforward with people, Bush is too, sometimes."

The actual intent of Arnold's FULL QUOTE is "Kerry made a mistake by not answering the question, Bush did too, sometimes."

If you can't grasp the major differences in there, you deserve ABC.

There's a difference between "can't see" and "would rather not see."

Hmm. Well, I still don't think the headline makes up for the quote, especially since I suspect we'll be seeing that same mangled quote turning up in other places soon. But I will agree with you that the edited quote is a mess regardless of any bias. I frankly don't understand why wire services like Reuters feel the need to chop up perfectly good quotes just to save a line or two of text. Yeah, yeah, column space and all, but it's possible to edit without mangling the story. God forbid we drop a word of the reporter's own vital commentary to make room for actual facts. Besides, so many people read their news online now that space really shouldn't be the overriding consideration. If the editors of the dead tree edition of a local paper need to fit in one more ad then let them screw with the quotes themselves and leave the rest of us out of it.

Oops, I accidentally cut a sentence and mangled my own post. Preview is your friend.

The missing third sentence was: "In this case it's clearly ABC's fault, but wire services are often the main source for dowdified quotes."

What we have here is a very sucessful demonstration of "spin" where the spinner has his back side covered very well.
The short blurb is the equal of "Judas went out and hanged himself... go do thou likewise." with a link to the Kings James version of the Bible.
When challenged, the spinner can retreat to "Oops.. "a minor editing error, I mean no harm.". If you are not informed and / or in a hurry the impression is left.
Political advertising is like product advertising. No one pays a lot of attention to it. We tell candidates that typically they will get 3 - 5 seconds to catch someone's attention. If they catch the attention then the rest of the message may get through. Otherwise there is just that initial impression.
Of those who hit that quote most left with the impression that a Republican was impressed by Kerry. If you get by with that enough times it will swing a few votes.
Maybe 10 people here will discuss it fully, but if it were my candidate I would not care about those 10. The editing error worked! "As the editor, I am "so sorry" heh heh heh.

Some who scoff at the claim that the media is intentionally trying to foist a shoddy case onto us by using edits and choosing slanted words will, in the same breath, try to tell you that Bush and Cheney made a subliminal case linking Iraq to 9-11.

Am I alone in finding that a little convenient?

I can't find that article in The Note. Am I just missing it or has it been removed?

Would you kindly provide the URL to the ABC story that you quoted above? I am unable to find it on the Noted Now site.

When I searched the string "Both of them did not answer" I found the Reuters story, but not anything else.

When I searched the string "people.... You know like Kerry did", I found nothing about the debates.

I should mention that clicking on the link that is provided brings me to the Noted Now page, but I see nothing about SCHWARZENEGGER there.

Noted Now doesn't appear to save old quotes; things apparently dissappear into the memory hole there as they get older.

Apologies for not grabbing a screen shot.

They do have a correction up now, as I note at the beginning of the post.

A.L.

Gee, wait until ABC gets the bill from Maureen Dowd. I believe she pioneered and patented this technique.

In the glare of the internet attempts at bias will become more creative, more careful, as suble as possible. People will adapt.