Hillary's flag-burning feint fools Dowd, others

Does Maureen Dowd read her own newspaper?

Today the controversial New York Times columnist writes the following:

W. prefers tactical betes noires to real ones. (Hillary followed his lead by joining conservatives to support a constitutional ban on flag burning.)

But as her own newspaper editorialized on Dec. 7:

Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize the burning of the American flag... It looks to us more like a simple attempt to have it both ways. Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning.

In fact, the Times editorial about Clinton ran on the opposite page from Dowd's own column of Dec. 7. Did she open the newspaper that day? Does she know how to access Nexis?

Clinton's compromise position on flag-burning may be somewhat awkward, but that does not reduce journalists' obligation to get the facts straight. Unfortunately, several other writers have also gotten it wrong. A June 4 Washington Post Magazine article stated that Clinton "recently signed on to a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, which enraged free speech advocates, flag burners, and the match and kerosene industries" - an error that was later corrected. Mike Littwin of the Rocky Mountain News recently wrote of "the anti-flag-burning amendment, newly endorsed by Hillary Clinton." Finally, the Christian Science Monitor reported that Clinton "is currently experiencing a wildfire revolt on her left flank with activists and left bloggers unhappy at the senator's moderate and even conservative positions on issues such as an anti-flag- burning amendment and the war in Iraq."

Why is this so hard? Nexis includes a number of articles in which columnists and reporters get Clinton's position correct, including the New York Daily News, Cragg Hines of the Houston Chronicle, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the St. Petersburg Times editorial page, and even the hapless Richard Cohen of the Washington Post.

The problem, it seems, is that (a) Hillary's position requires reporters and commentators to actually understand a complicated political/legal question and (b) the idea that she supports the anti-flag burning amendment fits the narrative of her move toward the center. But neither is any excuse.

Update 6/7 12:10 PM: For more, see the Spinsanity archive of articles criticizing Dowd as well as two recent corrections of her work in the New York Times (documented by Ken Waight of Lying in Ponds).

Comments

[SomeCallMeTim]

(a) Hillary's position requires reporters and commentators to actually understand a complicated political/legal question

It's not clear what's complicated about the question--she's supporting legislation she assumes is unconstitutional.

[Joe]

You say there's a complicated legal issue involved, but then never actually explain it. And those links to news stories don't either - they simply repeat she's for a law that bans flag burning. That is not correct.

The law she co-sponsored bans flag burning intended to intimidate others. The origin of this federal law is a 2003 Supreme Court case, Virginia v. Black, that upheld a Virginia anti-Klan law prohibiting flag burning on the property of another to intimidate them.

While there may be constitutional issues with meeting the evidentiary threshold to charge someone under Hillary's law (i.e., what if the police arrest all flag burners thinking they are all Klansmen?), Hillary's support does not contradict her support of general flag-burning as free speech. And saying she supports a ban on flag burning is not really right.

[KC]

Nitpicking if you ask me. Maureen Dowd is hyperbolic. Is this news? Hillary Clinton is a sellout. Not news either. I realize this is your "angle," holding the press to account, but Democrats like Clinton acting like Conservatives is a bigger issue to me personally. So whether she's making flag burning a crime, or supporting a constitutional amendment, it's all the same misguided crap. Which is why I couldn't care less if Dowd misstated her position. The part where Hillary sucks--she got that right.

[Michael]

So it seems we are supposed to somehow divine a politician's intentions by how they speak rather than their actions? Actions are louder than words. We also know what a politician's words are worth.

[Don]

Doesn't seem to be a complicated issue to me...

The government has no business saying what I can do with my property or my speech. Hillary does not agree with my opinion.

Therefore, Hillary does not share a significant political view with me.

The mechanism of her choice is irrelevant.