Friday, February 15, 2008

Unpersuasive Sources

Over the past few days, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been locked in a nasty battle about debates in Wisconsin. Hillary Clinton released an ad accusing Obama of ducking debates, Obama responded, and now Hillary responded to Barack's response with a new attack ad. The Obama campaign responded to Hillary's response with the following statement:
Bill Burton, the spokesman for the Obama campaign, emailed [the NYT] this reply: “We’ve had 18 debates and we’re scheduled for even more. Clinton appears to enjoy debating so much that she has engaged a quite vigorous debate with her own record of supporting NAFTA.”
Sounds like the same old politics to me?

Nonetheless, while I was watching Obama's responding attack ad (NYT, YouTube), which accused Hillary of "the same out politics of phony charges and false attacks," I was surprised to see the persuasive spin used in citing sources. Consider the transcript of the ad with pertinent accompanying images (shown below). Look and see if you can spot a subtle manipulation of sources (source: NY Times).

After 18 debates, with two more coming, Hillary says Barack Obama is ducking debates? It’s the same old politics, of phony charges and false attacks.

On health care, even Bill Clinton’s own labor secretary says Obama covers more people than Hillary and does more to cut costs...

... saving $2,500 for the typical family.

Obama’s housing plan — it stems foreclosures and cracks down on crooked lenders.

That’s change we can believe in.




Notice how Obama begins by emphasizing that Clinton's labor secretary is supporting Obama's claims. However, Obama quickly changes his sourcing and the announcer finishes his sentence while the sourcing changes to BarackObama.com

This seems like the same old politics to me...

No comments: