Sunday, April 13, 2008

It’s no wonder LA Times’ circulation’s declining

The Los Angeles Times editorializes today telling us “[u]sing anecdotes to illustrate their agendas has become an occupational hazard for politicans. (sic)”

I want to share part of the editorial with you, then offer comments below the star line.

The LAT begins - - -

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a prodigious consumer of information about healthcare, but one document she doesn't seem to have read (or at least profited from) is a Canadian report titled "Once Upon a Time ... The Use and Abuse of Storytelling and Anecdote in the Health Sector."

Otherwise, she might not have told campaign audiences about Trina Bachtel, a pregnant Ohio woman without health insurance who, Clinton said, had been turned away twice by a hospital that demanded she pay $100 to be examined. In this telling, Bachtel lost her baby, then was airlifted to another hospital, where she died. "It hurts me," Clinton said, extracting her political message from the tragedy, "that in our country, as rich and good of a country as we are, this young woman and her baby died because she couldn't come up with $100 to see the doctor."

What hurt Clinton's campaign was that several "facts" in the story did not hold up. The hospital where Bachtel's child was stillborn told the New York Times that the woman was insured. In fact, she was under the hospital's care and had never been refused treatment.

Critics cite this episode as further evidence that Clinton, already embarrassed by a false memory of braving sniper fire in Bosnia, is a serial fabricator. But she is only the latest politician to succumb to the occupational hazard of packaging policy as parable. …

The entire editorial is here.



It isn’t just "critics" who cite the "sniper fire" story as further evidence Sen. Clinton is a “serial fabricator.”

Many in the MSM who were once Clinton flacks now admit it, as do many of her supporters.

In fact, it’s getting hard to find anyone who argues HRC isn’t a “serial fabricator” except maybe WJC, who is himself a … ( well, I don’t need to finish the sentence, do I?)

What about the LAT’s “false memory” explanation for the “sniper fire” story, which Clinton told repeatedly?

Everyone knows there are such things as false memories. After many decades, you visit the house you moved from when you were six. You’d remembered the yard was huge and are shocked it’s so small. At your twenty-fifth high school reunion, you meet the fellow you tell your spouse was “the team’s quarterback.” He says, “halfback.” You’re sure he’s wrong until someone produces an old yearbook with the game write-ups.

False memories.

But you were never under sniper fire, yet you go campaigning and tell people you were?

Everyone knows what that is.

And it’s not “succumb[ing] to the occupational hazard of packaging policy as parable.”

It’s telling (rhymes with pies).

The Dem/lib/left LAT editorial board today provides readers with elaborate obfuscation to minimize and excuse what Clinton did.

Is it any wonder its circulation is declining?