FACTS about the Obama in Kenya photo, and inaccuracy on GD:P

[anigbrowl]

Here is the original tabloid article, titled 'Obama's shocking Al Qaeda Link' - of course, it's nothing of the sort.



Have a look at the botom of the image. Does it say National Enquirer, as numerous Clinton supporters have been claiming this morning? No. It says 'Examiner'.

Fact #1: The article and photo appeared in the 'National Examiner'.

Now, please have a look at this: http://www.magazine.org/Circulation/circulation_trends_and_magazine_handbook/1362.cfm
It's the circulation Top 50 list of the Magazine Publishers of America, a trade organization.

The National Examiner's circulation? 439,199 - not ~3 million, the figure suggested by the same people who have been alleging it appeared in the Enquirer. Amazingly, the National Examiner is so behind the times that it doesn't even have a website. Even the Conservative blog that's been harping on the story calls it 'notoriously unreliable'.

Fact #2: The National Examiner has a circulation of ~440,000.


Now, kindly note that I am NOT commenting on whether the Drudge story is reliable or not, or whether it matters that Obama dressed up in local clothes while visiting Kenya in 2006. Such things don't bother me, and meantime there are paid journalists investigating the question of whether the Clinton campaign circulated this email for campaign purposes or not.

However, I would like to point out that several people on GD:P, all of whom happen to be be opposed to Obama winning, have been repeating identical claims which contain gross factual errors. It took me about 5 minutes to find out where the photo was published and what the circulation of the magazine was. Why can't other people do the same basic research research before repeating their claims on multiple threads?

I'm not calling them liars, any more than I call the Bush team liars about the Iraq war. I assume this mistake is due to good old-fashioned incompetence.

[Tennessee Gal]

1. I saw it weeks and weeks ago. Who cares?

[anigbrowl]

11. Really - you saw what people wrote on GD: P today 'weeks ago'?

This thread is about glaring inaccuracies in today's discussion of the photo flap, not about the reliability of the original article.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. Good catch! K and R. nt

[Bread and Circus]

3. I'm not calling them liars either. I think shills is a better term.

[LeftCoast]

16. You would trust Drudge over other Dems? You may need to rethink your priorities...

just a suggestion.

[oviedodem]

4. Once again I am sure Obama kneww about this on 2/4 notice how he

dismissed the crap. For Hillary to circulate this is PATHETIC and shows how evil they are. She is supposed to be a democrat and against fear mongering but look at how they are perpetuating the fraud.

[ProSense]

5. Here is Wolfson's supposedly strong denial while agreeing in part with Drudge

On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson strongly denied any role in pushing the photo of Obama in a turban and Somali garb.

Drudge reported this morning that Clinton staffers had "circulated" the photo. He didn't say who circulated it, what level of Clinton staffer had circulated it, or to whom it had been circulated. Nonetheless, the media has been all over the story today.

Asked if the campaign had any role, Wolfson said, "No, not to my knowledge...I've never seen that picture before. I'm not aware that anyone else here has. I'm not aware that anyone here has circulated this e-mail."

Wolfson did say, however, that the campaign agreed with part of the message in the email -- that if the same photo had appeared of Hillary, it would have been a big story: "It is a common view among this campaign and our supporters that there is a difference in how the media covers our campaign and how it covers Senator Obama."

link

Damage control.

[Barack_America]

9. How hard is it to track down an e-mail and address those responsible?...

All of this "aware" "aware" "aware" crap is unacceptable.

[anigbrowl]

12. 'Who, me?'

This is about what I've come to expect from General Zod (who is using the name Howard Wolfson merely as a convenient disguise).

[Skip Intro]

6. Some obviously confused Enquirer with Examiner. And, er...so?

So it was seen by half a million rather than two plus million.

So?

Point is, the pic was published nationally, and seen by many.



Seems to me to be an honest mistake of little consequence.

[anigbrowl]

13. A mistake I've seen made over 20 times today...what a coincidence.

But hey, I'm sure it is an honest mistake, nothing more than incompetence. Those people linking to thw right-wing blog 'sweetness and light' - how could they possibly be expected to actually read the article they were linking to?

[maddiejoan]

7. Thank you for the correction

But it doesn't help debunk anything.

It's a published photo that does not have origins with the Clinton campaign.

The National Examiner is published (Just like the Enquirer) by AMI --and they share resources.

[misanthrope]

8. "We dunn newed he wuz one-a them thar Iss-lambs"**nm

**

[goodgd_yall]

10. Thank you

Appreciate the research and post.

[Metric System]

14. That photo has been on the internet since Sept. 2006:

http://www.geeskaafrika.com/ethiopia_31aug06.htm

[Scurrilous]

15. Kick

:kick: