Andrew Alexander’s column today concerning the Washington Post’s reporting on the alleged “spitting and slurs” episode on March 20 offers a partially accurate thesis based on unsubstantiated details. In short, it doesn’t work.
Here’s Alexander’s thesis:
The Post was remiss in not providing clarity by quickly dissecting what happened.
Although he should have added “and accurately” after “quickly,” we’ll take what we can get. He also wrote,
The Post and other news organizations left the impression of a despicable, premeditated assault.
“Created” would be a better word than “left.”
And therein is the fracture in the Post ombudsman’s review. He implies that the Post should have quickly noted that the alleged spitting incident was unintentionally and, therefore, not despicable and premeditated. (An event could be despicable without being premeditated, but I digress.) Alexander offers no similar comment on the alleged Rep. Barney Frank incident. More on that below.
Alexander states that:
The video suggests he [Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II] was unintentionally sprayed by the screaming protester.
Technically, a video does not “suggest” events. It displays them from a single perspective – that of the camera lens. And what it displays here is Cleaver waving a paper in front of a protestor as though to fan away spittle. Spittle can be sprayed with yelling, but may also not be sprayed. (Try yelling in front of mirror and see how much spittle you generate. It will vary from person to person, from none – much. Granted, some is not uncommon.) In any regard, spittle was not displayed on the video.
The video shows a Capitol Hill Police Officer in close proximity to the event close behind Cleaver… close enough to be in spittle range. Note the absence of the officer’s reaction. If Cleaver is being spit upon, she is duty bound to respond. She did not.
Also note that Cleaver points his right hand (the left held papers) very near to the face of the protestor as he moves back toward the yelling man. Then, after walking up the steps, Cleaver looks at his right hand, presumably for spittle, and then wipes it on his mouth. If the hand, which was the part of his body closest to the protestors face, was spit upon, why would Cleaver wipe a hand with protestor’s spit on his own mouth? Secretary Sebelius, who taught us how to sneeze into our sleeves, would not approve of such unhygienic behavior.
Let’s just suppose Cleaver’s hand was spit upon when he stuck it in the face of the protestor. If you stick your hand in the face of an angry protestor the possibility of it picking up spittle from the source is generally enhanced. Why do that unless you want the repercussions, or are yourself out of control?
The video seems to indicate the man, along with many other protestors, was yelling, “Kill the Bill.” It shows no evidence to the contrary. No racial slurs.
With regard to the Barney Frank incident, Alexander writes,
The episode involving Barney Frank is more clear-cut. Many readers have told me there is no evidence to support The Post’s report that Frank was subjected to anti-gay slurs. They’re wrong. An ABC News video recorded the incident inside a House office building. When ABC aired its video, the epithets were bleeped. A review of the unaltered footage, made by ABC at my request, clearly captures a protester shouting, “Barney, you faggot.” Case closed.
So, ABC News reviews its own video and then tells us what’s on it. Is there some reason we can’t all see the video unedited and judge for ourselves? It may come as a surprise to Alexander, but a review by ABC of its own video does not, in the minds of all, represent a “case closed.”
Let’s look at the context of all this from 30,000 feet. It looks like these members of Congress set out to intentionally provoke the demonstrators by forgoing their normal underground trolley path to the Capitol and walking through the middle of the crowd. The behavior of Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., taunting the protestors by aiming a camera at them, “suggests” – to use Alexander’s word – that this group of went in search of an incident.
When an obvious one didn’t materialize, one was fabricated. And the MSM played right along with the ruse. If that’s not the case, where is that evidence that will yield a $100,000 check from Andrew Breitbart?
Case still open, Mr. Alexander.