AP's Peoples Reports 'At Least One' Audience 'Angry Shout' at NH Perry Event; Attendee Says She 'Never Heard'
According to the Associated Press's Steve Peoples in a Saturday evening report, presidential candidate Rick Perry, speaking at a private reception in New Hampshire (which begs the question of whether Peoples was even there), told those attending: "I don't support a fence on the border." Then, again according to Peoples, "The answer produced an angry shout from at least one audience member."
"Jane" (actually Jane Woodworth) at the YouTooCongress blog (HT Instapundit) says otherwise: "I attended that event, stood about 15 feet from where he delivered those remarks and never heard an 'angry shout.' Either the AP is making it up or it wasn’t much of a shout. Perhaps they can supply the audio." They definitely should.
Absent audio, Peoples, his wire service, and other establishment press reporters do not deserve the presumption of truth in matters such as these, as they have a track record of misreporting campaign and protest-related statements and actions. What follows are several examples out of many which could be compiled.
First, there's this from September 4, 2004 at Newsmax:
AP Retracts 'Clinton Booed' Story
The Associated Press has retracted its Friday afternoon report that a crowd at a Bush rally in West Allis, Wisc., booed when President Bush offered ex-President Clinton best wishes for a speedy recovery from coronary bypass surgery scheduled for next week.
In a report that moved on the AP wire at 9:27 a.m. Saturday, the AP said:
"This is a correction to an incorrect story posted by AP on Friday stating the crowd booed the President when he sent his good wishes. The crowd, in fact, did NOT boo."
A transcript of Bush's remarks released by the White House noted applause after Bush offered Clinton "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery."
ABC Radio Network news also confirmed that the Clinton reference was applauded, not jeered.
In its original version of the story, the AP had reported: "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them."
The original report of booing was traced to the AP's Scott Lindlaw, who according to Powerline and several other sources in 2004, "has told fellow fellow members of the White House press corps that his 'mission is to see that George Bush is not re-elected.'" As seen here, even after AP head Tom Curley acknowledged that "it was oohs, not boos," Lindlaw himself refused to back down. Lindlaw remained with AP until 2006, and is now a legal extern at the First Amendment Coalition.
Then there were the reports of "kill him" apparently shouted at Sarah Palin rallies in 2008:
The Secret Service is looking into a second allegation that a participant at a Republican political rally shouted "kill him," referring to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.
The Scranton Times-Tribune reported that someone in the crowd shouted "kill him" after the mention of Obama's name during a rally Tuesday for Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Last week The Washington Post reported a similar incident during a Palin rally in Clearwater, Florida. The Secret Service investigated that allegation and found no indication that "kill him" was ever said, or if it had been said, that the remark had been directed at Obama.
Concerning the second "kill him" incident, the Scranton Times Leader (apparently a different publication from the Times-Tribune) later reported that "The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled 'kill him' when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded." The campaign-undermining mission was nonetheless accomplished: "News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim ..."
Then there were the March 2010 allegations that members of the Congressional Black Caucus outside of the Capitol Building on their way to vote for Obamacare were spat on and subjected to racial slurs. Numerous press outlets reported those claims without a shred of evidence, for the spitting or the slurs; many if not most have not backed down from those reports.
That the pre-Obamacare vote lies still have life is seen in the final paragraph of an unbylined AP report out of Indianapolis last week -- the same one in which, as I noted a few days ago (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog) the writer claimed that Congressman Andre Carson's statement about Tea Party-sympathetic members of Congress -- that "Some of them in Congress right now with this tea party movement would love to see you and me - hanging on a tree" -- was only a "lynching metaphor":
This isn't Carson's first go-round with the tea party. In March 2010, he accused protesters of yelling racial slurs at him and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., outside the Capitol during the heated health care overhaul debate.
Of course, the AP writer never noted that no evidence of any racial slurs was ever found, or that, as Jack Cashill observed, "Not one of the many videos shot that day recorded any."
Absent the audio and given the statement at YouTooCongress by Ms. Woodworth, there is no reason to believe what the AP's Steve Peoples wrote, either about the existence of "at least one" (clever spin, isn't it?) audible dissenting statement, or about it being "an angry shout," unless and until he produces authentic audio. None. In fact, given that the New Hampshire event was supposed to be "a private reception," I think we deserve to see evidence that he was even there.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
This is AP in its "let's make
Submitted by celator on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 3:08pm.
This is AP in its "let's make stuff up" mode. We'll see more of this as Nov '12 gets closer.
"...his 'mission is to see that George Bush is not re-elected.'"
Submitted by dr-go on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 3:29pm.
What????
No wait, why should anyone be surprised at Lindlaw's comment?
Good thing Peeebles wasn't under oath
Submitted by neutron on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 3:43pm.
AP reporter Stevie Peeebles was simply reporting his untruths in the news media. If he said it under oath, AP would have to change it's name to Associated Purgers.
A more interesting statistic is what percentage of AP news stories do NOT contain falsehoods?
So did Perry say no wall?
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 3:48pm.
So did Perry say no wall?
He's said it before
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 4:29pm.
He's said it before, so he probably did. It's one of my issues with him. I think it's pretty clear he's going to be weak when it comes to immigration if he wins.
Apparently Perry's comments
Submitted by ThePickle on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 4:32pm.
Apparently Perry's comments were to the affect that he did NOT support a wall across the entire 2000 mile border with Mexico, Perry said he supported "strategic fencing" and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels
This was in AP story that they headlined: Perry tells NH "no" to border fence.
Not fencing every square foot is best.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 4:45pm.
That will funnel the drug runners into specific crossings and make them much easier targets for snipers!
Not exactly what I would have
Submitted by ThePickle on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 4:55pm.
Not exactly what I would have suggested but not necessarily a disqualifying outcome if it indeed came to pass.
I was thinking more that it makes little sense from a monetary viewpoint.
To be honest there are areas of our border where putting up a fence would be akin to building a balustrade in front of a moat.
I mean that the terrain alone would provide sufficient deterrent and we would be better served applying the fence to those area where the terrain is much more hospitable to the "invading hoard".
I would surmise that fencing the entire border with Mexico would be more of symbolic measure than one intended be a real deterrent.
aid stations
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 1:50am.
I can't remember who it was, but one or more than one church wanted to put places near the border that had water stations for illegals to use when they are crossing the hot desert terrain. I think there were even instructions of something in spanish, for what, I do not remember.
That's your anti-deterrent right there.
-Jon
Well, as you know, well
Submitted by ThePickle on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:56am.
Well, as you know, well meaning morons have existed throughout the entirety of history.
They believed then, and continue to believe now, that if they "do the right thing" that by their example alone others will follow suit.
I wonder how they would feel about the situation if, while filling their little way station, they were set upon a group of marauding "undocumented immigrants", beaten robbed and left for dead in an inhospitable environment?
It goes hand in hand with the old adage that says:
"A liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been mugged yet".
The wall
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 1:48am.
His reasoning for not wanting to make a big high wall made sense if you heard his reason why he didn't want a big high wall: Someone will make a ladder that's much higher.
And yes, he did say he wanted more boots on the ground. They also have to have support unlike some of the border patrol agents who were left hanging or in some cases, killed. This is definitely reprehensible.
But the federal government refuses to do anything with the captured illegals except unless they were part of the catch and release program which seems to be what's coming down. Also reprehensible.
-Jon
His reasoning is flawed
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 5:31pm.
It's like saying we shouldn't build prisons because someone will figure out how to escape.
Having said that, just building a wall and leaving it unattended won't be enough. But I don't think anyone is calling for that. If a fence/wall can work in Israel, it can work here.
Ideally, I'd rather not have a fence, but send the military to guard the border instead. Sadly, that's not going to happen either.
That wasn't what I meant
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 6:46pm.
I didn't mean that about the wall, but you hit the nail on the head of what he's been saying all along, he wants boots on the ground patrolling the border and of course, the federal government needs to do its part in securing the border and actually take action against the illegals and not just catch and release. The border fence would still be there.
His assertion was that the current federal government is content with just a fence and that's it and they would make a higher one if needed. As we have seen from countless videos from various times, those illegals have little or no problems finding ways over.
The border patrol is the group that needs more support than they are getting from the fed government. And since they are the ones saying that the border is more secure than ever, the border patrol is in increasing danger since the opposite of what the fed government says is often true.
-Jon
liar, liar
Submitted by Rackie on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 4:03pm.
pants on fire.
Lies, lies, lies
Submitted by NVRAT on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 4:37pm.
Nothing new here.
Oh I know.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 11:28am.
The person that yelled "angrily" is having lunch with the person that yelled the "N" word that the Tea Party was accused of.
Perry Up Agaunst the Wall
Submitted by RoBoTech on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 1:21pm.
All I can say is, IF there wasn't an angry shout, there should have been.
In fact an angry MOB would be like what I would've liked to have seen.
the RINO Perry is really starting to pique me off.
Say what you will
Submitted by jon_torlin on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 2:44pm.
Say what you will about Perry, but he didn't pull a Christie or Soetoro as he cut short his campaign trip and heading back to Texas because of the massive wildfires we have going on here.
All the dryness from the drought has taken its toll and everything is going up like crazy. Last heard, 20,000 acres in Bastrop have been burned, hundreds of houses are gone, there are several fires in the Austin area, and they have been scrambling EVERYTHING they can. Some friends of mine in Austin have lost touch with mutual friends in the Steiner Ranch area, hopefully it's just communications that's the problem.
Our need for rain has gone beyond desperate.
Kudos to Perry for dropping everything. And I'm sure once again, Soetoro will refuse the aid to Texas. What's the use, there's nothing left anyway.
-Jon
Don't tell that to the Palinistas
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 5:39pm.
According to them, he ran back to Texas because he's afraid to debate. Which is kind of ironic, considering she won't even get in the race.
Of course he'll refuse aid.
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 7:04pm.
After all, Perry might run against him, and besides, it's Bush's fault that there are fires all over Texas. /s And flooding in Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama. The common denominator seems to be Republican governors. They don't need no stinkin' aid.