Looking up Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his law-enforcment team’s investigation of Obama’s bona fides, first place I looked was top of google and it was the CBS News report. I don’t generally go to leftist sites but in this case, I had little choice. Almost immediately, there was this below, which I’ll comment on as we go down:
The publicity-hungry Arpaio, a strong opponent of illegal immigration who calls himself “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” said the evidence gathered by his investigators suggests Mr. Obama’s birth certificate and selective service registration card are fakes.
Publicity hungry? This is a national broadcaster leading with a value judgement like that? Would this be allowed in a court of law?
“Based on all of the evidence, I cannot in good faith report to you these documents are authentic,” Arpaio said at a press conference in Phoenix, adding that his “investigators believe that the long form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in the paper format as presented by the White House.”
That was the factual part – what Arpaio actually did and said. CBS then comments, on the claim:
The 79-year-old Arpaio, who has been accused by the Justice Department of racial profiling and who is being probed by a federal grand jury over potential abuse of power …
That is not leading the reader? Heresay like that was 1] perfectly admissible in CBS’s eyes and 2] used to undercut what was to follow? It’s more like what a third rate blog would do.
… said he told his investigators to examine the president’s documents with “no preconceived notions,” adding that he “felt that this investigation could clear President Obama’s name and put people’s minds at ease.”
Yes, that was the second accurate reportage.
Arpaio became Maricopa County sheriff in 1993, and has been elected five times. He said the investigation, undertaken by his five-member volunteer “Cold Case Posse” at the request of an Arizona Tea Party group, did not involve any cost to taxpayers.
Had to get the Tea Party in there, did they not? That part is legit though because it pertains to influence and possible coercion.
Arpaio’s press conference puts him in league with the “birthers,” the conspiracy theorists who claim
“In league with”? That is neutral reportage for a national readership? That is not taking sides?
– against overwhelming evidence –
Really? What overwhelming evidence? On whose say-so? The long certificate already debunked and the second similarly debunked and they use the word “overwhelming”? Again, something an amateur blogger might do.
that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States and thus is not eligible to be president. (Many “birthers” believe the president was born in Kenya.)
Note the use of the disparaging “birthers” – meaning “people of no credibility” – tacked on immediately after the claim. National broadcaster again, of supposed neutrality?
The White House’s decision to release the president’s long-form birth certificate in April has quieted such claims, though it did not extinguished them.
Really, quieted them? Not if you look at the net. Quite the opposite in fact. And “did not extinguished“? Level of language of a national broadcaster?
The clincher was the source they used to confirm their “evidence”:
“We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers,” Mr. Obama said at the time. “We’ve got some enormous challenges out there. There are a lot of folks out there still looking for work…We do not have time for this kind of silliness.”
They really used Obama, the one being investigated, as the arbiter of what was right or wrong in this case? They got the defendant to also act as the foreman of the jury? And Obama’s “There are a lot of folks out there still looking for work…” shoved into the middle of his disparagement of the claims? Lost for words.
It’s one thing CBS doing his but I’d like to know if any leftist reading that feels it’s fair journalism as far as it goes, that all is above board in that piece, rather than being a shoddy piece of unadulterated whitewashing?