The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.
Obama Requested $3.5 Million For The USC Annenberg Research Network. In 2005, Obama requested $3.5 million for the USC Annenberg Research Network on International Communication, in partnership with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to support the deployment of pervasive broadband for education and economic development.Funding was for the construction of a large-scale broadband wireless systems in two communities—one in South Los Angeles and the other in small-town Illinois. In each community, broadband network coverage will be provided over a minimum of about a half-square mile area, utilizing leading edge wireless technologies. In Los Angeles, this will include the five schools in USC’s immediate neighborhood, with about 8,000 K-12 students. USC also will provide wireless equipment and access to every family with a student entering the first grade of a new Science Center School, and in Illinois, a similar group of students will be selected to receive wireless equipment and access within the coverage area. The impact of these technologies on the students and their families will be tracked. [Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education, 6/7/05]
Let’s first review CAC’s [Chicago Annenburg Challenge] initial setup. In the first year, 1995, Obama headed the board, which made fiscal decisions, and Ayers co-chaired the Collaborative, which set education policy. During that first year, Obama’s formal responsibilities mandated close cooperation and coordination with the Collaborative. As board chair and president of the CAC corporation, Obama was authorized to “delegate to the Collaborative the development of collaborative projects and programs . . . to obtain assistance of the Collaborative in the development of requests for proposals . . . and to seek advice from the Collaborative regarding the programmatic aspects of grant proposals.” All this clearly involves significant consultation between the board, headed by Obama, and the Collaborative, co-chaired by Ayers.
Clarification: The connection between Obama and Ayers is through
the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that received money from the Annenburg
Foundation, but the Chicago Annenburg Challenge Challenge and the
Annenburg Foundation are not directly connected philosophically. The
earmark Senator Obama requested was for the Annenburg Foundation, which
funded the Chicago Annenburg Challenge and also funds FactCheck.org.
Obama is tied to both groups one via earmark, the other via direct
participation, however, Ayers is not directly connected to
FactCheck.org.
Here was Schieffer speaking with the Early Show's Maggie Rodriguez at 7:05 AM EDT today:
BOB SCHIEFFER: I am told, Maggie, that the way McCain got involved in this in the first place, the Treasury Secretary was briefing Republicans in the House yesterday, the Republican conference, asked how many were ready to support the bailout plan. Only four of them held up their hands. Paulson then called, according to my sources, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is very close to John McCain, and told him: you've got to get the people in the McCain campaign, you've got to convince John McCain to give these Republicans some political cover. If you don't do that, this whole bailout plan is going to fail. So that's how, McCain, apparently, became involved.
Continued Schieffer . . .
SCHIEFFER: He has gotten what he wants, he's going to have this meeting, kind of a summit today with the president and Barack Obama. I'm told that the leaders of both parties are getting close to having some kind of a bill. The question, though, is whether rank-and-file Republicans, especially, are going to vote for this.
...And that's where McCain comes in.
FactCheck.org has followed up on emails rebuking their article on the McCain ad ‘Education’ with a statement that says in part,
'We also never wrote that Obama said class material about 'inappropriate touching' was the main purpose of the bill. Our article said that 'Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’ and that Obama made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles."
Factcheck also categorizes the ad as false because it states that it was Senator Obama’s ‘one achievement’ in education. It is true that Senator Obama did not achieve the passage of this legislation, and may be able to account for other education successes. Also, the previous article should have been more clear in stating that it was Senator Obama that stated the bill was about ‘inappropriate touching’ not FactCheck. However, there are still major problems in FactCheck’s story.
They state outright in their response. "Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’." The ad does not state that Senator Obama does support ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’ that is solely Factcheck’s own interpretation. Yet this is repeated as proof that the ad is false as they later refute their own interpretation by saying, "But Obama has also said he does not support, 'explicit sex education to children in kindergarten." That’s fine, but it has nothing to do with the McCain ad.
Second, as they state in their rebuttal and in their original article, "Obama 'made it clear that at least one reason he supported the bill was that it would help teach young kids to recognize inappropriate behavior and pedophiles." Again, this has nothing to do with the McCain ad. Motive was never discussed in the ad and Factcheck misleads about the content of the ad by refutiating a claim not made in the ad.
Finally, Factcheck refutes the ad as having cherry picked quotes about Obama’s record. Well, welcome to politics. The statements are all verified, but FactCheck explains that those sources frequently did not have glowing reviews of McCain’s education plan either. Certainly that is fair to point out, but that does no make the ad false.
The one claim they are able to back up is the statement in the ad saying that this bill is Senator Obama’s ‘only accomplishment’ in education. They cite three ammendments to a bill that Senator Obama worked on that were aproved by unanimous consent. As Factcheck states, "Whether or not one considers any of these measures earth-shaking, they’re accomplishments nonetheless." Point taken.
I appreciate that FactCheck has responded to complaints about their article. However, I am still disappointed in the lack of actual fact checking within their article. Please read their response and email them at Editor@Factcheck.org if you agree that their article is still off base.
For clarity here are the basic complaints:
1. The statement, "Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’." is an interpretation by Factcheck of the McCain ad, the ad itself does not claim that Senator Obama does support ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’
2. The reason Senator Obama supported this bill is irrelevant. The ad never states the reason for Senator Obama’s support, and this makes Factcheck’s article misleading.
3. Cherry picked quotes do not make an ad false. Certainly fair to point out context, but the quotes were not false, and they do not make the ad false.
4. If Factcheck wants to claim the article is false because it was not Senator Obama’s only educational accomplishment than that is a legitimate complaint. However, in that case the article needs extensive editing as that is the only argument where they have provided any real evidence.
“The kindergarten ad flat-out lies,” wrote the New York Times, arguing that “at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators.” The Washington Post wrote that “McCain’s ‘Education’ Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive.” And in a column in The Hill, the influential blogger Josh Marshall called the sex-education spot “a rancid, race-baiting ad based on [a] lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison.”
