Regret the Error

Music and film critics are used to having their reviews twisted and sliced to death in trailers and advertisements, and it’s clear that political reporters and editorial page writers suffer the same fate during elections.

We’ve already reported on at least one example of a candidate misrepresenting what a newspaper wrote about him. (The Rocky Mountain News endorsed his opponent but he still listed the publication on his endorsements page, along with a mangled quote.) And here’s another from before election day: the Winston-Salem Journal had to ask Richard Burr, a Republican Senate candidate, to correct a television campaign ad that it felt was misleading.

The ad apparently shows the masthead of the newspaper with the words “extremely irresponsible” attributed to it in reference to Burr’s Democratic opponent, Erskine Bowles. The problem? Those words were spoken by a source in an article, and not by the paper.

“We are always happy if candidates quote from the newspaper. But we are always going to call them on it if they do it in an inappropriate or misleading way and that appears to be the case here,” said Carl Crothers, the Journal’s executive editor, in an article about the dispute.

“It’s no different than any other campaign citing the source of information,” responded a spokesman for the Burr campaign, who also said the ad didn’t imply the words were spoken by The Journal.

“I’m not sure that we have done anything that would be improper, and certainly we did not intend to portray it in any way that the Winston-Salem Journal claimed this…” said Burr after a rally in Raleigh.

Burr won the race and even needled his Democratic opponent about attacks after his victory. Burr said that Bowles made a tactical error when he “attacked an upbeat Burr ad by touting his work to help breast cancer patients,” according to a Journal article.

“Do you think Erskine regrets that ad now?” Burr asked after his win. Of course, Burr managed to overcome a 10-point deficit thanks in part to his own attack ads like the one in question.

As of now, it’s not clear whether the ad was ever altered or removed. UPDATE: Carl Crothers, the Journal’s executive editor, replied to say, “They defended it and the ad continued to run unchanged.”

So much for the power of the press.

 Report an error