[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 26609]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          A CORRECTION THE NEW YORK TIMES SAW FIT NOT TO PRINT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 13, 2000

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago our 
Republican colleagues instituted a new procedure known as Corrections 
Day to deal with mistakes Congress has made. I did not think that the 
concept would do a great deal, and I believe it has been only 
marginally useful, although it has of course done no harm. But as I 
thought about it, it struck me that there would be a much more useful 
procedure to be called Corrections Day--namely, an opportunity for 
Members of the House to correct the errors that are propagated by the 
media. Unfortunately, given the number of these, and the great 
reluctance of the media to engage in correction of its own errors, a 
Correction Day would not suffice, and I can see that dealing with the 
errors of the media on a regular basis would probably crowd out other 
important business from the Congressional Record.
  But I do think that from time to time it is useful for us to take 
advantage of this forum to correct errors in those instances when the 
medium propagating the error has refused to do so itself. I do this 
because the public is entitled to an accurate picture of what its 
elected officials are saying and doing, as opposed to one which 
includes inaccuracies stubbornly maintained. And I have also found that 
where one is misquoted, and fails to take concrete action to correct 
the misquotation, one may subsequently be held accountable for it by 
people who have read it, and have seen no objection to it.
  I was recently the subject of a blatant misquotation in the New York 
Times, and to my regret, but not my surprise, the New York Times 
declined to print the Letter to the Editor correcting it. In an article 
published on the Sunday of Thanksgiving weekend, Times reporter Michiko 
Kakutani, lamenting incivility in public dialogue, incorrectly said 
that I had ``compared Republicans' intolerance to that of the 
Taliban.''
  In fact, I did no such thing. I did say in 1998 that the Republicans' 
claim that they were behaving in a bipartisan fashion during 
impeachment was as credible as the Taliban would be if they claimed to 
be practicing religious tolerance. Apparently, the notion of an analogy 
is absent from the Times style book. Because I do agree that we should 
refrain from unjustified incivility, I wrote to the New York Times in 
the hopes that they would clarify the situation by acknowledging their 
error and went on to explain that I had made no such comparison. The 
Times refused to do so. I therefore ask unanimous consent that my 
unpublished letter to the New York Times be printed here to correct the 
mis-impression the New York Times left, and refused itself to correct.
  I should note, Mr. Speaker, that not all media outlets share this 
reluctance to acknowledge their errors. The Providence Journal which 
subscribes to the New York Times news service also ran the article, and 
I was pleased to note that the Providence Journal ran the Letter to the 
Editor which I had submitted also to them and a copy of which I submit 
to be printed here.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, November 27, 2000.
     Letters to the Editor, The New York Times, New York, NY.
       Dear Editor, Michiko Kakutani's November 26th article on 
     polarization of the national dialogue incorrectly says that I 
     ``compared Republicans' intolerance to that of the Taliban.''
       I did not. When House Republicans praised themselves for 
     bipartisanship, after unilaterally deciding how to structure 
     the impeachment process, I said that if what they did was 
     bipartisanship, then what the Taliban was doing was religious 
     tolerance. That is, I compared the Republican approach to 
     bipartisanship to the Taliban's approach to religious 
     tolerance.
       Ms. Kakutani should understand that when you answer an 
     aptitude test question by saying that C is to D as A is to B, 
     you are not accusing C of being B.
       My point was that the Republicans were inaccurate in 
     claiming to be partisan, not that they were forcing women 
     members of Congress to cover themselves completely.

                                                 Barney Frank.

                                  ____
                                  

              [From the Providence Journal, Dec. 5, 2000]

                       I Didn't Say GOP = Taliban

                           (By Barney Frank)

       The news media have incorrectly reported that I compared 
     Republicans' intolerance to that of the Taliban [the Islamic 
     fundamentalist group ruling Afghanistan].
       I did not. When House Republicans praised themselves for 
     bipartisanship, after unilaterally deciding how to structure 
     the impeachment process, I said that if what they did was 
     bipartisanship, then what the Taliban was doing was religious 
     tolerance. That is, I compared the Republican approach to 
     bipartisanship to the Taliban approach to religious 
     tolerance.
       The writer of the article should understand that when you 
     answer an aptitude test question by saying that C is to D as 
     A is to B, you are not accusing C of being B.
       My point was that the Republicans were inaccurate in 
     claiming to be bipartisan, not that they were forcing women 
     members of Congress to cover themselves completely.

     

                          ____________________