×
Ryan Avent notices a big ol' Post headline today: “Democrats Say Palin Initially Backed Bridge.” Arguably, there are some metaphysical questions involving the meaning of the word "initially" and whether you want to confine your answers to observable political reality (i.e, her first public statement about the Bridge) or delve into what her first private thought was, but assuming this isn't an undergrad philosophy class, Palin's support or opposition to the Bridge is probably part of the public record. And oh wait, here it is, right in the same Post story:
While campaigning in Ketchikan in September 2006, Palin indicated support for the bridge project, assuming there was no better alternative. “This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper,” she told the local chamber of commerce, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News.In other words, Democrats don't "say" Palin initially backed the Bridge, Palin says she initially backed the Bridge, which is to say, Palin initially backed the Bridge, and Democrats are drawing attention to her statement. Attaching a "Democrats say" to "Palin initially backed bridge" makes no more sense than attaching a "Reporters say" to "Gustav Lashes Gulf Coast; Levee System Tested." It's a nonsensical appendage meant to undermine the authority of the story's conclusions: These things are either true or they aren't, and people are paying the Washington Post good money to clear up that ambiguity for them.
