In a previous post, I quoted from a blog post and a Washington Times news report which claimed that Oreo cookies were "pelted" at Michael Steele. I now see that the story I linked is being contested (a "complete fabrication," says Kos).

Because I dislike inaccurate news reports (especially those I've linked), I think this is worthy of closer examination.

Roger Ailes claims that "no one but a right-wing lunatic would think Ehrlich's story is plausible," and he cites the Baltimore City Paper, which states:

no published news report [] has independently confirmed that Oreo cookies were even present at the debate.

What constitutes independent confirmation? Amy Ridenour has quoted an eyewitness who says he saw cookies passed out, and at least one thrown:

The term Oreo and the symbolism of the cookie is meant to imply that a black person is really wants to be Caucasian and otherwise ashamed of his or her race. The mere mention of them is insult enough. It is outrageous that Michael Steele's political opponents are trying to deflect their improper behavior by implying the event never happened. It did. Michael Steele may not have been pelted with a large number of cookies that night, but the epithets were there - both baked and yelled.

As to the number of cookies involved, this may be a classic example of a story having been exaggerated over time, although I am not sure how much the cookie count has to do with the substance of the story. Either the man was the target of an Oreo cookie prankster attack or he was not. If he was, then how many cookies were actually thrown is a secondary, not a primary, consideration. If the number of cookies was exaggerated, that does not tranform what they're referring to as "the story" false.

Is the number of cookies the point? Would the number of rocks thrown by demonstrators be as relevant as the fact of rocks being thrown? A single rock makes the same point, and can be just as fatal if it strikes a single human being on the head.

Unlike a rock, there's nothing fatal about an Oreo cookie. It's a symbol -- an idea meant to insult and degrade -- and the point can be made without throwing the cookie, but by merely displaying one, or just screaming the word "Oreo!" Throwing is simply a more graphic, physically demonstrative way of making an ad hominem attack. Obviously, the larger the number of cookies thrown, the more open and unbridled the hostility of the crowd.

Some symbols are more powerful than others. I don't make these rules, but common sense suggests that a single swastika would "count" more than would a single Oreo. Ditto for the display of a single hangman's noose (or even the picture of a noose.)

Unless there are more eyewitnesses than the man Amy Ridenour quotes, I don't think the news report should have used the word "pelted," as the plain meaning of that word denotes the throwing of a large number of Oreos. I wouldn't use the word to describe a single cookie toss, any more than I'd say that Ann Coulter was "pelted" by pies when only one was tossed.

There are too many contradictory reports of this story, and there is no video. Considering the eyewitness report, I don't think the story is a complete fabrication, although I do think it has been exaggerated -- and I don't think that reflects well on the Washington Times.

Regardless of what happened, the Oreo as a symbol isn't going anywhere.

But because I like to play Devil's Advocate, I'd like for a moment to assume that Kos is right about this being a Republican fabrication, that all witnesses to the contrary are lying, and that no Oreo cookies were present or were thrown. Do Kos and the other people denying the story agree that it would have been a despicable thing to do to Steele? Do they condemn the throwing of Oreo cookies as a despicable tactic? Or just Republican lying?

I'd like to hope they'd condemn both. . .