[BlackGriffen]

Tha Link.

Why didn't any reporters call him on making a statement that was so obviously wrong?

The statement:

"I was hoping the United Nations would enforce its resolutions, one of many. And then we went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution -- 1441 -- unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in."

Ah, but what was Blix doing in Iraq, then?

BlackGriffen

[chris v]

I heard that one, live, and it stunned me. It got a little attention, but no one ever really answered whether it was one of his "malaprops," or if he really believed that statement to be true.

From what I can recall, there were weapons inspectors in Iraq up until about 3 days before the war began, and they left only because they were told specifically by the Bush administration that they should do so because an invasion was nigh.

I do wonder why his bizarre statements like that don't get any more attention than they do from the more mainstream media. Sure, it got noticed by The Nation, but you'd figure that. Where was Dan Rather that day?


CV

[DeathToWindows]

I am in a country being run by a idiot and his fool of a sidekick.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by DeathToWindows:
I am in a country being run by a idiot and his fool of a sidekick.

by your own choice.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
by your own choice.

By the electoral college/supreme courts choice.

Edit: Oh wait, you meant "why don't you live somewhere else..." I get it.

[theolein]

What I find so miraculous about your prez is that he seems to be able to say just about anything and get away with it. His yapping about WMD last year turning into WMD-program-related-activities this year, the botch up on the Niger Uranium story and things like like this one. And yet no one ever calls him on it. Amazing.

[thunderous_funker]

And yet Howard Dean's "scream" was aired by the TV news over 600 times in one week according to some media watchdogs.

Must be that "liberal" bias at work.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Personally, I think it has to do with the media's "understanding" of the intellectual level of the electorate.

It has to do with image and what drags attention.

In the meantime, real issues are left behind (not noisy enough, long to explain==> stop to commercial, etc.) and the electorate is stuck with what is given to them, simply because they may not believe they could be lied to.

This is so very sad...

People deserve so much more respect.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And yet Howard Dean's "scream" was aired by the TV news over 600 times in one week according to some media watchdogs.

Must be that "liberal" bias at work.

LOL!

[finboy]

Originally posted by theolein:
What I find so miraculous about your prez is that he seems to be able to say just about anything and get away with it.

I guess you've never actually SEEN a press conference, then. Maybe the Pres can get away without the tough questions, but the White House press corps doesn't miss a chance to ask leading and biased questions, and they never give up an opportunity to harass the press secretary. Their lack of respect and their obvious bias are the amazing things.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by finboy:
I guess you've never actually SEEN a press conference, then. Maybe the Pres can get away without the tough questions, but the White House press corps doesn't miss a chance to ask leading and biased questions, and they never give up an opportunity to harass the press secretary. Their lack of respect and their obvious bias are the amazing things.

That (assuming it to be true as stated) doesn't explain why the so-called "liberal" mainstream media didn't grab the story and run with it.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
by your own choice.

and my choice is to remain within and work for change.
"Love it or leave it" didn't work in the 70s and it doesn't work now. And it is a shallow and unAmerican comment to make.

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
by your own choice.

i know you are, but what am i? nya nya nya

[kindbud]

I think I'll stay here in the US and help make things more conservative. Gotta cancel-out a peacenik, ya know.

[voyageur]

Bush has only had 10 or 11 press conferences. In the same time period, his father had something like 60.

Helen Thomas, veteran of the WH press corps, has been banished to the back row for asking Bush tough questions, like, "Are you going to honor the separation between church and state?". Since Bush can't see her now in the back row, she no longer can ask questions. The patsies sit up front, where Bush can choose them.

[maxelson]

That is SOP, regardless of administration, though, isn't it?
Not that I am a big fan of this SOP. I think it shows cowardice and dishonesty.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by maxelson:
That is SOP, regardless of administration, though, isn't it?

Not quite to such extremes. Helen Thomas has been there for decades, and was always allowed to ask her questions to the prez - until GWB, that is.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by voyageur:
The patsies sit up front, where Bush can choose them.

And mostly the events are scripted, as GWB openly admitted.

[maxelson]

Again, not defending it, but isn't that SOP as well?

It really is despicable that there is not enough apparent conviction within the White House to allow the actions of "open government" to be scrutinized and questioned and clarified in public.

Yet, I am glad to see that not even party faithfuls are defending this little tactic.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Again, not defending it, but isn't that SOP as well?

Scripted press conferences? That's quite new AFAIK.

[Logic]

John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.


If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

Now I understand what happened to the free press in the US much better

[maxelson]

Where did that quote come from? I want to read that one in full. Context and all. Link?

[RooneyX]

When Mr. Smith goes to Washington he's going to kick all their asses collectively.

[Logic]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Where did that quote come from? I want to read that one in full. Context and all. Link?

http://www.tinyjo.net/quotes/

i found it here, but I'm trying to find the full speech.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by voyageur:
... Helen Thomas, veteran of the WH press corps, has been banished to the back row for asking Bush tough questions, like, "Are you going to honor the separation between church and state?". Since Bush can't see her now in the back row, she no longer can ask questions. The patsies sit up front, where Bush can choose them.

No, she's banished to the back row because she's not a working journalist anymore. It's a courtesy that she's even allowed into the press conferences at all. She hasn't worked for any news organization for years.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Where did that quote come from? I want to read that one in full. Context and all. Link?

http://www.constitution.org/pub/swinton_press.htm

[kindbud]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
No, she's banished to the back row because she's not a working journalist anymore. It's a courtesy that she's even allowed into the press conferences at all. She hasn't worked for any news organization for years.

DAMN!

Why is it everytime a liberal posts a 'fact' it's contrary to the 'truth'?

It's well past the point of being ridiculous.

*thanks rog*

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
No, she's banished to the back row because she's not a working journalist anymore. It's a courtesy that she's even allowed into the press conferences at all. She hasn't worked for any news organization for years.

Well, she's not a reporter anymore, but she does still write. The real reason she was banned is that she hates Dubya and doesn't bother to hide the fact.

[GG Allin]

THANKS FOR THE SWINTON QUOTE AND LINK

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Well, she's not a reporter anymore, but she does still write...

And I wrote that she isn't a working journalist anymore. What's your point?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:
http://www.constitution.org/pub/swinton_press.htm

So, Logic's linked comments came from 1880? And this proves what, exactly?

[maxelson]

Simey, really. C'mon, man. That reply is beneath you. You know damned well why it is relevant.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So, Logic's linked comments came from 1880? And this proves what, exactly?

That the more things change, the more they remain the same?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Simey, really. C'mon, man. That reply is beneath you. You know damned well why it is relevant.

No, seriously. Here is a misattributed "quote" that if true at all, comes from 1880. Have you read any 19th century newspapers? The standards were completely different from today. The quote proves nothing about today. Given that, I honestly can't see any point to it.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Simey, really. C'mon, man. That reply is beneath you. You know damned well why it is relevant.

Are you saying the press hasn't changed in 120 years? Do you really believe that?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
And I wrote that she isn't a working journalist anymore. What's your point?

While I think that is incidental (she's an institution and you know her history as well as anyone here), that point will be conceded. She's a tradition. She's no longer a UPI reporter. The questions she asks, however, do have relevance as they are, in essence, reported through the televised briefing. I always enjoyed seeing her ask the tough questions and since Kennedy, all of these presidents have had the balls to take the questions. No one disputes her usefulness in that regard. Well, no one except this administration.
Why the muzzles? Makes one suspicious. What are they afraid of? Being caught in something?
So she's hostile to Bush. So what? Should that matter? He's her president too. He was the one who said it "Im everyone's president". Said it when he took the office. Time to put the divisions aside. Was that just a "sorta"?

The fact does remain: the Bush Administration screws with the press pool relentlessly and the unwritten rules are well known. How does this help a free society? If a President has so much conviction behind his actions, he should have no trouble standing up and answering before the press corps and the country.
Again: it is a question of integrity.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Are you saying the press hasn't changed in 120 years? Do you really believe that?

I'm saying that in 120 years, you still can't bite the hand the feeds you--even if you're a journalist. Well, at least not without finding another source of food.

"news" is a business and the bottom line trumps truth every time. If that was true in 1880, I can only say it hasn't changed.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, seriously. Here is a misattributed "quote" that if true at all, comes from 1880. Have you read any 19th century newspapers? The standards were completely different from today. The quote proves nothing about today. Given that, I honestly can't see any point to it.

Simey, get a clue. Or better yet if you don't understand then just don't post.

If you think that the "news" is the truth then... I'll just say that you are misinformed.

The point is that it has never been independent. I can prove it all day but you wouldn't read it.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Are you saying the press hasn't changed in 120 years? Do you really believe that?

The sentiment was the reason for the quote. And you, as one who has criticized the press before, will, as I do, see current relevance in that particular quote.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Are you saying the press hasn't changed in 120 years? Do you really believe that?

Yes. So you think that today the press is all like free and unfettered by bias. That the corporations that own the press don't have anything to gain by misrepresenting the facts?

So you think the major news organizations like the New York Times is giving you unbiased information that is not filtered? hehe

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm saying that in 120 years, you still can't bite the hand the feeds you--even if you're a journalist. Well, at least not without finding another source of food.

"news" is a business and the bottom line trumps truth every time. If that was true in 1880, I can only say it hasn't changed.

Up to a point, of course I agree. No news is ever completely objective and commercial or competitive interests play a significant role. However, the journalistic profession has changed significantly since the 19th century. Papers don't just flat out make things up any more, whereas that was common practice at that time and remained so into the last century. Reputable news outlets today keep their commercial and editorial interests at least somewhat separate from news gathering. There have been changes for the better in the last century, and it is a gross overstatement to suggest otherwise.

Or at least most papers don't just flat out make things up. I suppose we are talking here about the New York Times.

It is ironic, though, that Logic would choose a quote that has been widely misattributed to say that the truth gets distorted.

[GG Allin]

"The Spanish-American War of 1898 marked a turning point in American history. Within a few years of the war's end, the United States was a world power, exercising control or influence over islands in the Caribbean Sea, the mid-Pacific Ocean and close to the Asian mainland. The conflict has sometimes been called "The Newspaper War," largely because the influence of a sensationalist press -- "Yellow Journalism" (see Yellow Journalism sidebar) -- supposedly brought on the fighting. Key to a sense of rage propagated by the media were the events of February 1898, which culminated with the destruction of an American battleship, the USS Maine, in a Cuban harbor. The media sensationalized the events in February and the two months following until war began, prompting a debate that still rages -- whether the press merely reflected the publi's desire for war, or, in fact, actually fed it."
http://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/spanwar.shtml

Now we have fictitious WMD/imminent threat Iraq. What's changed?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
"The Spanish-American War of 1898 marked a turning point in American history. Within a few years of the war's end, the United States was a world power, exercising control or influence over islands in the Caribbean Sea, the mid-Pacific Ocean and close to the Asian mainland. The conflict has sometimes been called "The Newspaper War," largely because the influence of a sensationalist press -- "Yellow Journalism" (see Yellow Journalism sidebar) -- supposedly brought on the fighting. Key to a sense of rage propagated by the media were the events of February 1898, which culminated with the destruction of an American battleship, the USS Maine, in a Cuban harbor. The media sensationalized the events in February and the two months following until war began, prompting a debate that still rages -- whether the press merely reflected the publi's desire for war, or, in fact, actually fed it."
http://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/spanwar.shtml

Now we have fictitious WMD/imminent threat Iraq. What's changed?

That was 1898. That particular explanation for the war is also disputed by historians.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It is ironic, though, that Logic would choose a quote that has been widely misattributed to say that the truth gets distorted.

Jayson Blair.

Misattributed. This doesn't mean he didn't say it. It is called gathering information from a variety of sources. The quote is cool. It is not proof. We already know the truth. Corporations control the news. What is there to prove. Venezuela + Italy = obvious.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That was 1898. That particular explanation for the war is also disputed by historians.

It was imperialistic. It doesn't matter what historians dispute. The fact is the American public would not have gone along with it if it had not been sensationalized. The American public were against war with Hitler's Germany. Now of course in hindsight FDR helped save Europe but it took a lot of propaganda and Pearl Harbor to do it.

Then of course we learned that war is an excellent economic tool and used Communism in the second half of the century as an excuse.

Ah, but your not disputing the fact that Iraq was a propaganda war so then, the press has gotten worse not better.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
Jayson Blair.

Misattributed. This doesn't mean he didn't say it. .

No, he just said it in a different century, which completely changes the context. It's misleading.

And I agree about the New York Times. However, one bad journalist and a sloppy editor (who has since resigned) doesn't tarnish the whole industy. Nor is the New York Times a sensationalist paper like you describe above with William Herst. The analogy simply doesn't work. If anything, the inherent bias of many American papers today is anti-war, and anti-government.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
It was imperialistic. It doesn't matter what historians dispute. The fact is the American public would not have gone along with it if it had not been sensationalized. The American public were against war with Hitler's Germany. Now of course in hindsight FDR helped save Europe but it took a lot of propaganda and Pearl Harbor to do it.

Are you confusing the USS Maine with Pearl Harbor? One was in 1898, the other was in 1941.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, he just said it in a different century, which completely changes the context. It's misleading.

And I agree about the New York Times. However, one bad journalist and a sloppy editor (who has since resigned) doesn't tarnish the whole industy. Nor is the New York Times a sensationalist paper like you describe above with William Herst. The analogy simply doesn't work. If anything, the inherent bias of many American papers today is anti-war, and anti-government.

I think the quote was to cut to the roots of the history of the press.

I don't agree. The editorials and opinion pages may be but the bulk of the news is very subtle. Even much of the opinions miss the real truths. I heard Madeline Albright say in an interview on PBS that the 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan. This is at best half-true if not an outright lie. With misinformation like that you don't need to read opinions. The facts are wrong so it doesn't matter what a journalists opinions are. It is bogus information.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
I heard Madeline Albright say in an interview on PBS that the 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan. This is at best half-true if not an outright lie. With misinformation like that you don't need to read opinions. The facts are wrong so it doesn't matter what a journalists opinions are. It is bogus information.

Madeline Albright isn't a journalist, and PBS isn't responsible to correct the errors of the people it interviews. She was the news, they are just supposed to report it.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you confusing the USS Maine with Pearl Harbor? One was in 1898, the other was in 1941.

No I just skipped from SpanAm war to WWII to make a point sorry. That was not clear. I meant that the Spanish American war was really an imperialistic endeavor that the public would not have supported. And I used WWII as another example. In both cases the public was whipped into a frenzy. This has to be done or war does not happen. You have to demonize and dehumanize the enemy. Otherwise people refuse to fight. Same thing happened in the Am. Civil War. Fought for economic reasons. Not to free the dirty blacks which most northerners didn't care about either. It is all financial.