By three million votes nationwide, if we’re counting noses. It’s true that had a hundred thousand votes gone the other way in Ohio, we’d have a Kerry presidency coming up. But that still would have been a majority of voters favoring Bush – irrelevant for the purposes of determining the Presidency; relevant for the purposes of determining a moderate view.
Depends if we’re talking about the newscasters (slanted, but accurate) or the commentators like Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly (lies, lies, and more lies).
I suppose the definition of “moderate” depends on which segment of the spectrum you stand.
Already addressed. We’re talking about news, not the commentators. Dan Rather doesn’t provide commentary - he purports to deliver the news. Bill O’Reilly offers up a bit of news and shamelessly segues into his opnion of it, or a suggestion as to what inference the audience should draw. His show is not held out as a neutral news source.
In fact, now that I think about it, O’Reilly is almost definitionally a liar, since he advertises his show as a “no-spin” zone, yet by providing commentary of any stripe, he is putting spin on a story.
And Dan is stepping down and the non-GOPers have acknowledged that he did wrong. now that we have had your views on misinformation that led to a flawed broadcast, you have yet to give us your considered opinion on misinformation that has killed 12,000 US soldiers and many times that number of Iraqi civilians.
since you wanted the mea culpas of thew Dems, let’s hear yours about the absence of WMDs, the pretext of the war Bush launched.
Thousands of people dead for a lie. Don’t you think Bush should resign for that?
Bush did not lie. He reasonably relied on sources that turned out to be wrong – sources that others in the GOP AND THE DEMOCRATS also relied upon.
Same is true for Rather. He reasonably relied on sources that others also relied up. I never called for Rather’s head. Mary Mapes, on the other hand, KNEW she was lying when she described the provenance of her documents. For that, she quite properly loses her job.
But Bush DID lie. He knew the Niger yellowcake story was complete and utter bullshit and still he used it as a justification for war. His intel was almost laughably shoddy and he went with it, said he KNEW Saddam had WMDs. You wonder why people yell “Bushlied! Bushlied! Bushlied!” at you? It’s because you exhibit all the signs of deafness.
Didn’t you know, Bricker? When Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki told Joe Wilson about Iraq’s discussions about “commercial relations” he meant that Niger might be able to sate Saddam and his sons’ huge craving for cowpeas. That must be it, because cowpeas are Niger’s only export besides uranium ore and onions. And everybody knows that Saddam Hussein hates onions. So there.
Given the consequences of their reliance on the completely false information about WMD (much, much more deplorable than the possible consequences of Ms. Mapes actions - it wasn’t going to cost Bush the election even if it proved true), George Tenent, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleza Rice should all have been fired. Instead, George Tenent got to retire and receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Rumsfeld is still the Secty of Defense, and Rice got a promotion.
This case is not, I should point out, about Fox lying. It’s about two journalists who claim Fox wanted them to lie, and, when they refused, they were fired.
So, point 1 – nowhere in this story do we have Fox or Fox journalists lying.
Second point – Fox’s defense was not, “Yes, we lied, but we have the right to.”
It was, “Even assuming, for the purposes of this litigation, that we told them to lie, we have the right to.”
This is a very common method of legal analysis. It was, by way of example (and NOT TU QUOQUE, JUST EXAMPLE THAT MAY BE FAMILIAR TO THE READER!) exactly what Clinton’s team did in the Paula Jones case… “Even if everything she said is true, she doesn’t state a legal claim for harrassment.” Same deal here: “Even if everything they claim is true, they don’t state a legal claim for whistleblower protection.” Entirely proper - in both cases. No admission that they lied, or that they asked Akre and Wilson to lie, just pointing out that even if they did, that’s not actionable.
If that were the standard, who in his right mind would take the job? It’s like telling a judge, “If you convict someone who turns out to be innocent, you lose your job!” Those are serious consequences too – a man’s life or freedom. Yet we don’t fire judges even if they convict someone that later turns out to be innocent.
Wait a sec. You wanted firings for dishonesty in the CBS case where the consequences were trivial, but you don’t want firings for the fuckup in Iraq where the results of Bush administration dishonesty have been catastrophic?
I didn’t want firings based on the consequences. I wanted firings based on the negligence.
I DO want the judge to lose his job, if he sentences an innocent man because he fell asleep during trial and didn’t follow all the testimony.
Show me the negligence. Show me that Bush knowingly lied, or unreasonably relied on information he should have known was suspect. That’s what Mapes did. That’s NOT what Rather did – he reasonably relied on what Mapes told him, and that’s why I’ve never called for his head. He trusted his producer. He’s clean. She lied. She’s dirty.
They (and I’m including Rather here) were eager to rush that story out in order to try to influence the outcome of a U.S. Presidential election in the way they, a supposedly unbiased news agency, wanted it to go. Needless to say, the outcome of the election is something that has a huge impact both here and on the world stage, and which to a certain degree even determines world history. Doesn’t sound trivial to me.
I said “firings,” not whose. Shouldn’t Condi go? She either knew the data were false or ought to have known. Tenet resigned, but he got a frickin’ medal! Doesn’t sound like he’s in serious disgrace. You might even run into him at the inaugural ball. How about Rummy? As SecDef, he clearyl either participated in the lie or did not practice due diligence.
Who, in your opinion, bears the blame for the false pretext of the war? Anyone?