I’m simply wondering how far out of context that quote, if true, was reported.
I’m guessing that neither of you knows any reporters, and lives nowhere near Washington. Oh wait, Ender works at a radio station… Anyways.
First off, any editor worth his salt will only let a quote like this be published if it is confirmed. The editors and the reporters involved know exactly who they spoke to, and who confirmed it. But getting the quote, and getting the speaker to have his/her name appear in print are two entirely different things.
Is the ‘insider’ afraid of retribution? Maybe, but chances are he’s a person who’s been ordered to leak something to the press by his boss. That’s just how Washington works.
And we’re not talking some fly-by-night internet reporter writing this. This article appears in Newsweek, a very well established newsmagazine. If you think Newsweek is making up stuff just to prove Bush is a dork, well, you have serious problems.
Washington operates entirely on politicos and bureaucrats talking to the press, and not being willing to have their name appear in print. It’s been this way for decades, and it’s part of the unique white house culture.
It may not be the best thing, but it’s how it is…
And as for Bush’s ignorance about the number of nuclear missiles he controls being ‘an absolutely trivial thing’. :eek: You’re joking, right? The man who wants to build an anti-nuclear missile shield to fight ‘rogue states’ has no idea how much firepower he controls, and this is trivial?
Not that I want to hijack this thread or anything, but the Clinton/Lewinsky deal went beyond the “unclothed behind” thing, and went well on into the “You are the POTUS, and I grovel and adore you and how may I serve you” thing.
It’s coming around again in the media with Mister Fabulous, the California congressman (Democrat), and Chandra, the Mysteriously Missing Sexy Intern.
Maybe we should reserve powerful political positions for eunuchs.
I didn’t say I doubted the verocity of the quote, Barbarian. I know you were talking to Unclebeer when you said it, but you included me in the reply. I believe the quote was real. And while I don’t work near Washington (and actually don’t work at the radio station anymore, but it’s nice to know people remember these things), I have worked as a reporter in the past.
I understand the need, in certain situations, to keep someone anonymous. I’m not too interested in knowing who Deep Throat is because, well, it was kinda important he remain hidden. But in many cases, I think it’s the pansy’s way out. I get pissed when every other letter to the editor is written by “Name withheld upon request,” Damn that guy gets published a lot. I think that if you’re going to say something just slightly mabye possibly inflammatory, have the balls to put your name behind it.
And yes, the White House does do certain controlled leaks. But I can’t imagine a situation where someone higher up said “Hey Jim. Call the Times and tell them about this bonehead move the Prez did today!” They leak stories and events, not gossip.
And perhaps I overstated the idea that it was no big deal. It is a big deal. The President not knowing, five full months into his presidency, how many nuclear weapons he has, is mind boggling. I am concerned that he didn’t know up to that point. But, given that, I find it no big deal that he asked the question. How else is he supposed to find out? Think of it as fighting ignorance.
Sure, in a perfect world. Unfortunately, it is patently obvious to me that is not the world I’m living in. But if you wanna believe everything you read in the paper is the clear and unvarnished truth, and quotes are never taken out of context, it ain’t no skin off my monkey.
And yet, I didn’t even really say that I disbelieved it. Or at least I didn’t mean to. I merely tried to convey my disdain for unattributed quotes such as this one. It is simply impossible for me to evaluate the veracity such things. Apparently, unlike you, I do not believe everything I read without qualification. Nor do I believe the press is totally honest in all situations. I do, however, believe many reporters, and their editors, don’t always allow the facts to get in the way of a good story.
So? All this means is one publication lifted the story from another. Unless you believe this “Whitehouse insider” is going around telling any reporter who’ll listen the story. And that right there punches a small hole in your claim that “The editors and the reporters involved know exactly who they spoke to, and who confirmed it.” If the story was lifted from another publication, the second reporter/editor probably have no idea who’s quote they are printing. Besides, if the quote was actually confirmed by another party, why did the article not say so? If they had simply made that small statement, it would be far easier for me to believe fully that this event actually transpired as reported.
Now, what do y’all think we should do with this thread? It ain’t caustic enough (yet) for the Pit. Nor is it focused enough for GD. Somebody post something that’ll convince me to move to one of those two places. Propose a debate, or call me an asshole. Either way …
Sorry, hon…I am ashamed to admit that I don’t have a CLUE…what is a POTUS?
Heh…it may yet come to that.
And, my apologies for the hijack. It just still steams me that the country wasted millions and zillions of dollars debating the President’s personal life. Particularly since he did an extremely good job running this country. IMHO.
Scotti
As is generally the way with me, the minute I hit the submit button, “the penny dropped” and I got the POTUS thing.
::sigh::
Someone out there is looking for a new sig, I’m sure. I would like to humbly offer this for their consideration.
Not me, however, I’m perfectly happy with my own sig. 
President Of The United States
“Maybe”? There’s no “maybe” about it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**
**
Yes, it is impossible for you, and all other citizens, to evaluate the truth behind what actually happens in the corridors of power. You have a choice. Trust no one, or put some faith in people like myself, who do our best to figure out what’s going on and tell you about it.
Since when does my attempt to explain how political reporting works mean I believe everything I read without qualification? Back that up, hombre…
Yep, the press gets bad press. But facts come first. Always. A good reporter should be like a good scientist-- take the facts, then turn them into a good story. It’s unfortunate that bad reporters, and bad scientists, exist.
Did you do any digging before you posted? 'Cause it certainly sounds like you believed everything you read in the OP without qualification.
The OP refers to a reuters article posted on Yahoo that was rewritten from an original article in Newsweek. I’ll go out on a limb and guarantee you that if you call Sharon Squassoni, John Barry or Evan Thomas (the original 3 Newsweek reporters) they will tell you how they got the quote, and what steps they took to confirm the quote, will be exactly what I wrote in my first post to this thread. They are the ‘editors and the reporters involved’.
The folks at Reuters have no clue who said what… but then you’re coming up against the odd phenomena that occurs when news organizations tell you what other news organizations are doing…
They should have. I tend to follow the guidelines set down by the folks over at Brill’s Content.
Their rules about identifying anonymous parties:
Which means come up with a better description than ‘knowledgeable source’, and say that someone else confirmed it.
Sounds like pure wisdom to me.
um,
-
Bush cutting down nuclear arsenal
-
Bush hawking the Son of Star Wars Defence System.
Which one looks more correct?
How could he have forgotten this important fact? I find myself…
Envisioning the President’s morning briefing…
Aide 1: “Mr. President, you need to know that the US has over 10,000 nuclear warheads in it’s arsenal.”
Bush: “Okay, 10,000 nuclear warheads.”
Aide 2: “Mr. President, for lunch today we’re having turkey subs on the patio with members of the Rabbinical Council.”
Bush: “Right, turkeys for lunch, and 10,000 nuclear submarines.”
Aide 3: “Mr. President, don’t forget your 10 o’clock meeting with Governor Pataki of New York.”
Bush: “Uh huh…let’s see…10 o’clock with Governor Pastrami and then lunch on a nuclear sub with 10,000 rabid New Yorkers, got it. Don’t forget to schedule my 3 o’clock nap. OK, gentleman, let’s go to work!”
[sup]Oy vey![/sup] :rolleyes:
Well duh!
“Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?”
- “Dubya”
I still maintain that was because the GOP brain trust was jealous that he was the only president in a long time who was even reasonably boinkable (by the ladies).
I can’t even begin to imagine a nubile young interim wanting to get into bed with walking fossils like Bush Sr., Reagan, or Nixon.
(Of course, under Republican logic, getting a blowjob from a consenting adult is worthy of an impeachment trial, but being AWOL from military service and dodging mandatory drug tests are just “youthful indiscretions”… :rolleyes: )