[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Bush speech, April 20, 2004:
And the GW spokesman quibble that tried to dodge this is that he was speaking only about wire taps that take place under USA Patriot.
That excuse seems to contradict the plain words of the bolded sentence.
Of course, he started the domestic spying program in 2002. How does that change your “read” on this?
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/13445483.htm
Remind me: when did 9/11 take place?
If you cannot see that this was a lie, it could be because you are also standing by it.
Let me guess. Not al all.
Nothing is so unwavering today than the steely resolve of a dyed-in-the-wool Bush arti^H^H^H^H apologist.
Could you point to one such comment, let alone “all?” Nobody used the word “appear” before you did. RealityChuck said reporters are “suppoesd to be [NOT APPEAR] objective.” Perhaps you were referring to my comment? I said media outlets try to be objective because I’m a journalist and I see objectivity as a goal, not some magical quality that we have. I did say that a journalist who did this would get fired because their paper or station wouldn’t want to appear biased, but I didn’t mean that they were hiding actual bias.
I don’t even understand what you think you read here.
…Are you aware of what objectivity means? One can rationally conclude that something is bullshit, but the whole idea of objective reporting is that the reporter keeps his opinion out of it. If he wants to ask the President about a discrepancy between some statements, or statements and actions, that’s good work. If he’s calling the President a liar, the reporter just making a judgment. What good does it do at a press conference to say that, aside from the shock value?
I meant that she wouldn’t lose her job - because she can’t, and because her antipathy for Bush is taken for granted at this point.
“Bush lied” or “Bush said nothing substantive” are not necessarily opinions. I believe a responsible, objective media should call a spade a spade.
Indeed, when nothing substantive is said at a press conference, it should be reported as “Bush avoided giving answers to questions about X.”
Sure it should be reported if it is substantiated. However to challenge the interviewee is to end the interview. Better to ask questions that show that all that is being provided in answer is a bunch of hot air.
The President decides who gets to ask questions by calling on the questioner of his choice. And the President decides when to say, “That’s and ongoing investigation and I won’t comment.” Followups are hard to get. Usually a tough question is asked and ducked and a friendly questioner is then called on thereby changing the subject. Each reporter has his or her own angle and seldom does another reporter follow up a compatriot’s question which is ducked with another question along the same line.
:dubious: So? As shown above, Bush is guilty of stating a lot of falsehoods publicly (and recently). We don’t know if they were “lies” without looking inside his head. If he actually believed a falsehood when he said it, he was not lying, merely stupid. But does that mean he should get a pass?
Cite, please. First I’ve ever heard of this. I’m sure that reporters lost their jobs during the 1950s but that’s because reporters are always losing their jobs. Any evidence that anyone was fired because of their political beliefs and then was blacklisted.
BTW, Ann coulter frequently offers a challenge to name even one innocent person who was damaged by McCarthy. Perhaps someone on this list can answer the challenge.
Mendacity or incompetency for this administration are like a quantum uncertainty, we should measure it with hearings that should put the [del]particle[/del] president under oath, unlike last time.
“He’s a liar!”
“No, he’s stupid!”
“No, he’s a liar!”
“No, he’s stupid!”
“Kids, kids, you’re BOTH right…”
How are you (or she) defining “innocent”? Many of the blacklisted parties were, in fact, members or former members of the CPUSA – but that was never a crime.
Of course, there are a lot of misconceptions about the McCarthy era, usually put forth by Hollywood which has a vested interest in perpetuating those misconceptions.
Yes, almost everyone persecuted by McCarthy was indeed a Communist.
People were pressured to name names, but the people they were pressured to name were actually former/current CPUSA members.
People were blacklisted, but it wasn’t the government doing the blacklisting, it was the studios.
Of course, it wasn’t a crime to be a member of the CPUSA, and McCarthy never exposed any of the many real Soviet spies.
It just annoys me to see movies like “The Majestic”, where a totally non-political person is attacked by committee, and is asked to lie and give the committee names that he knows weren’t communists, and the heroic movie studio stands by him against the evil witch-hunt.
The reality is that the people questioned really were communists or former communists (not that there’s anything wrong with that!), and were asked to give up people that actually were communists or former communists, and that the committee actually KNEW were communists, and the studios blacklisted people who wouldn’t cooperate.
See, the whole point wasn’t to get a list of communists/former communists, the political theater of the hearings was the whole point. To force the c/fc witnesses to either cooperate and betray their c/fc comrades, or to expose themselves as horrible horrible people that companies sensitive to public opinion shouldn’t hire. The didn’t want the names to find the communists, they asked the witnesses for names to force them to pick a side and either get onboard with the program or get crushed.
Anyway, a sordid tale all around. I just don’t like the Hollywood version where Hollywood gives itself a pass on the sordidness.
Good luck proving at a press conference that a guy is lying instead of incorrect. “Nothing substantive” is an opinion, and “lied” is generally more of an interpretation. Ascribing motives to people does not go hand-in-hand with objectivity.
If he’s pointedly avoiding something, that does get reported.
The end result of reporters calling Presidents liars over and over is that only those who don’t call the President a liar will be allowed to ask him questions. I think that some of the posters here want ALL the reporters to call Bush a liar, which has a lot more to do with partisanship than anything else.
Let’s turn it around. Here is a list of people allegedly blacklisted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Alleged_victims_of_McCarthyism:
Some were indeed Communists. But AFAWK they were not, e.g., spying for the USSR. (Those who were are covered in the next section of the article.) So, can you point out any of these who were not “innocent,” and can you back that up?
BTW – you did not make this clear – did Coulter mean only those damaged specifically by Senator’s McCarthy’s investigations (the “Army-McCarthy Hearings,” etc.)? Because the Hollywood hearings and resultant blacklists were mainly the work of HUAC (House, not Senate), whose activities were much more far-ranging than McCarthy’s, and lasted much longer (even into the period of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement). But it is not unfair to subsume all of them under the general name of “McCarthyism.”
Since I’m quoting her, I guess you’d have to ask her.
But, barring that it would be interesting to hear names from two categories: CPUSA members who were always patriotic and just happened to believe that we’d be better off under Communism (I was a member of this group for a while around 1968), and people who were never CPUSA members.
Still looking forward to those cites. It’s easy to yell about what bastards those conservatives are…
So if a journalist challenges the President over a supposed lie, thats proof of his/her left-wing bias?
I think to do such a thing would cause the reporter and his organization to lose a significant amount of its audience. If say a Newsweek reporter had the nerve to call Bush a liar, the Newsweek phone lines would be jammed with cancelled subscriptions. I think there’s still animosity toward CBS in general and Dan Rather in particular for his little exchange with Richard Nixon. And one can only imagine what FOX would do to Geraldo if he tried something like that.