Thursday, November 03, 2005

"The Media Stink" Game


Below is part of an article from today's New York Times. Let's count a) how many statements are merely misleading and b) how many are false. In each category, determine how many are in the administration's favor, and how many are against it.

"More than two years ago, Mr. McClellan did what press secretaries are paid to do: He vigorously defended the president's men - specifically, Mr. Libby, Mr. Rove and Elliott Abrams, a national security aide who was never implicated in the case - against speculation that they had a hand in the disclosure of the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency officer.

'They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved,' Mr. McClellan said at his televised briefing on Oct. 7, 2003, one of several instances in which he denied that Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby were responsible for the leak.

As events have unfolded and the grand jury has heard testimony that both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove had conversations with journalists that touched on the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, Mr. McClellan's reputation has been left dangling in the glare of the television lights.

Though Mr. Libby has not been convicted of charges that he lied in the investigation and was not accused of leaking the agent's identity, and Mr. Rove has not been charged with any wrongdoing, Mr. McClellan's broad assurance that they were 'not involved' now seems, based on what is known publicly about the case, to have been misleading if not downright false."

a) "Mr. McClellan did what press secretaries are paid to do."

He made false statements to the media, statements known to be false by members of the administration, e.g., Rove. Is this really not beyond what he is paid to do?

"Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove had conversations with journalists that touched on the identity of the C.I.A. officer."

This makes it sound like there was some conversation about a CIA officer, and perhaps they let slip that it was Wilson's wife. Nope. And they didn't "touch on the identity", they completely identified her.

"Mr. McClellan's reputation has been left dangling in the glare of the television lights."

Why the passive voice? Who has left it dangling? Perhaps McClellan?

b) "Mr. Libby ... was not accused of leaking the agent's identity"

Yes, he was, read the damn indictment. He wasn't charged with the crime of leaking, but he certainly is accused of leaking her identity. That's what he's charged with lying about, idiot.

And, the liberal New York Times' crap all benefited the administration.

The full story

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

<< And, the liberal New York Times' crap all benefited the administration. >>

Awww. And you're upset, aren't you? Are you all sad that the New York Times said something that helped the Bush administration? I bet you're all upset because you count on them to HURT the Bush administration. Well, guess what, dumbass? THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO "HELP" EITHER SIDE. They're supposed to report the news. They're supposed to tell people what happens - with NO POINT OF VIEW. You assholes forget that, don't you?

Anonymous said...

Hmmm. Funny. I bet you don't complain when the New York Times reports something in a slanted way that HURTS the Bush administration. DO YOU?

C.J. Larsen said...

"<< And, the liberal New York Times' crap all benefited the administration. >>...
Well, guess what, dumbass? THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO "HELP" EITHER SIDE. They're supposed to report the news. They're supposed to tell people what happens - with NO POINT OF VIEW. You assholes forget that, don't you?"

My point, genius, was that the NYT is accused of having a liberal bias, so it is odd to have such a slanted article in favor of W.

Of course my main point was that the NYT is frequently crappy in its reporting.

-dumbass asshole

Anonymous said...

Now now, when you called me a "genius" you were being sarcastic, weren't you? Well, that's okay. I'm not offended. Anyway, back to the point. Yes, the New York Times is crappy. But don't fret. Newspapers are pretty much dead. Of course, that thrills me because the big newspapers are almost invariably written with an anti-conservative bias (as I think even you would admit). So, I applaud their death. They deserve it. You (unintentionally) explained WHY they deserve the slow, painful death they're in the midst of. Think about it. You read an NYT article that reported on the Bush administration in a favorable way, and you found that SO UNUSUAL, SO BEWILDERING that you actually wrote a post about it on your blog! Well, there ya go. That's why newspapers like the NYT deserve the extinction they're now facing. Because long ago, they forgot why they're there. They forgot their job is to report the news. They view themselves as "crusaders for the little guy" - out to destroy mean ol' rich conservatives. And that's exactly how and why they slant their reporting. But their power evaporated long ago. Christ, Rush Limbaugh and other such talk radio hosts have more influence now than the dying, anemic newspapers. The irony here? It was newspapers like the NYT and their relentless biased reporting that CREATED Limbaugh and his ilk. "Necessity is the mother of invention." There are tons of conservatives out there who were disgusted with the newspapers and the Dan Rathers of this country who pretend to report news, but are simply pushing their liberal agendas. Well, now people don't watch the news and they stopped reading newspapers (check evening news ratings and newspaper circulation numbers/trends if you don't believe me). But ol' Rush is more popular than ever - and the Republicans have the White House, the Senate, and the House. Oh, and the Supreme Court seems to be moving in the right direction, too :) I bet the liberals thought big changes were coming for them in 2006 and 2008. Awww. Too bad. I don't think that'll happen. In any event, I'm glad you feel it was so strange for the NYT to write something remotely favorable about the Bush administration. I agree. It WAS odd.

Matt said...

Anonymous sure does use a lot of words to show that he's unhinged, doesn't he? No wonder no one listens to these guys except Fox junkies.

Matt said...

Anonymous sure does use a lot of words to show that he's unhinged, doesn't he? No wonder no one listens to these guys except Fox junkies.

C.J. Larsen said...

Anonymous said... "You read an NYT article that reported on the Bush administration in a favorable way, and you found that SO UNUSUAL, SO BEWILDERING that you actually wrote a post about it on your blog!"

I'm not sure if you're intentionally missing the point here. The NYT didn't just report in a favorable way, it made misleading and false statements, all of which favored the administration. I understand this doesn't bother you, since it favored your team, but for some people there's a principle....

Anonymous said...

Jonathan,
Have you read this US NEWS article???
Apparently, internet activits are bringing down the Democratic Party...go figure...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20051031/ts_usnews/thenewmcgovernites

LarryT...Chicago

Anonymous said...

Absolutely hilarious!!!

http://www.yeeguy.com/freefall/

Check this out and enjoy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

<< I'm not sure if you're intentionally missing the point here. The NYT didn't just report in a favorable way, it made misleading and false statements, all of which favored the administration. I understand this doesn't bother you, since it favored your team, but for some people there's a principle.... >>

Nor am I sure if YOU'RE not intentionally missing the point. Here is my point. You say there is a "principal" here for some people? I assume you include yourself as one of these "principled" people? Okay, C.J. Since you're so principled - tell me - how many times have you written on your blog complaining about the NYT being inaccurate in a way that made the Bush administration look bad? Lemme, guess. Ummm...none? Yeah, you're soooooo principled.

Anonymous said...

<< Anonymous sure does use a lot of words to show that he's unhinged, doesn't he? No wonder no one listens to these guys except Fox junkies. >>

Yeah, Matt. No one listens to "us guys." I guess that's why "us guys" have control of the White House, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court. I guess that's why Bush, in the last election, got the most popular votes in U.S. history. Man, I sure hope people keep "not listening" to "us guys." LOL.

Newer Post Older Post Home