Reply
Sat 14 Aug, 2004 12:22 pm
The Media, with its deteriorating and sloppy journalism, is losing it's credibility with the public. ---BBB
August 13, 2004
Spin Buster - Sensitive-gate
Columbia Journalism Review
By Thomas Lang
This was the week in which we saw the press repeatedly and carelessly reprinting misleading or false claims, such as President Bush's charge that John Kerry's income tax proposals would fall on the middle-class, or the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" claim that Kerry's injuries in Vietnam were not severe enough to warrant a Purple Heart.
Thus, it's fitting that we close out the week with a look at the real issue of the day. Which team, Bush-Cheney or Kerry-Edwards, is (dare we say it?) more sensitive.
It all began last week when, while giving a speech to minority journalists at the Unity 2004 conference in Washington D.C., Sen. Kerry veered off script and delivered these partially ad-libbed remarks:
I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.
Well.
Republicans were as giddy over Kerry's use of the word "sensitive" as a fifth grader giggling at the mention of certain body parts during Sex Ed class. And yesterday those snickers found their way into Dick Cheny's stump speech. The Vice President told an audience in Dayton, Ohio:
Senator Kerry has also said that if he were in charge he would fight a "more sensitive" war on terror. America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive warfare -- nor did President Roosevelt, nor Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. A "sensitive war" will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more.
The press loves this sort of stuff, and accordingly, Sensitive Gate received top billing in much of the political coverage this morning. Also not surprisingly, in the usual fashion of "he-said/she-said" journalism, readers weren't treated to the whole story.
The New York Times provided a typical account, reprinting Cheney's attack, followed by a response from the Kerry camp noting first that Cheney took Kerry's comments out of context and, second, that Bush himself has called for a more "sensitive" foreign policy. The Times also went to the trouble of printing Bush's own "sensitive" quote from March: "We must be sensitive about expressing our power and our influence."
Inexplicably, however, The Times didn't see fit to reprint Kerry's original statement from the Unity conference, leaving readers in the dark as to what Kerry first said that set all this off. The New York Times Company's other newspaper, The Boston Globe, managed to dedicate the 38 words of print space needed to provide the relevant context -- including the words "more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive ... war on terror."
Campaigns set out everyday to use the press to pass on misleading statements, or quotes taken out of context, to the voters. Is it too much to ask for the press to call them on it when they do it, and to supply the missing words ?
I cringed when I heard Kerry say this. I knew it would be chopped and misrepresented. I loved what Jon Stewart did with it, showing Cheney and Bush making statements that included the word "sensitive" in reference to the war, but not everyone see's The Daily Show.
Quote:The Times also went to the trouble of printing Bush's own "sensitive" quote from March: "We must be sensitive about expressing our power and our influence."
The above remark was made in March 2001 BEFORE the 9/11 attack, which this article conveniently leaves out.
Quote: In any case, it looks as though John Kerry needs help coming up with specific ways in which he can fight a more thoughtful and sensitive war on terror. In the spirit of cooperation, I'd like to suggest the following helpful list...
10. Stop calling it a "war." Rename it to the "Protest Against Terror." Protests always get people's attention and lets them know that what you're protesting against is wrong.
9. Use softer bullets. Metal bullets hurt the terrorists, and that makes them hate us more.
8. Perhaps President Kerry can invite Osama bin Laden to the White House for a "cuddling party" with Kerry/Edwards. Nothing makes friends faster than a good cuddle.
7. Only go to war if the French and the UN say it's okay. Everyone knows how skillful the French are at dealing with other nations, and the UN has proven time and again its efficacy in dealing with terrorists.
6. Pull the troops out of Iraq within six months, but stay the course and even send more troops. If you have to ask, it's too nuanced for you.
5. Gently but firmly remind the terrorists that he was in Vietnam for four months thirty-five years ago. They won't dare pull anything then.
4. Ensure government paid and operated health care for all Americans, paid for with higher taxes. Terrorists won't bother to attack if they know all Americans have health care; it won't do any good then.
3. Stop eating pork and cover the women. Don't let them read or vote. That will show the terrorists that we understand them and appreciate their culture.
2. Don't call them "terrorists." They feel bad enough about our bullying, abusive foreign policy as it is. Call them "armed peace demonstrators." They'll feel more... peaceful.
1. Don't send soldiers; send social workers. All they really need is love and understanding.
"Armed" with these suggestions, I'm sure John Kerry will be able to convince the terrorists to stop hating us in no time, should he win November's election. As for me... I'll be in the mountains building a bunker.
Source
Can't wait to see the new operations Kerry has planned:
Operation Hug Storm
Operation Fluffy Kitten Basket
Operation Enduring Rainbow
Operation Nerf Ammo
Quote:Can't wait to see the new operations Kerry has planned:
Operation Hug Storm
Operation Fluffy Kitten Basket
Operation Enduring Rainbow
Operation Nerf Ammo
A very realistic and thoughtful point my friend.
Personally i wish that if there were going to be wars, people would conduct them in a sensitive manner; rather than listening to violent songs about letting the MF burn.
Cheney Calls the Kettle Black
Yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney lashed out at Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) for suggesting that America needs to fight "a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror."1 Cheney said, "America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive."2 Cheney neglected to mention that President Bush and other top administration officials - including Cheney himself - have publicly called for "sensitive" use of American military power. Here is a selection:
On 3/4/01, at the christening of the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, President Bush said "because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence."3
On 1/7/03, Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the president's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the administration asks "our troops to go out there and be, on the one hand, very sensitive to cultural issues, on the other hand, be ready to respond in self-defense to a very ticklish situation."4
On 4/13/03, Cheney said, "We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We're not insensitive to that. We work almost on a continual basis with the local officials to remove points of friction and reduce the extent to which problems arise in terms of those relationships."5
Sources:
"Cheney blasts Kerry for 'sensitive' remark," Chicago Sun-Times, 08/13/04.
Ibid.
"Remarks by the President at Christening Ceremony for the USS Ronald Reagan," The White House, 03/04/01.
"DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers," US Department of Defense, 01/07/03.
"Remarks by the Vice President at the Washington Post-Yomiuri Shimbun Symposium," The White House, 04/13/04.
from the Daily Mislead
It is true that this Admin is too sensitive to, the fact that we're still farting around with Sadr is a perfect example.
Childish and idiotic Beavis and Butthead response to Kerry's use of the word sensitive....delivered by a mouthpiece from a childish and idiotic Beavis and Butthead administration for a childish and idiotic Beavis and Butthead society that eats this kind of childish and idiotic Beavis and Butthead bullshit up.
A true symbiotic relationship.
Kerry deliberately chose the word, and so he should be able to defend his use of it without the childish response: "Well you used it too!"
"He," expands to include his surrogates.
Why the hell should he be required to defend his use of the word?
I find it interesting that Cheney, who basically is saying out of that sneering mouth of his that Kerry is a pussy....not only ducked VietNam, but this old man can't get up and get out the door without a team of cardiologists, pharmaceuticals, implants and who knows what else, and if not for his position of privilege he'd most likely not be here to make his dirty deals and shitty remarks because left on his own he couldn't even manage to have a beating heart. Who's the pussy?
Joe Nation
Joe Nation, here's some more from an Urban Myth site - found statements to be true with citations:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/piehigher.asp
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Why the hell should he be required to defend his use of the word?
He
need not, but he
should, and he
should because he is running for President and everything he says is fair game for dissection.
If "explain" would offend your sensibilities less than "defend," make the switch.
If he would prefer to allow the GOP to define what he meant, so be it.
No, you don't get it, BP, if you don't have anything to run on, like sound tax policy or a plan for health care, or the environment, or the conduct of the war in Iraq and so on and so forth, you nit pik anything John Kerry says, or you just repeat it in your nyah-nyah voice, like you were some kid on a school yard. The sheeple will think it's debating the issues, the people will think you've lost it.
There really is no argument about whether our foreign policy should take into consideration the positions of whatever few allies we have left in this world, but some seem bent on making it seem as if the USA could give a big ratass about whatever anyone else thinks.
The sheeple think that makes us sound tuff, but it is a belief that will lead to disaster if followed for too much longer.
Joe
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Childish and idiotic Beavis and Butthead response to Kerry's use of the word sensitive....delivered by a mouthpiece from a childish and idiotic Beavis and Butthead administration for a childish and idiotic Beavis and Butthead society that eats this kind of childish and idiotic Beavis and Butthead bullshit up.
A true symbiotic relationship.
Hey, stop dissing the musicians and celebs that support John Kerry.
']['he']['ruth wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Childish and idiotic Beavis and Butthead response to Kerry's use of the word sensitive....delivered by a mouthpiece from a childish and idiotic Beavis and Butthead administration for a childish and idiotic Beavis and Butthead society that eats this kind of childish and idiotic Beavis and Butthead bullshit up.
A true symbiotic relationship.
Hey, stop dissing the musicians and celebs that support John Kerry.
Always a good idea tro establish who and what you are right away...good work and welcome to A2K....
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace