Reply #203: Before you make blanket statements from a few press sources

[Texas_Kat]

Before you make blanket statements from a few press sources, you should spend a little time researching. Many of the cut and paste jobs by members of the press with 'an agenda' are well-known and have been debunked by others like the Daily Howler.

For instance, here's a snip from the Howler about how the press has misrepresented Clark's position on Iraq:

THE TRUTH ABOUT CORRECTIONS: On Monday, it was Adam Nagourney who was typing the script, telling readers that “General Clark appeared to struggle as he explained his views on the war in response to a challenge from a questioner.” As we noted, Clark’s actual answer was blindingly clear , so Nagourney did what he had to do—he simply provided a fake, bogus “answer.” He quoted one part of what Clark had said, then typed in part of an earlier answer! After creating this phony amalgam, he typed the script: General Clark wasn’t clear (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/27/03).

This morning, the Times pretends to correct this strange “error.” You might have thought that the paper would show what Clark actually said in response to the question Nagourney cited. If you thought that, of course, you’d be wrong. It’s the law: Corrections must always hide the extent of the “error.” Here is the paper’s “correction:”

NEW YORK TIMES CORRECTION: An article on Monday about a debate in Detroit by Democratic presidential candidates referred incorrectly to a response from Gen. Wesley K. Clark: “Right after 9/11, this administration determined to do bait-and-switch on the American public. President Bush said he was going to get Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. Instead, he went after Saddam Hussein. He doesn’t have either one of them today.” The comment responded to a question about where he stands on the war in Iraq, not to the question “Are we to understand that what you’re saying now is that those things you have said that were positive about the war was not what you meant?”

On-line, that “correction” will live forever, tagged to Nagourney’s astonishing article. But please note: You’re never shown what Clark actually said to the question Nagourney cited. Is it true? Did Wes Clark “appear to struggle as he explained his views on the war?” No, of course, he plainly did not (text below). But New York Times readers will never know that. Let’s be plain: The mighty Times—and their script-typing scribes—don’t want you to know what Clark said.

Nagourney’s article will be on-line forever. It will still say that Clark “appeared to struggle.” But the correction won’t show you what Clark really said. Readers will have no way of knowing: Clark didn’t “appear to struggle” at all. That was just scribes typing scripts."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102903.shtml

Be sure to read the ENTIRE page, or you'll miss this:

Here’s what Clark actually said, in response to the question which came before Cameron’s: “I’ve been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer. I was against it in the fall. I was against it in the winter. I was against it in the spring. And I’m against it now. It was an unnecessary war.”

If you do a little exploring (as opposed to accepting the first thing that comes along that happens to agree with your viewpoint) you'll see that accepting virtually single source comments from the press is a bad way to evaluate anything. It still astonishes me that supporters of one political figure that has recieved similar smear treatment will persist in believing similarly twisted garbage thrown at another.

:shrug: