MSNBC's 'Truth Squad' (Dems labeled "untruthful" for criticizing Bush) FAIR Action Alert

[swag]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3159

After the August 7 Democratic debate, MSNBC reporter David Shuster weighed in with what the cable channel called a "truth squad" segment, ostensibly intended to fact check various claims by the candidates. But the result had less to do with clarifying the facts than with protecting Bush from harsh criticism.

In concluding his report, Shuster singled out two candidates who "gave some untruthful descriptions of the Bush administration." When asked "the first thing you would do as president to improve the recovery in New Orleans," Sen. Hillary Clinton said, "Well, the first thing I would do would put somebody in charge to actually cared about the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast." Shuster's other example was Sen. Joe Biden remarking, "We know how badly this president has ruined the country."

In what way would those opinions be considered "untruthful"? Shuster only said that using the word "ruin" was "pretty amazing" because it is "defined as irreparable damage, and for Joe Biden to say the nation is irreparably damaged, is ruined permanently, that is a bit of a stretch."

Actually, the word "ruined" does not always imply permanent destruction—otherwise Shuster's phrase "ruined permanently" would be redundant. But he might consider interviewing some residents (or former residents) of New Orleans about whether Bush has "irreparably damaged" the country. Constitutional scholars also might have opinions about whether the damage done by Bush can be undone.

Referring to Clinton, Shuster offered only that to "say that the Bush administration does not care about New Orleans, that's a leap." Shuster does not explain why his insight into the personal feelings of government officials is superior to Clinton's; judging by Bush's actions in the immediate aftermath of Katrina and in the slow rebuilding that followed, claiming that Bush administration did care about New Orleans might be seen as more of a leap.

. . . more

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3159

[hisownpetard]

1. I remember hearing Shuster say the above and thinking, at the time, "What's

with that?" It was really a worthless piece, based on nothing, that shouldn't
have been aired. Why did he do it? He was supposed to be checking the facts
and yet the dumb things he expressed were nothing more than dumb opinions -
no facts involved!

[AndyTiedye]

2. They Are Just Getting Warmed Up. Better Stock Up on the Anti-Nausea Medicine