[Vision2020] Bush Says He Won't Be Swayed To Withdraw

[Andreas Schou]

On 11/29/06, Tony <tonytime at clearwire.net> wrote:
> Andreas, for a bright guy, you pay very poor attention.  I never suggested
> that official pronouncements should be regurgitated wholesale.  What I said
> was it is NOT THE JOB of the reporter to analyze and argue with those
> pronouncements.  If the journalist feels that more than the official version
> would lend to a more fair and accurate reporting, then she should seek out
> and quote someone with an opposing view.

If it is clear that one side is correct and the other is incorrect, or
if it is clear to the reporter that one person is telling the truth
and another is lying, and that those facts can be proven, the reporter
should say so. You may be entitled to your own set of opinions, but
too many conservatives feel that they are additionally entitled to
their own set of facts. Which is weird, because conservatives also
accuse liberals of being relativists.

There is one set of facts, Tony.

Did Bush answer the question he was asked, or did he evade it?

-- ACS

> Readers have a right to expect
> reporters to REPORT the news of the day, not interpret, shade, argue with or
> manipulate it in ANY WAY with their own "analysis."  There is no question to
> which the ONLY fair-minded and fully informative answer can be said to be
> STRICTLY yes or no.  Folks who demand to ask a question and then insist what
> the proper answer is, should be ignored out of hand.
>
> The only thing "idiotic" about this war is the hysterical and shrill carping
> from the left on behalf of our sworn enemies.
>
> Goodnight and have a pleasant tomorrow.    -T
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
> To: "Tony" <tonytime at clearwire.net>
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 10:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bush Says He Won't Be Swayed To Withdraw
>
>
> > On 11/29/06, Tony <tonytime at clearwire.net> wrote:
> >> Actually Andreas, the only legitimate way to transmit someone's words is
> >> through a verbatim quote.  ANY "analysis" WHATSOEVER steps over the
> >> bounds
> >> unless on the opinion page.  You loose credibility Andreas when you flak
> >> for
> >> those who would shape public opinion in the name of reporting the news.
> >
> > This is idiotic. News is not the blind transmission of official pap
> > from policy organs to the listening public. If Dick Cheney says that
> > the insurgency is in its last throes, and it is clear that that is not
> > the case, then the fact that the facts contradict him should be made
> > clear. If someone is asked a yes or no question and doesn't answer it,
> > it should be made clear that they didn't answer it -- because that is
> > self-evidently the case.
> >
> > People often lie, and there is often a certain amount of ambiguity
> > about the facts -- like, for instance, whether claims about Iraq's
> > nuclear weapons programs were malicious lies or simply delusional
> > fantasies. Because the news media acted as a funnel to deliver the
> > "official story" to the people, we ended up with too many people
> > supporting an idiotic and unnecessary war.
> >
> > -- ACS
> >
> >
>
>
>