More Spin from a major media outlet
Apperently i am not the only one to pick on the spin from the media. That latest example is from the LA Times regarding two specific instances. The first point is really well made and something that i didn't immediately catch. The second is very similar to the post i made earlier about Joe Biden's speech where he refers to GEN Casey's speech about the level of support required for Iraqi Battalions. Noting yet again that Spin is not necessarily what you say (like regarding the .50 cal taking out tanks) but alot of times its just presenting one side of the story in a very misleading way to create an unfavorable impression.
Bill Hobbs
Bill Hobbs
posted by Maddawg at 11/30/2005 03:45:00 PM
5 Comments:
Before even reading this, I wanted to point out an interesting observation. You're expecting us to accept what a PROFESSIONAL POLITICIAN, in this case, Bush the Illiterate, the President of the United States of America, at face value, rejecting any assumption of spin. Meanwhile, you're ALSO expecting us to question with fervor the motives and spin of a reputable news outlet. Interesting.
Let me pose this question to you. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that God WASN'T angered at the people of the U.S. in 2004, and rather than PUNISHING them with a second term from President Chimp, they rewarded them with the first of two benevolent terms from Senator Kerry. Let's take you to the day that Kerry halts all warfare in Iraq and concentrates on, y'know, finding the REAL terrorists. He gives a speech at the Naval Academy, not unlike Bush, and in it he gives ALL the reasons that the war on the Iraqi people has been wrong and unjust.
As a warmonger yourself, would you NOT question his spin? Would it be fair of a pacifist such as MYSELF to expect you to accept Kerry's words at face value?
Of course not.
I am not telling you that you Bush is to be accepted at face value. I am telling you that the LA Times deliberately does not put out all the facts and misleads
Oh and btw, the LA Times being a reputable new outlet is laughable for the reason that they lie and mislead, as was just shown.
You didn't show anything. They didn't lie about anything, nor did they mislead. Just the title of Bill Hobbs article is subjective.
"L.A. Times Ignores Key Points of Bush's Iraq Speech."
The term "key" is subjective. It was the Times contention that what they wrote were the "key points" of the speech. That doesn't mean they lied or mislead. They wrote what they believed were the "key points." Just because you, Bill Hobbs, and every redneck in America disagrees with their assessment of what was "key" in that speech and what wasn't doesn't mean they're liars.
If I read a conservative article recapping the Bush speech, I would probably say they missed the "key" points of it. I could then accuse them of lying and misleading too.
It's subjective, Jim. Stop being such a damn conspiracy theorist.
From a conservatice article, you should expect that. However, I should not expect what was written from a supposedly "major new organization" Its clearly biasd to report what happened 2 years ago in fallujah and only that when the President talks about progress but leave out what occured last month in a very similar scale. As a news organization, its your job to report the news, BOTH SIDES.
"But the experts also see the speech as a signal that the White House has concluded it must take a calculated risk that the Iraqi military can become the main protective force for the nascent government in Baghdad. That assessment is widely disputed by military specialists inside and outside the Bush administration. " The LA Times then makes the Casey quote. Gen Casey however was taken widely out of context because he then states the 2nd part of his quote that the LA Times does not print. Taken together, the full statement of GEN Casey means a totally different thing than what the LA Times uses it for. They only do this because they selectively misrepresented the meaning of GEN Casey's quote. And "key" is subjective to a degree but when its one of the 3 points of the speech that the president makes, and he goes on about it, and they choose to ignore it, then its not subjective. If you read the speech in full, you can see that its not subjective any more than saying the "key" point i make in my blog since its inception is that I like beer.
Post a Comment
<< Home