Stone: isn't that what I was saying? Iraq is a better country than North Korea economically, that's why the US couldn't ignore them like they do with North Korea.
Printable View
Stone: isn't that what I was saying? Iraq is a better country than North Korea economically, that's why the US couldn't ignore them like they do with North Korea.
Politician - "One who is skilled or experienced in the science or administration of government"
Journalist - someone engaged in "a style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation."
Well, I guess I could say that I hold journalists to a higher standard than I do politicians, given that a journalist's job is to REPORT FACTS, not run a goddamned country. Many of these journalists seem to conflate the two practices. Statements from the top guys have to make their way through discussion boards and government flacks, I accept that, so what would be excusable from government officials is inexcusable at the hands of government journalists.
Of course, I'm not going to concede the idea that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush, Powell, etcetera have been engaged in an similarly deliberate process of misinformation. Hell, the only reason YOU think that is because you're like putty in the hands of the bastards who like to fabricate this shit.
Hey, good news, Harold Raines and his operating editor resigned. What do you guys think of this? Actual evidence of the ramifications of the Times' biases, or more Clinton-style right-wing Inquisitioning?
And, anyways, "outrage" isn't my business - remember, I'm a capitalist tool, I don't need outrage.
Ah, I think I was just confused by the way you put it. I thought you were referring to their economic value to us (ie attacking North Korea will only allow us to get some weapons, whereas if we attack Iraq we get oil), not the problems that their respective economic strengths pose to us.Quote:
Originally posted by Reno
Stone: isn't that what I was saying? Iraq is a better country than North Korea economically, that's why the US couldn't ignore them like they do with North Korea.
I dunno, who was the one who believed previous fabrications and defendet them as if his life dependet on it?
Answer honestly Stone.
I think you're right, and I think I stand corrected on my earlier "I don't see how it could have been taken out of context" comment.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Compare and contrast that with the actual quote:
"Look, the primary difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil."
But while I think there is no excuse for misquoting someone on as major an issue as this, I will say that even with the quote you provide, the spin the Guardian provided is not an unreachable conclusion. One could read "no economic options" as "in a cold, number-sense, it was too good an opportunity to pass up," or "our economy is in such dire shape that we need the money, and have no other economic options".
But yeah, I really doubt that's what he meant.
Strange that you pick the only two British broadsheets that aren't horribly right-wing as being the "only" ones who do it.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone Synthesizing quotes is something which is done. Perverting quotes in such a way as to completely destroy their meaning (the way Maureen Dowd does, the way this guy did, the way that Vanity Fair writer did) is not something we should all get used to, and it's not something that's acceptable. The Telegraph doesn't seem to do it, the Washington Post doesn't seem to do it, the WSJ or the Financial Times doesn't do it - this particular style of quoting seems to be characteristic to a few well-known news sources: the NY Times, the Independent, Reuters, the Guardian. Connect the dots.
Connect the dots.
Stone's right. The Guardian twisted Wolfowitz's words and got him to say something he didn't say. That's pretty deplorable if you ask me. I also remember Almaci criticizing "right-wingers" who did this, hell he fucking always complains about people who twist his words on this forum, so I hope that he will see the Guardian's actions as being deplorable as well.
For some reason, I doubt it, but hey, it'd be nice.
Don't get me wrong - I agree completely, and I'm an avid Guardian reader (believing it to be the only decent paper available, pretty much). However, I was pointing out at the fact that he suggested the only two British papers that did it were a left wing one (The Guardian) and a middle-left one (The Independent). Apparently, decent upstanding right wingers would never think of such a thing.Quote:
Originally posted by diffusionx
Stone's right. The Guardian twisted Wolfowitz's words and got him to say something he didn't say. That's pretty deplorable if you ask me. I also remember Almaci criticizing "right-wingers" who did this, hell he fucking always complains about people who twist his words on this forum, so I hope that he will see the Guardian's actions as being deplorable as well.
For some reason, I doubt it, but hey, it'd be nice.
I'm not blind to quality. I stopped reading Socialist Worker because it was pretty much biased bullshit. I agree with its views, but I'm not surprised others don't if THAT piece of garbage is the flagship news source. :p
I was specifically suggesting that it was a characteristic of not "horribly right-wing" papers. (NY Times, the Guardian, the Independent, what the papers all have in common). I'd be happy to see some evidence of this sort of quote-fucking-up on the part of the Telegraph or whatever. (The Sun doesn't count).Quote:
Originally posted by red_war_machine
Strange that you pick the only two British broadsheets that aren't horribly right-wing as being the "only" ones who do it.
Connect the dots.
Heheh, I guess you're right, I dunno - it's not an unreachable conclusion, yeah, it's not like he turned Wolfowitz's statement into "Bush wants to nuke France" or something. Still, I can't imagine it being reachable unless you're coming from a perspective unhealthily skewed for one who purports to be a journalist.Quote:
But while I think there is no excuse for misquoting someone on as major an issue as this, I will say that even with the quote you provide, the spin the Guardian provided is not an unreachable conclusion. One could read "no economic options" as "in a cold, number-sense, it was too good an opportunity to pass up," or "our economy is in such dire shape that we need the money, and have no other economic options".
what the heck ?? thats all this war has been aboutQuote:
Of course, I'm not going to concede the idea that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush, Powell, etcetera have been engaged in an similarly deliberate process of misinformation.
if you dont think so where are the weapons ?? where are they ??
if they can take ariel photos of these mobile chemical weapons and of weapons plants, wouldnt they be able to have ariel photos of the iraqi's trying to hide
thats not a little bit, I think eventually we would catch a photo of at least some of that getting hidden, something, even a tiny amount, even a pound of some sort of chemical weapon, but nothing, havent found anything, or after saddam is gone one of the Iraqis who is so glad to have his US and British Liberators there, would help us out and say hey "I saw them bringing in suspicious boxes to this school, or hospital", or "I saw a ton of trucks headed out in the desert that way ", or "I saw them bury a ton of stuff, I dont know what it is but it looked suspicious"Quote:
100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.
none of that has happened, 100 to 500 tons just doesnt dissappear like that with no trace and nobody knowing anything about it
how many americans believe Saddam had links to 9/11 ?? to many, way to many
to say they havent been part of misinformation is just wrong, plain wrong
Now you know that's not a reasonable thing to ask. If you can find me something from the Independent then I'll try and find you something from the Telegraph. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
I was specifically suggesting that it was a characteristic of not "horribly right-wing" papers. (NY Times, the Guardian, the Independent, what the papers all have in common). I'd be happy to see some evidence of this sort of quote-fucking-up on the part of the Telegraph or whatever. (The Sun doesn't count).
The Daily Mail does the same, though, with its presentation of 'illegal immigrants' that also manages to bring in asylum seekers and people who have come in legally, and Strawberry makes a very good point about the amount of people who automatically link Saddam and terrorism.