Caught Blowing Smoke...Again...
First, let me say that I am happy to be off of my brief sabbatical. It was Finals week here, so studying and rest were the norm for me. (YAY! One semester down, and only about 100 more to go.) Regardless, I am happy to be back.
This should come as no surprise to our readers, or anyone else for that matter. It seems that CBS has been caught in a lie again. Earlier this week, they reported—incorrectly, I might add—that Ken Starr stood against the Constitutional Option in the Senate. This created quite a firestorm for Starr. The Left side of the blogosphere praised him, while the center-right bloggers went nuts—and in a calm manner went to work debunking it. Ramesh Ponnuru, from NRO, wasted no time in dealing with this issue. (Hat-tip: Captain’s Quarters)
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_05_08_corner-archive.asp#062838
KEN STARR'S REAL VIEWS [Ramesh Ponnuru]
CBS, AP, and other outlets reported earlier this week that Starr had said that getting rid of the judicial filibuster would be a "radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
This seemed like a very odd thing for Starr to say, so I contacted him.
He forwarded to me an email he had sent to someone else who had asked about this matter:
"In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure' snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosopy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the 'filibuster' represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition. . . .
"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."
Seems pretty clear to me that CBS made another "mistake", as they will no doubt spin this revelation. But as Captain Ed pointed out, CBS took his real words, and did a cut and paste job with them. Much like how the USSC tends to render some of it’s decisions. (In the words of the esteemed Justice Scalia "...I confess never to have heard of this new, keep-what-you-want-and-throw-away-the-rest version.")
That is precisely what CBS did. They kept what was beneficial to their bias—one that cannot be mistaken for anything other than a deep-rooted dislike for the current administration—and threw the rest of the contextual remarks away. Truly, had they included his full remarks, the context of his answer becomes much clearer, and CBS has no story. Not that they have one right now. What they have now is some explaining to do. At the least, a correction should be made. But, like all other outlets of the MSM when they make a mistake, I do not hold my breath in anticipation of any such correction.
And the MSM still ponders why their subscription rates are down, and continue to drop; why they are losing viewers, especially on the cable networks; And why more people are turning to bloggers for news and information. To them, it has nothing to do with the countless journalistic felonies committed, and perpetuated by their news reporting.
My other half is fond of reminding me what it used to mean to be in the news business. "When you report, you report the facts; it is the receiver’s job to decide." It is not just a FOX News mantra. It is the truth. Dan Rather remarked a couple of years ago at a journalist’s conference that reporters are "no longer presenters of fact, but purveyors of the truth." That is pretty arrogant, even from the likes of Rather, but it is typical of thinking involved by the MSM when they consider who is paying attention to them.
The MSM has been lying to and manipulating the public for years. Luckily, in my early age I disliked watching the news, and as I grew older, I noticed the bias in the news. So, I did not fall into the trap that so many people did—trusting what is told to you by an absolute stranger. To be sure, we bloggers are "strangers" too. The difference is we present the facts, and give links so you can read those facts for yourselves. There is, admittedly, a level of commentary involved on our part. We present fact, and then give you our opinions. The MSM does not do that. They present half-chopped and cobbled stories as fact and truth, with their own view of things thrown in for good measure.
We do that too, but you know when we state an opinion, and when we are quoting, posting, or linking to the facts that merit that opinion. Just as I did today, and just as we do everyday.
The Bunny ;)
First, let me say that I am happy to be off of my brief sabbatical. It was Finals week here, so studying and rest were the norm for me. (YAY! One semester down, and only about 100 more to go.) Regardless, I am happy to be back.
This should come as no surprise to our readers, or anyone else for that matter. It seems that CBS has been caught in a lie again. Earlier this week, they reported—incorrectly, I might add—that Ken Starr stood against the Constitutional Option in the Senate. This created quite a firestorm for Starr. The Left side of the blogosphere praised him, while the center-right bloggers went nuts—and in a calm manner went to work debunking it. Ramesh Ponnuru, from NRO, wasted no time in dealing with this issue. (Hat-tip: Captain’s Quarters)
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_05_08_corner-archive.asp#062838
KEN STARR'S REAL VIEWS [Ramesh Ponnuru]
CBS, AP, and other outlets reported earlier this week that Starr had said that getting rid of the judicial filibuster would be a "radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
This seemed like a very odd thing for Starr to say, so I contacted him.
He forwarded to me an email he had sent to someone else who had asked about this matter:
"In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure' snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosopy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the 'filibuster' represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition. . . .
"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."
Seems pretty clear to me that CBS made another "mistake", as they will no doubt spin this revelation. But as Captain Ed pointed out, CBS took his real words, and did a cut and paste job with them. Much like how the USSC tends to render some of it’s decisions. (In the words of the esteemed Justice Scalia "...I confess never to have heard of this new, keep-what-you-want-and-throw-away-the-rest version.")
That is precisely what CBS did. They kept what was beneficial to their bias—one that cannot be mistaken for anything other than a deep-rooted dislike for the current administration—and threw the rest of the contextual remarks away. Truly, had they included his full remarks, the context of his answer becomes much clearer, and CBS has no story. Not that they have one right now. What they have now is some explaining to do. At the least, a correction should be made. But, like all other outlets of the MSM when they make a mistake, I do not hold my breath in anticipation of any such correction.
And the MSM still ponders why their subscription rates are down, and continue to drop; why they are losing viewers, especially on the cable networks; And why more people are turning to bloggers for news and information. To them, it has nothing to do with the countless journalistic felonies committed, and perpetuated by their news reporting.
My other half is fond of reminding me what it used to mean to be in the news business. "When you report, you report the facts; it is the receiver’s job to decide." It is not just a FOX News mantra. It is the truth. Dan Rather remarked a couple of years ago at a journalist’s conference that reporters are "no longer presenters of fact, but purveyors of the truth." That is pretty arrogant, even from the likes of Rather, but it is typical of thinking involved by the MSM when they consider who is paying attention to them.
The MSM has been lying to and manipulating the public for years. Luckily, in my early age I disliked watching the news, and as I grew older, I noticed the bias in the news. So, I did not fall into the trap that so many people did—trusting what is told to you by an absolute stranger. To be sure, we bloggers are "strangers" too. The difference is we present the facts, and give links so you can read those facts for yourselves. There is, admittedly, a level of commentary involved on our part. We present fact, and then give you our opinions. The MSM does not do that. They present half-chopped and cobbled stories as fact and truth, with their own view of things thrown in for good measure.
We do that too, but you know when we state an opinion, and when we are quoting, posting, or linking to the facts that merit that opinion. Just as I did today, and just as we do everyday.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home