Avner Bezborodko I
should add that the president went to Vegas today. Had Bush (or even
Romney, who is not part of government) done this they would have been
excoriated.
Jonathan Zucker did
the press to do their job and actually report on our government when
Bush '43 was president? Had they done their job then, we might have been
able to avoid the mistake of Iraq. (Who knows. He might have instead
made the correct move and kept on heading east towards Iran - the real backers of terrorism)
Too
bad the press has completely lost its way (regardless of which party is
in the WH) and has become 'stenographers' instead of fact checkers and
informers of the public.
Jonathan Zucker btw,
a campaign event, regardless of location, is nothing to be critical of.
Should people be upset b/c the president is now in CO?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president/2012-09-13
Avner Bezborodko Jon, Is it really your claim that the press was not doing its' job in being vigilant and critical of GWB?
Jonathan Zucker Let
me be more specific. It was cowed by Bush '43s administration. They
were afraid of being labeled unpatriotic by questioning the
administrations actions, specifically with Iraq.
Avner Bezborodko "Here
I provide a summary of each chapter, and then detail how the mainstream
media failed Americans with its coverage of the War on Terror. You get a
side-by-side look at the themes and frames used by president and press
for each speech. Additionally,
I detail how the media bias worked, what it looked like, and how the
press operated as an anti-democratic institution. After reading this
chapter, not only will you know what the press has done to diminish
America’s options for fighting the War on Terror, you will also see how
it continues to do this even today."
From "Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age"
Ah, you say, someone who did an analysis of what you just pointed out. But here is the result:
"What I found was stunning.
Chapter
two looks at several of the president's speeches following 9/11, and
then looks at the press responses. Of note here is that the press,
represented throughout the book by The New York Times, The Washington
Post, USA Today, ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News, echoed the
president’s themes and the framing of those themes. In short, there was
some accurate reporting going on here during this time period. Echoing
does not mean that alternative points of views were not presented – they
were. It just means that the president’s major ideas were being
presented to the American public with little filtering.
Chapter
three takes a look at the president’s November 2001 speech to the
United Nations. This speech was delivered just about eight weeks after
9/11, and within that short period of time the press had turned, and was
actually framing Bush as an enemy, right along side the terrorists.
Additionally, the press was now ignoring major themes relayed by
President Bush, such as the evil nature of the terrorist enemy.
Chapter
four details the State of the Union Address of January 2002. One of the
main findings here is that by January 2002 the press was actively
ignoring important parts of the president's speeches, setting its own
agenda, and attempting to make economic concerns of more importance than
National Security.
Chapter
five looks at the president’s speech that was made on the deck of the
USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Anyone recall what the president said?
How about the jet landing? The president focused on congratulating the
troops and describing the next phase of the War on Terror. The press
went into a meltdown, calling the president "Top Gun Bush," and
insisting that the economy would play a major role in election 2004.
Chapter
six takes a look at another speech to the United Nations, this one in
September 2003. By this time the press had completely turned on the
president. This chapter, to an even greater degree than the others,
shows the power of comparing the speech of the president to the press
coverage that follows. One wonders if the press actually listened to the
president’s speech at all, or if they wrote their storylines the day
before.
Although
each chapter looks at important speeches, chapter seven examines one of
particular interest, the president’s November 2005 commemoration of
Veteran’s Day. This is the speech the president gave when he first
publicly attacked his Democrat critics over their remarks on the War on
Terror. Importantly, the president also laid out his administration's
specific plans for Iraq and the War on Terror in this speech. Nobody
would know this unless they actually listened to or read the president’s
speech, since the press failed to mention that portion of the speech –
almost 4/5ths of the total speech. Amazingly, in the coverage that
followed this speech, the press demanded the very information on the War
on Terror that the president had detailed in his speech."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/kuypers1.html
www.lewrockwell.com
Jim A. Kuypers, Ph.D., [send him mail] teaches political communi
cation
at Virginia Tech. He is the author of Presidential
Crisis Rhetoric in the Post Cold War and Press Bias and
Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues.
Avner Bezborodko I do welcome citations that prove your theory that the press blithely let Bush lead us into a war.
Jonathan Zucker "The
only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion
cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation
it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters
pure." --Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately,
the following quote seems to be prophetic: "A cynical, mercenary,
demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." -
Joseph Pulitzer
I
don't want to give you with a chapter by chapter synopsis here of a
book about the selling of the Iraq war but I'm sure that once you take a
look you'll recognize that the source is quite possibly the best source
possible on how the Bush White House sold this war to an unsuspecting
press.
It's a stinging rebuke from none other than the former Press Secretary of President George W. Bush, Scott McClellan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052703679.html
I
hope you welcome the citation. I do believe this proves my theory that
the press blithely let Bush lead us into a war. Perhaps you will not
blame the press but would instead blame Bush and his administration for
purposely misleading the press. Perhaps.
www.washingtonpost.com
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that t...See More
Avner Bezborodko I will never critique a book when I can get Christopher Hitchens to do it for me.
"If
you want to read a serious book about the origins and consequences of
the intervention in Iraq in 2003, you owe it to yourself to get hold of a
copy of Douglas Feith's
War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on
Terrorism. As undersecretary of defense for policy, Feith was one of
those most intimately involved in the argument about whether to and, if
so, how to put an end to the regime of Saddam Hussein. His book contains
notes made in real time at the National Security Council, a trove of
declassified documentation, and a thoroughly well-organized catalog of
sources and papers and memos....
...will make it difficult if not impossible for people to go on claiming that, for instance:
There
was no rational reason to suspect a continuing Iraqi WMD threat.
Feith's citations from the Duelfer Report alone are stunning in their
implications.
That alternatives to war were never discussed and that the administration was out to "get" Saddam Hussein from the start.
That the advocates of regime change hoped and indeed planned to anoint Ahmad Chalabi as a figurehead leader in Baghdad.
That there was no consideration given to postwar planning. "
Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/06/a_tale_of_two_tellalls.html
www.slate.com
When Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill defected from the Cabinet in 2002 an
d
Ron Suskind told O'Neill's story of being surrounded by fools, Michael
Kinsley observed that the president deserved all he got from the book.
Anyone dumb enough to hire a fool like O'Neill in the first place
ought...
Avner Bezborodko More from Hitch about McClellan and the benefits of this book to the anti-war movement:
"Anyone
dumb enough to hire a fool like O'Neill in the first place ought to
have known what to expect. So it goes with the ludicrous figure of Scott
McClellan. I used
to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and
think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out
the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of
words? Hah! Now it seems that he realizes, and with a shock at that,
that there was a certain amount of "spin" or propaganda involved in his
job description. Well, give the man a cigar. Beyond that, the book is
effectively valueless to the anti-war camp since, as McClellan says of
the president, "I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do
not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to
deceive the American people."
Jonathan Zucker I'll
agree with Hitchens (as much as I hate to say so - he was so horribly
anti-Israel) that those who Bush hired were morons but then again so was
their boss. (BTW - I also read Ron Suskind's book. O'Neill may have
been a bad treasury secretary but his
accounts of what happened in the WH was corroborated by other insiders
like McClellan. They may be boobs but no one has called them liars.)
I still believe what has been accepted as common knowledge that the press dropped the ball under Bush '43.
Avner Bezborodko I
should add that the president went to Vegas today. Had Bush (or even
Romney, who is not part of government) done this they would have been
excoriated.
Jonathan Zucker did
the press to do their job and actually report on our government when
Bush '43 was president? Had they done their job then, we might have been
able to avoid the mistake of Iraq. (Who knows. He might have instead
made the correct move and kept on heading east towards Iran - the real backers of terrorism)
Too bad the press has completely lost its way (regardless of which party is in the WH) and has become 'stenographers' instead of fact checkers and informers of the public.
Too bad the press has completely lost its way (regardless of which party is in the WH) and has become 'stenographers' instead of fact checkers and informers of the public.
Jonathan Zucker btw,
a campaign event, regardless of location, is nothing to be critical of.
Should people be upset b/c the president is now in CO?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president/2012-09-13
http://www.whitehouse.gov/schedule/president/2012-09-13
Avner Bezborodko Jon, Is it really your claim that the press was not doing its' job in being vigilant and critical of GWB?
Jonathan Zucker Let
me be more specific. It was cowed by Bush '43s administration. They
were afraid of being labeled unpatriotic by questioning the
administrations actions, specifically with Iraq.
Avner Bezborodko "Here
I provide a summary of each chapter, and then detail how the mainstream
media failed Americans with its coverage of the War on Terror. You get a
side-by-side look at the themes and frames used by president and press
for each speech. Additionally,
I detail how the media bias worked, what it looked like, and how the
press operated as an anti-democratic institution. After reading this
chapter, not only will you know what the press has done to diminish
America’s options for fighting the War on Terror, you will also see how
it continues to do this even today."
From "Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age"
Ah, you say, someone who did an analysis of what you just pointed out. But here is the result:
"What I found was stunning.
Chapter two looks at several of the president's speeches following 9/11, and then looks at the press responses. Of note here is that the press, represented throughout the book by The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News, echoed the president’s themes and the framing of those themes. In short, there was some accurate reporting going on here during this time period. Echoing does not mean that alternative points of views were not presented – they were. It just means that the president’s major ideas were being presented to the American public with little filtering.
Chapter three takes a look at the president’s November 2001 speech to the United Nations. This speech was delivered just about eight weeks after 9/11, and within that short period of time the press had turned, and was actually framing Bush as an enemy, right along side the terrorists. Additionally, the press was now ignoring major themes relayed by President Bush, such as the evil nature of the terrorist enemy.
Chapter four details the State of the Union Address of January 2002. One of the main findings here is that by January 2002 the press was actively ignoring important parts of the president's speeches, setting its own agenda, and attempting to make economic concerns of more importance than National Security.
Chapter five looks at the president’s speech that was made on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Anyone recall what the president said? How about the jet landing? The president focused on congratulating the troops and describing the next phase of the War on Terror. The press went into a meltdown, calling the president "Top Gun Bush," and insisting that the economy would play a major role in election 2004.
Chapter six takes a look at another speech to the United Nations, this one in September 2003. By this time the press had completely turned on the president. This chapter, to an even greater degree than the others, shows the power of comparing the speech of the president to the press coverage that follows. One wonders if the press actually listened to the president’s speech at all, or if they wrote their storylines the day before.
Although each chapter looks at important speeches, chapter seven examines one of particular interest, the president’s November 2005 commemoration of Veteran’s Day. This is the speech the president gave when he first publicly attacked his Democrat critics over their remarks on the War on Terror. Importantly, the president also laid out his administration's specific plans for Iraq and the War on Terror in this speech. Nobody would know this unless they actually listened to or read the president’s speech, since the press failed to mention that portion of the speech – almost 4/5ths of the total speech. Amazingly, in the coverage that followed this speech, the press demanded the very information on the War on Terror that the president had detailed in his speech."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/kuypers1.html
From "Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age"
Ah, you say, someone who did an analysis of what you just pointed out. But here is the result:
"What I found was stunning.
Chapter two looks at several of the president's speeches following 9/11, and then looks at the press responses. Of note here is that the press, represented throughout the book by The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News, echoed the president’s themes and the framing of those themes. In short, there was some accurate reporting going on here during this time period. Echoing does not mean that alternative points of views were not presented – they were. It just means that the president’s major ideas were being presented to the American public with little filtering.
Chapter three takes a look at the president’s November 2001 speech to the United Nations. This speech was delivered just about eight weeks after 9/11, and within that short period of time the press had turned, and was actually framing Bush as an enemy, right along side the terrorists. Additionally, the press was now ignoring major themes relayed by President Bush, such as the evil nature of the terrorist enemy.
Chapter four details the State of the Union Address of January 2002. One of the main findings here is that by January 2002 the press was actively ignoring important parts of the president's speeches, setting its own agenda, and attempting to make economic concerns of more importance than National Security.
Chapter five looks at the president’s speech that was made on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Anyone recall what the president said? How about the jet landing? The president focused on congratulating the troops and describing the next phase of the War on Terror. The press went into a meltdown, calling the president "Top Gun Bush," and insisting that the economy would play a major role in election 2004.
Chapter six takes a look at another speech to the United Nations, this one in September 2003. By this time the press had completely turned on the president. This chapter, to an even greater degree than the others, shows the power of comparing the speech of the president to the press coverage that follows. One wonders if the press actually listened to the president’s speech at all, or if they wrote their storylines the day before.
Although each chapter looks at important speeches, chapter seven examines one of particular interest, the president’s November 2005 commemoration of Veteran’s Day. This is the speech the president gave when he first publicly attacked his Democrat critics over their remarks on the War on Terror. Importantly, the president also laid out his administration's specific plans for Iraq and the War on Terror in this speech. Nobody would know this unless they actually listened to or read the president’s speech, since the press failed to mention that portion of the speech – almost 4/5ths of the total speech. Amazingly, in the coverage that followed this speech, the press demanded the very information on the War on Terror that the president had detailed in his speech."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/kuypers1.html
www.lewrockwell.com
Jim A. Kuypers, Ph.D., [send him mail] teaches political communi
cation
at Virginia Tech. He is the author of Presidential
Crisis Rhetoric in the Post Cold War and Press Bias and
Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues.
Avner Bezborodko I do welcome citations that prove your theory that the press blithely let Bush lead us into a war.
Jonathan Zucker "The
only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion
cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation
it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters
pure." --Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately, the following quote seems to be prophetic: "A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer
I don't want to give you with a chapter by chapter synopsis here of a book about the selling of the Iraq war but I'm sure that once you take a look you'll recognize that the source is quite possibly the best source possible on how the Bush White House sold this war to an unsuspecting press.
It's a stinging rebuke from none other than the former Press Secretary of President George W. Bush, Scott McClellan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052703679.html
I hope you welcome the citation. I do believe this proves my theory that the press blithely let Bush lead us into a war. Perhaps you will not blame the press but would instead blame Bush and his administration for purposely misleading the press. Perhaps.
Unfortunately, the following quote seems to be prophetic: "A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer
I don't want to give you with a chapter by chapter synopsis here of a book about the selling of the Iraq war but I'm sure that once you take a look you'll recognize that the source is quite possibly the best source possible on how the Bush White House sold this war to an unsuspecting press.
It's a stinging rebuke from none other than the former Press Secretary of President George W. Bush, Scott McClellan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052703679.html
I hope you welcome the citation. I do believe this proves my theory that the press blithely let Bush lead us into a war. Perhaps you will not blame the press but would instead blame Bush and his administration for purposely misleading the press. Perhaps.
www.washingtonpost.com
Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that t...See More
Avner Bezborodko I will never critique a book when I can get Christopher Hitchens to do it for me.
"If you want to read a serious book about the origins and consequences of the intervention in Iraq in 2003, you owe it to yourself to get hold of a copy of Douglas Feith's War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism. As undersecretary of defense for policy, Feith was one of those most intimately involved in the argument about whether to and, if so, how to put an end to the regime of Saddam Hussein. His book contains notes made in real time at the National Security Council, a trove of declassified documentation, and a thoroughly well-organized catalog of sources and papers and memos....
...will make it difficult if not impossible for people to go on claiming that, for instance:
There was no rational reason to suspect a continuing Iraqi WMD threat. Feith's citations from the Duelfer Report alone are stunning in their implications.
That alternatives to war were never discussed and that the administration was out to "get" Saddam Hussein from the start.
That the advocates of regime change hoped and indeed planned to anoint Ahmad Chalabi as a figurehead leader in Baghdad.
That there was no consideration given to postwar planning. "
Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/06/a_tale_of_two_tellalls.html
"If you want to read a serious book about the origins and consequences of the intervention in Iraq in 2003, you owe it to yourself to get hold of a copy of Douglas Feith's War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism. As undersecretary of defense for policy, Feith was one of those most intimately involved in the argument about whether to and, if so, how to put an end to the regime of Saddam Hussein. His book contains notes made in real time at the National Security Council, a trove of declassified documentation, and a thoroughly well-organized catalog of sources and papers and memos....
...will make it difficult if not impossible for people to go on claiming that, for instance:
There was no rational reason to suspect a continuing Iraqi WMD threat. Feith's citations from the Duelfer Report alone are stunning in their implications.
That alternatives to war were never discussed and that the administration was out to "get" Saddam Hussein from the start.
That the advocates of regime change hoped and indeed planned to anoint Ahmad Chalabi as a figurehead leader in Baghdad.
That there was no consideration given to postwar planning. "
Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/06/a_tale_of_two_tellalls.html
www.slate.com
When Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill defected from the Cabinet in 2002 an
d
Ron Suskind told O'Neill's story of being surrounded by fools, Michael
Kinsley observed that the president deserved all he got from the book.
Anyone dumb enough to hire a fool like O'Neill in the first place
ought...
Avner Bezborodko More from Hitch about McClellan and the benefits of this book to the anti-war movement:
"Anyone dumb enough to hire a fool like O'Neill in the first place ought to have known what to expect. So it goes with the ludicrous figure of Scott McClellan. I used to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of words? Hah! Now it seems that he realizes, and with a shock at that, that there was a certain amount of "spin" or propaganda involved in his job description. Well, give the man a cigar. Beyond that, the book is effectively valueless to the anti-war camp since, as McClellan says of the president, "I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."
"Anyone dumb enough to hire a fool like O'Neill in the first place ought to have known what to expect. So it goes with the ludicrous figure of Scott McClellan. I used to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of words? Hah! Now it seems that he realizes, and with a shock at that, that there was a certain amount of "spin" or propaganda involved in his job description. Well, give the man a cigar. Beyond that, the book is effectively valueless to the anti-war camp since, as McClellan says of the president, "I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."
Jonathan Zucker I'll
agree with Hitchens (as much as I hate to say so - he was so horribly
anti-Israel) that those who Bush hired were morons but then again so was
their boss. (BTW - I also read Ron Suskind's book. O'Neill may have
been a bad treasury secretary but his
accounts of what happened in the WH was corroborated by other insiders
like McClellan. They may be boobs but no one has called them liars.)
I still believe what has been accepted as common knowledge that the press dropped the ball under Bush '43.
I still believe what has been accepted as common knowledge that the press dropped the ball under Bush '43.
No comments:
Post a Comment