littleboxes
Good Lord!
OK. We try not to get "peeved" and "steamed" over here at littleboxes but Good Lord! So there is a nice little column in the Washingon Post called White Housing Briefing. It is online every weekday and goes through the major news concerning the president in a somewhat satirical way. The article provides many links to what other major news organizations are writing or saying about the president and politics.
Today, Dan Froomkin (the author) links to an article in (wouldn't you know it) the Washington Post. The article is about fact-checking the debates before they happen. Which sounds weird until you realize we are just going to hear the same old tired soundbites tonight anyway. The article falls prey to the "balanced but incredibly stupid" (for lack of a better word) thing that keeps bedeviling our media. They fact check a Bush assertion and then must, of course, fact check a Kerry assertion. What do they come up with?
-------------------
"At first glance, a candidate's assertion may have the ring of truth. But on close examination, many of their pronouncements turn out to be exaggerated, lacking in context or wrong."
For instance, Kessler and Connolly write, while "Bush emphasizes his efforts to avert war," the facts suggest otherwise:
"[T]he White House very quickly gave up on the inspection process and assumed a war footing several months before the March 2003 invasion, according to administration officials. The administration rejected several compromise proposals from other nations that would have delayed an invasion and allowed inspectors to continue searching for weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons were found after the invasion, and much of the prewar intelligence the administration used to justify the invasion was later found to be wrong."
As for Kerry, "In a recent line of attack, Kerry has said the cost of Bush's 'go-it-alone policy in Iraq is now $200 billion.' This is an exaggeration, because it combines the amount already spent -- about $120 billion -- with money that is expected to be spent in the coming year or requested by the administration."
What the hell? How can we even compare the two? Isn't it even possible that Kerry is not in fact being untruthful? $200 billion is the cost, it is not as if we aren't going to spend that money. Kerry's figure might even be the correct figure to cite. But Bush's crap about inspectors? It's a flat out lie! A lie we say, a lie.
Why the endless need to just be shitty? That question was directed to you, dear Media. What the hell?
Today, Dan Froomkin (the author) links to an article in (wouldn't you know it) the Washington Post. The article is about fact-checking the debates before they happen. Which sounds weird until you realize we are just going to hear the same old tired soundbites tonight anyway. The article falls prey to the "balanced but incredibly stupid" (for lack of a better word) thing that keeps bedeviling our media. They fact check a Bush assertion and then must, of course, fact check a Kerry assertion. What do they come up with?
-------------------
"At first glance, a candidate's assertion may have the ring of truth. But on close examination, many of their pronouncements turn out to be exaggerated, lacking in context or wrong."
For instance, Kessler and Connolly write, while "Bush emphasizes his efforts to avert war," the facts suggest otherwise:
"[T]he White House very quickly gave up on the inspection process and assumed a war footing several months before the March 2003 invasion, according to administration officials. The administration rejected several compromise proposals from other nations that would have delayed an invasion and allowed inspectors to continue searching for weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons were found after the invasion, and much of the prewar intelligence the administration used to justify the invasion was later found to be wrong."
As for Kerry, "In a recent line of attack, Kerry has said the cost of Bush's 'go-it-alone policy in Iraq is now $200 billion.' This is an exaggeration, because it combines the amount already spent -- about $120 billion -- with money that is expected to be spent in the coming year or requested by the administration."
What the hell? How can we even compare the two? Isn't it even possible that Kerry is not in fact being untruthful? $200 billion is the cost, it is not as if we aren't going to spend that money. Kerry's figure might even be the correct figure to cite. But Bush's crap about inspectors? It's a flat out lie! A lie we say, a lie.
Why the endless need to just be shitty? That question was directed to you, dear Media. What the hell?
posted by littleboxes at 1:40 PM
1 Comments:
your boat c r tug blog is great thanks
Post a Comment
<< Home