NationStates Jolt Archive

This article raises the question in relation to the NSA story put out by USA Today, which several telecoms vehemently dispute.

The point raised is, "if they got it right, they're doing a service - if they got it wrong..."

I'm wondering - should we always take the word of news agencies as gospel, especially if they involve accusations of wrongdoing by the government? Or, if we find out the press was wrong, should they be punished?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002539527

Two things to remember about the USA Today story--Bush signed a memo which gave Negroponte the power to give the telcos the power to lie if "national security" were involved, and since anything Bush doesn't like the sound of falls under national security these days, it's not hard to believe that the telcos are using the power. Second thing to remember--the story was confirmed by Trent Lott, Republican Senator from Mississippi and former Majority Leader, certainly a person in the position to know the facts of the story.

Sure, you can ask "what happens if the press gets it wrong" all you want--we know what happens when they get it wrong. We get a fucking war in Iraq.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. Of course USA today got it wrong. They were saying bad things about our president. They are doing the work of the tourists for them. We should get rid of all laberal newspapers saying bad things about our president.

This story cannot be disproved. Given its subject matter, there is no mechanism by which it can disproved. It sounds plausible, the circumstantial evidence backs it, but the debate can never be resolved. Life can be like that.

Incidentally, no, I do not believe the press should be punished for getting stories wrong. That just sounds communazi.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. Of course USA today got it wrong. They were saying bad things about our president. They are doing the work of the tourists for them. We should get rid of all laberal newspapers saying bad things about our president.

...

What?

...

What?
He's the one trick pony who pops up every few weeks--every post begins the same way and he always calls out the "laberals" which sounds vaguely sexual to me.

He's the one trick pony who pops up every few weeks--every post begins the same way and he always calls out the "laberals" which sounds vaguely sexual to me.


Yep, although some would call liberals a bunch of P***ies. So maybe he is saying it in that context? Who knows but best not to feed trolls.

Yep, although some would call liberals a bunch of P***ies. So maybe he is saying it in that context? Who knows but best not to feed trolls.
Well, if we are what we eat........ :D

I don't mind this little guy--he's vaguely amusing and he doesn't overdo it.

Yep, although some would call liberals a bunch of P***ies. So maybe he is saying it in that context? Who knows but best not to feed trolls.

Who are these 'Liberals' you speak of? A band perhaps? Surely not a massive generalisation and misrepresentation of a massively complex political compass?

Incidentally, no, I do not believe the press should be punished for getting stories wrong. That just sounds communazi.
There are some here that believe the Press is an official part of the Government where their official job is to provide a check and balance and even investigate (but not arrest) members of our government. If that is true, then like all members of the government, they should be punnished with to the same degree as our Government officials.

EDIT: However, if they do get stories wrong. they should be allowed to be sued for slander or damages.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. Of course USA today got it wrong. They were saying bad things about our president. They are doing the work of the tourists for them. We should get rid of all laberal newspapers saying bad things about our president.

Yea, screw the war on Terrorism, lets fight the war on Tourism! Fight those laberal tourists clogging up our cities!

Who are these 'Liberals' you speak of? A band perhaps? Surely not a massive generalisation and misrepresentation of a massively complex political compass?

We all know people like to make sweeping generalizations. Was just pointing out what the original poster may have been doing. I don't for one group everyone together. Liberals by definition is different for many people. In the US liberals in general is a term used for far left thinking individuals. Liberals I have noticed in Europe for example is a center left individual. Not the same meaning in the US.

There are some here that believe the Press is an official part of the Government where their official job is to provide a check and balance and even investigate (but not arrest) members of our government. If that is true, then like all members of the government, they should be punnished with to the same degree as our Government officials.

EDIT: However, if they do get stories wrong. they should be allowed to be sued for slander or damages.

My point exactly.

I do not view the news media as a government institution.

I do not view the news media as a government institution.
Then they need to abdicate that role, which they often trumpet as part and parcel of the Constitution.

Sure, freedom of the press. But stop claiming that they are an integral part of the checks and balances on government.

Newspapers are digging a grave for themselves with the careless reporting that they have been doing. Everyone ought to re-read "All the President's Men" for a glimpse into what should go on in a city room.

USA Today has never been anything more than a simple paper for simple people. The fact that they get something wrong doesn't especially bother me.

Then they need to abdicate that role, which they often trumpet as part and parcel of the Constitution.

Sure, freedom of the press. But stop claiming that they are an integral part of the checks and balances on government.
But it is an integral part of the checks and balances on government now... It has the role of the watchdog, making sure the system works as it should.

But it is an integral part of the checks and balances on government now... It has the role of the watchdog, making sure the system works as it should.

Fine. Then it should be subject to punishment and correction and investigation just like the rest of the government.

What happens?

11 miners alive, 1 dead
We fucked up.. it's 1 miners alive, 11 dead

Que family therapists

Newspapers are digging a grave for themselves with the careless reporting that they have been doing. Everyone ought to re-read "All the President's Men" for a glimpse into what should go on in a city room.

USA Today has never been anything more than a simple paper for simple people. The fact that they get something wrong doesn't especially bother me.
Maybe you ought to wait until it's been shown conclusively that the story was wrong befre passing judgent.

Fine. Then it should be subject to punishment and correction and investigation just like the rest of the government.
But it's not a part of the government. It's the observer from the outside, making sure everything works. To subject it to those kinds of sanctions would "put a leash on the watchdog", as it were, since the government could put preassure on the press with threats of investigations and such. It would make it a part of government, when the whole idea is that it is beneficial to have someone on the outside shouting when things don't work as they should.

The way it works in the capitalist US today, it's all about the money. If the press reports incorrectly, it looses credibility. The less credibility it has, the less readers it will have and the less money it will earn. That's how it's supposed to work - in theory, at least.

Maybe you ought to wait until it's been shown conclusively that the story was wrong befre passing judgent.
Maybe so, but I'm still not clear about how USA Today managed to fit this into one of their snapshot graphics.

But it's not a part of the government. It's the observer from the outside, making sure everything works. To subject it to those kinds of sanctions would "put a leash on the watchdog", as it were, since the government could put preassure on the press with threats of investigations and such. It would make it a part of government, when the whole idea is that it is beneficial to have someone on the outside shouting when things don't work as they should.

The way it works in the capitalist US today, it's all about the money. If the press reports incorrectly, it looses credibility. The less credibility it has, the less readers it will have and the less money it will earn. That's how it's supposed to work - in theory, at least.
Good thing you put that disclaimer in there, since the biggest name in cable news gets it wrong all the time and doesn't seem to suffer much from it.

And that's Fox News, for all you smartasses who would love to stick CNN in there.

Maybe so, but I'm still not clear about how USA Today managed to fit this into one of their snapshot graphics.
You do have a point. :p

I'm wondering - should we always take the word of news agencies as gospel, especially if they involve accusations of wrongdoing by the government?
No. A healthy dose of scepticism and critical thought is always good for you.

Good thing you put that disclaimer in there, since the biggest name in cable news gets it wrong all the time and doesn't seem to suffer much from it.
Heh. The National Enquirer and Weekly World News are still around, aren't they? The disclaimer is necessary! ;)

I do not view the news media as a government institution.
but Should the press be exempt from punnishments normal citizens as well as other private firms and organizations face when they break the law?

Maybe you ought to wait until it's been shown conclusively that the story was wrong befre passing judgent.
wasn't memmogate proven false?

wasn't memmogate proven false?
Memogate? Which one is that? I'm talking about the recent NSA story that Deep Kimchi talked about in the OP.

But it is an integral part of the checks and balances on government now... It has the role of the watchdog, making sure the system works as it should.it's a role they took upon themselves.

now who's watching the watchdogs? and whos punninshing the watchdogs when they bite the wrong person?

Memogate? Which one is that? I'm talking about the recent NSA story that Deep Kimchi talked about in the OP.
apologies. this quote of yours.
Maybe you ought to wait until it's been shown conclusively that the story was wrong befre passing judgent.sounds like you're saying that it's not the job of the press to get their facts straight and true before publishing, but for the government and people to prove them false after it was published.

apologies. this quote of yours.
sounds like you're saying that it's not the job of the press to get their facts straight and true before publishing, but for the government and people to prove them false after it was published.
Ah--I see how it could be read that way. No, I was talking about a specific story, and the press has really screwed the pooch a number of times. Look at the mess that was the Whitewater reporting, for instance--practically no one got that story right. Or the WMD story. Lots of big people messed that one up as well.

Ah--I see how it could be read that way. No, I was talking about a specific story, and the press has really screwed the pooch a number of times. Look at the mess that was the Whitewater reporting, for instance--practically no one got that story right. Or the WMD story. Lots of big people messed that one up as well.
now here's the question. where they (reporters as well as newspapers/televised news) punnished for releasing false information?

not saying a bungled presentation is the same as bungled fact finding. only concentrating on when they bungle the Verifications of the Facts.

now here's the question. where they (reporters as well as newspapers/televised news) punnished for releasing false information?

not saying a bungled presentation is the same as bungled fact finding. only concentrating on when they bungle the Verifications of the Facts.
Some lost their careers, some shifted careers, and some got promoted.

Look JuNii--the press isn't perfect, and I've never said they are, but they get it right more often than not these days, especially since the rise of media critical blogs who catch them out on their obvious mistakes. But I wouldn't have anything other than a free and unfettered press, even when they mess up, because the other option is that you wind up with government run propaganda machines, which we practically have today already.

Some lost their careers, some shifted careers, and some got promoted.

Look JuNii--the press isn't perfect, and I've never said they are, but they get it right more often than not these days, especially since the rise of media critical blogs who catch them out on their obvious mistakes. But I wouldn't have anything other than a free and unfettered press, even when they mess up, because the other option is that you wind up with government run propaganda machines, which we practically have today already.funny, but recently the number of times the press gets it wrong or has been proven to be flagrently lying or spinning the truth is growning every year.

want proof? take a sampling of the news starting from the mid 1970's and read them. you'll find the tone changes from giving straight facts to some facts are stresssed while others are barely mentioned.

so again, I ask, the government has all these rules and regulations. the press watches the government.

but who watches the Press?

the press isn't perfect but you think they don't need watching?

the press isn't perfect but you think they don't need watching?
They need watching, but they don't need government watching them and potentially threatening them with penalties anytime a story comes out that shows them in an unfavorable light. That's what independent media critics are for. They're the ones who nailed Rather (which I suspect was a setup, but that's neither here nor there), they're the ones who exposed JimmyJeffGannonGuckert as a fraud, and they're the ones who call bullshit on stories that stink every day.

funny, but recently the number of times the press gets it wrong or has been proven to be flagrently lying or spinning the truth is growning every year.

want proof? take a sampling of the news starting from the mid 1970's and read them. you'll find the tone changes from giving straight facts to some facts are stresssed while others are barely mentioned.

so again, I ask, the government has all these rules and regulations. the press watches the government.

but who watches the Press?

the press isn't perfect but you think they don't need watching?

Like: http://mediamatters.org/ ?

Sorry, but the government has all sort of legal backing to obscure facts and the power to ensure that truth is obscured. The press may make errors and it may be sometimes complicit in promoting or obscuring issues and agendas, but it is a hell of a lot easier to sue a reporter for libel than to sue the government for much of anything.

Besides that, the media is a collection of competing entities who have a vested commercial interest in pointing out each other's failings. They, in effect, watch each other. While there is some element of that in partisan politics, at the highest level there is an inner circle at the Whitehouse with the ability to unilaterally slap a classified designation on pretty much anything they do not want out in the public eye.

Or, as Senator Wyden commented this week, "The fact of the matter is that for years, a significant majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee had to get a good clipping service about programs that are all over the newspaper," he said. "My line is: What do I know? I'm only on the Intelligence Committee."

They need watching, but they don't need government watching them and potentially threatening them with penalties anytime a story comes out that shows them in an unfavorable light. That's what independent media critics are for. They're the ones who nailed Rather (which I suspect was a setup, but that's neither here nor there), they're the ones who exposed JimmyJeffGannonGuckert as a fraud, and they're the ones who call bullshit on stories that stink every day.thanks Nazz, glad to know that some here are not Media Sheeple. :D

funny, but recently the number of times the press gets it wrong or has been proven to be flagrently lying or spinning the truth is growning every year.
imo, I think we have Fox to blame/thank for that. They push things out as fast as possible, without checking the accuracy. It doesn't seem to matter with their viewing population, who only want meaningless soundbites, easily digestible packaged news items (like their appalling 'Round the World in 80 seconds' report - like you can sum up world news events in 80 seconds?!) and a blatant right-wing slant on everything. And Fox is so good at manipulation and fudging that if they are ever caught out, they usually twist it round to lay the blame on another news outlet.
As a result of the demand for instant news gratification and obsession with viewing figures and trumping the competing news outlets, the other (slightly) more reputable news agencies have followed suit and will throw a story out asap before any checks and balances are done on it.
The administration is happy with this state of affairs, as it allows them to release falsehoods, half-truths and outright lies knowing that no-one's going to check the validity or call them on it first. By the time the truth has come out, we've been barraged for days/weeks/months about their version and have come to accept it wholly or in part. (cue the Goebbels quote of 'tell a lie for long enough and people will believe it').
Look how many people still believe there's WMDs in Iraq. I think some actually believe they've been found.

it's a role they took upon themselves.

now who's watching the watchdogs? and whos punninshing the watchdogs when they bite the wrong person?
As I said, if everything was working the way it should, that would be the responsibility of the public - the paying subscribers.

And of course laws regarding slander & libel.

This article raises the question in relation to the NSA story put out by USA Today, which several telecoms vehemently dispute.

The point raised is, "if they got it right, they're doing a service - if they got it wrong..."

I'm wondering - should we always take the word of news agencies as gospel, especially if they involve accusations of wrongdoing by the government? Or, if we find out the press was wrong, should they be punished?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002539527

We should never take the press at face value. They spin stories way to much and have been wrong many times in the past and will continue to be wrong in the future. When the press gets something wrong, they should be punished.

Sure, you can ask "what happens if the press gets it wrong" all you want--we know what happens when they get it wrong. We get a fucking war in Iraq.

When presented with the facts, those who oppose the President drag out Iraq forgetting the fact that the Democrats supported the war which had the same evidence that Bill Clinton used in 1998. *shrugs* Of Course, republicans were saying the samething that the dems are saying now back in 1998. Its a vicious circle that needs to be broken.

This article raises the question in relation to the NSA story put out by USA Today, which several telecoms vehemently dispute.

The point raised is, "if they got it right, they're doing a service - if they got it wrong..."

I'm wondering - should we always take the word of news agencies as gospel, especially if they involve accusations of wrongdoing by the government? Or, if we find out the press was wrong, should they be punished?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002539527


Ir is a well-established principle of Law that the press has the right to slander a bit - provided they themselves thought they were correct in their accusations.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. Of course USA today got it wrong. They were saying bad things about our president. They are doing the work of the tourists for them. We should get rid of all laberal newspapers saying bad things about our president.

This isn't 1790s when John Adams did that nor is this the American Civil War.

Good thing you put that disclaimer in there, since the biggest name in cable news gets it wrong all the time and doesn't seem to suffer much from it.

And that's Fox News, for all you smartasses who would love to stick CNN in there.

Then why is it that they are destroying CNN and MSNBC in all the ratings? If they got stories wrong (which ALL MEDIA DOES) all the time, then why are they still the most watched cable news station? Could it be because they do get most of their stories right? Yea I do believe so. *shrugs* No amount of evidence though is going to prove it to ya because you do not like conservatives.

wasn't memmogate proven false?

It was proven false in about 5 minutes after airing. Maybe even before then.

They need watching, but they don't need government watching them and potentially threatening them with penalties anytime a story comes out that shows them in an unfavorable light. That's what independent media critics are for. They're the ones who nailed Rather (which I suspect was a setup, but that's neither here nor there), they're the ones who exposed JimmyJeffGannonGuckert as a fraud, and they're the ones who call bullshit on stories that stink every day.

For once I agree with you Nazz. I'll even add the thumbs up to this post :)

imo, I think we have Fox to blame/thank for that. They push things out as fast as possible, without checking the accuracy.

Don't single out Fox News dude. ALL PRESS DOES THE SAME THING. Its a press failing. They want to get the story out first and so get things wrong. It isn't only a Fox News thing and this has been going on BEFORE Fox News came into existance.

Don't single out Fox News dude. ALL PRESS DOES THE SAME THING. Its a press failing. They want to get the story out first and so get things wrong. It isn't only a Fox News thing and this has been going on BEFORE Fox News came into existance.

You mean they copied the technique from Sky News?

You mean they copied the technique from Sky News?

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Same owner, you know?
AAAAAND! Sky News conveniently started the trend summat around 1985.

( A good thing to say about old S.N. I miss Alison Holloway - but I guess she'd be about 50 by now. )

When presented with the facts, those who oppose the President drag out Iraq forgetting the fact that the Democrats supported the war which had the same evidence that Bill Clinton used in 1998. *shrugs* Of Course, republicans were saying the samething that the dems are saying now back in 1998. Its a vicious circle that needs to be broken.
Okay here's the difference, Corny--in 1998, we didn't go to war. Why? Because there wasn't enough evidence then. So what made that evidence so much stronger 4 years later? Not a goddamn thing--in fact, the evidence was weaker if anything, and the press abetted the Bush administration in making it seem stronger than it really was.

Then why is it that they are destroying CNN and MSNBC in all the ratings? If they got stories wrong (which ALL MEDIA DOES) all the time, then why are they still the most watched cable news station? Could it be because they do get most of their stories right? Yea I do believe so. *shrugs* No amount of evidence though is going to prove it to ya because you do not like conservatives.
More likely it's because they're the most sensationalistic of the major cable news networks--or don't you remember that PIPA study that came out in 2004 that showed Fox viewers far more likely to have incorrect beliefs about the Iraq war than any other news company's viewers?

Okay here's the difference, Corny--in 1998, we didn't go to war. Why? Because there wasn't enough evidence then. So what made that evidence so much stronger 4 years later? Not a goddamn thing--in fact, the evidence was weaker if anything, and the press abetted the Bush administration in making it seem stronger than it really was.
how did the press help the Bush Admin make weak evidence seem strong?

how did the press help the Bush Admin make weak evidence seem strong?
Read any of Judith Miller's reporting in the NY Times during the run-up to the war and you'll see it. She had access to White House people as well as Ahmed Chalabi and she was little more than a stenographer for their points of view. She never challenged their assertions, which is what a good reporter is supposed to do--if she had, she'd either have discovered, like Seymour Hersh did, that they were spinning furiously or she'd have lost her access to the White House.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. Of course USA today got it wrong. They were saying bad things about our president. They are doing the work of the tourists for them. We should get rid of all laberal newspapers saying bad things about our president.
Quoted in el sig

Read any of Judith Miller's reporting in the NY Times during the run-up to the war and you'll see it. She had access to White House people as well as Ahmed Chalabi and she was little more than a stenographer for their points of view. She never challenged their assertions, which is what a good reporter is supposed to do--if she had, she'd either have discovered, like Seymour Hersh did, that they were spinning furiously or she'd have lost her access to the White House.
wrong, a Good news Reporter is suppose to report the Truth. they lost their integrety when they compromised.

the problem nowdays is the News Media has so much power, yet they have no proper incentive to write the truth. the punnishment? they loose their job and maybe get a slander lawsuite on them.

When the Government Lie or make mistakes? people demand Impeachment, investigations and arrests... when the paper's lie or make mistakes? where's the outcry?

Punnishment (and I mean all forms of punnishments, from a slap on the wrist to persecution by law enforcement agencies) won't detere news, but will bring back the honest integrety or at least make em check their facts before going to print or infront of the camera.

This article raises the question in relation to the NSA story put out by USA Today, which several telecoms vehemently dispute.

The point raised is, "if they got it right, they're doing a service - if they got it wrong..."

I'm wondering - should we always take the word of news agencies as gospel, especially if they involve accusations of wrongdoing by the government? Or, if we find out the press was wrong, should they be punished?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002539527

What's the big deal? The press gets it wrong most of the time and doesn't even have the guts to admit it. :mad:

wrong, a Good news Reporter is suppose to report the Truth. they lost their integrety when they compromised.

the problem nowdays is the News Media has so much power, yet they have no proper incentive to write the truth. the punnishment? they loose their job and maybe get a slander lawsuite on them.

When the Government Lie or make mistakes? people demand Impeachment, investigations and arrests... when the paper's lie or make mistakes? where's the outcry?

Punnishment (and I mean all forms of punnishments, from a slap on the wrist to persecution by law enforcement agencies) won't detere news, but will bring back the honest integrety or at least make em check their facts before going to print or infront of the camera.
Ever worked in a newsroom? Challenging assertions is how you get to that ever elusive truth--copying down statements from government sources and then refusing to challenge them is what gets you shit like the Iraq War.

Ever worked in a newsroom? Challenging assertions is how you get to that ever elusive truth--copying down statements from government sources and then refusing to challenge them is what gets you shit like the Iraq War.
and Memogate,
and false stories from New Orleans after Katrina.
and false stories from the Iraq War...

lies and mistakes happen on both sides and does not only involve Government sources.

and Memogate,
and false stories from New Orleans after Katrina.
and false stories from the Iraq War...

lies and mistakes happen on both sides and does not only involve Government sources.

...and false stories about the President's National Guard service backed up by false documents. :mad:

Then why is it that they are destroying CNN and MSNBC in all the ratings? If they got stories wrong (which ALL MEDIA DOES) all the time, then why are they still the most watched cable news station? Could it be because they do get most of their stories right? Yea I do believe so. *shrugs* No amount of evidence though is going to prove it to ya because you do not like conservatives.
I think it's because on FOX, "America" is the good guy and whomever "America" is up against is portrayed as bad, evil or misguided. And most Americans who don't pay attention are comforted by that. "America" on FOX is portrayed as Superman.

But America is really the Punisher... with a bit of Batman thrown in. A small wedge of Plastic Man perhaps.

and Memogate,
and false stories from New Orleans after Katrina.
and false stories from the Iraq War...

lies and mistakes happen on both sides and does not only involve Government sources.
Yes--the press has been negligent. I've been saying that all along. And public trust in the press is as low as it's ever been. And yet the press is actually improving now believe it or not, because there are legions of internet junkies who call bullshit on them when they mess a story up--and a lot of reporters absolutely hate that, because it means they've got to be more careful about what they write. This really is a situation where the market is working, in a manner of speaking.

Okay here's the difference, Corny--in 1998, we didn't go to war. Why? Because there wasn't enough evidence then. So what made that evidence so much stronger 4 years later? Not a goddamn thing--in fact, the evidence was weaker if anything, and the press abetted the Bush administration in making it seem stronger than it really was.

And they abetted the Clinton Administration as well for the samething. We BOMBED IRAQ for FOUR STRAIGHT DAYS in 1998 using the same intel that Bush used to justify his war in Iraq. If your going to hang Bush on the Intel then you have to hang Clinton on the same intel. You cannot absolve either president.

Ever worked in a newsroom? Challenging assertions is how you get to that ever elusive truth--copying down statements from government sources and then refusing to challenge them is what gets you shit like the Iraq War.

So where was the press's challenge in 1998? Oh yea..a Dem was in office :rolleyes:

and Memogate,
and false stories from New Orleans after Katrina.
and false stories from the Iraq War...

lies and mistakes happen on both sides and does not only involve Government sources.

Well said JuNii

...and false stories about the President's National Guard service backed up by false documents. :mad:

That was memogate.

I think it's because on FOX, "America" is the good guy and whomever "America" is up against is portrayed as bad, evil or misguided. And most Americans who don't pay attention are comforted by that. "America" on FOX is portrayed as Superman.

Just continue to believe this.

Yes--the press has been negligent. I've been saying that all along. And public trust in the press is as low as it's ever been. And yet the press is actually improving now believe it or not, because there are legions of internet junkies who call bullshit on them when they mess a story up--and a lot of reporters absolutely hate that, because it means they've got to be more careful about what they write. This really is a situation where the market is working, in a manner of speaking.I think we're arguing on the same side then. apologies.

And they abetted the Clinton Administration as well for the samething. We BOMBED IRAQ for FOUR STRAIGHT DAYS in 1998 using the same intel that Bush used to justify his war in Iraq. If your going to hang Bush on the Intel then you have to hang Clinton on the same intel. You cannot absolve either president.
Big difference Corny--we hit stuff in 1998, and it didn't require an invasion. But go ahead--continue to defend your dear leader even when it's been shown that he's an incompetent boob.

So where was the press's challenge in 1998? Oh yea..a Dem was in office :rolleyes:
Clinton did get a lot of shit in the press and from Congress in 1998 over the bombing. You might not remember because you were what--12? There was a lot of crap about "wagging the dog,' that Clinton was using it as an excuse to deflect attention from the Lewinsky affair.

Clinton did get a lot of shit in the press and from Congress in 1998 over the bombing. You might not remember because you were what--12? There was a lot of crap about "wagging the dog,' that Clinton was using it as an excuse to deflect attention from the Lewinsky affair.
actually I saw very little media attention over the bombings. and what I did see was more "Tactical Information" or "this is what happened in the Middle East." but nothing like OMG! CLINTON BOMBS THE MIDDLE EAST.

the Press was lenient on Clinton (didn't give him a free ride but they didn't press issues like they did with Regan, Bush sr. and Bush Jr.)

for all his faults, Mr Clinton knew how to get the press on his side.

actually I saw very little media attention over the bombings. and what I did see was more "Tactical Information" or "this is what happened in the Middle East." but nothing like OMG! CLINTON BOMBS THE MIDDLE EAST.

the Press was lenient on Clinton (didn't give him a free ride but they didn't press issues like they did with Regan, Bush sr. and Bush Jr.)

for all his faults, Mr Clinton knew how to get the press on his side.
Go back through and look at the reporting on Whitewater and then see how much of it panned out---the press loathed Clinton. Fair reporting on that issue would have put that story to bed around 1995.

Just continue to believe this.
Oh, I usually do believe things that make sense until I'm given sufficient evidence to lead me in a different direction.

Clinton did get a lot of shit in the press and from Congress in 1998 over the bombing. You might not remember because you were what--12? There was a lot of crap about "wagging the dog,' that Clinton was using it as an excuse to deflect attention from the Lewinsky affair.
Isn't that the reason for that movie that came out? Wag the Dog. It was tongue in cheek about Clinton, right?

I'm wondering - should we always take the word of news agencies as gospel, especially if they involve accusations of wrongdoing by the government? Or, if we find out the press was wrong, should they be punished?
Any decent publication corrects itself after the wrong reporting. But really I don't think that the government needs protection from the press, unless the outlet is engaging in consistently unaccurate reporting.

Isn't that the reason for that movie that came out? Wag the Dog. It was tongue in cheek about Clinton, right?
Actually, Wag the Dog came out in 1997, it simply gave everyone the fuel for that particular fire. It was really kind of stupid, it was like watching a 9 year old that just learned a joke and kept trying to use it no matter what was going on.

Actually, Wag the Dog came out in 1997, it simply gave everyone the fuel for that particular fire. It was really kind of stupid, it was like watching a 9 year old that just learned a joke and kept trying to use it no matter what was going on.
Ahh.

I always figured it was the other way around.

Isn't that the reason for that movie that came out? Wag the Dog. It was tongue in cheek about Clinton, right?
Wag the Dog came out in 1997--that's the reason the press picked up the line, because it was still in the public consciousness. Great film.

Wag the Dog came out in 1997--that's the reason the press picked up the line, because it was still in the public consciousness. Great film.
I probably caught it on video during the press coverage of Clinton.