NationStates Jolt Archive

A newsman admitting on television that he made a mistake and apologizing for it (http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/15/chuck-roberts-apologises-to-lamont-for-saying-hes-the-al-qaeda-candidate/).

Last week, Headline News anchor Chuck Roberts asked an "analyst" whether or not Connecticut Democratic party Senate nominee Ned Lamont was "the al Qaeda candidate," provoking, as you might imagine, justified howls of outrage from Democrats everywhere. Well, today he interviewed Lamont on Headline News, and he apologized and took responsibility for the error. There's video at the link above.

Personally, I wouldn't accept the apology. Once the words are out there, they can't be taken back, and I imagine both of these gentlemen know it.

As a serious Law & Order watcher, this reminds me of all of the times a lawyer will say something completely out of line knowing that the jury will have heard it regardless of the objection.

A man who has built this successful of a career interviewing and asking questions should not and would not have made this big a mistake without ulterior motives.

A man who has built this successful of a career interviewing and asking questions should not and would not have made this big a mistake without ulterior motives.
And no politician would go on TV and be vindicative. They reserve that for AFTER the election and behind closed doors.

So, take a wild guess how this played out...

It was a slanderous accusation, but when you consider that Lamont and Bin Laden have at least one similiar goal-the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq, it's not that surprising that Lamont was called "the al-qaida candidate."

It was bound to happen.

It was a slanderous accusation, but when you consider that Lamont and Bin Laden have at least one similiar goal-the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq, it's not that surprising that Lamont was called "the al-qaida candidate."

It was bound to happen.
Sure--I expect it from a mouth breather like Ann Coulter--or you, for that matter--but not from an ostensibly neutral tv anchor.

It was a slanderous accusation, but when you consider that Lamont and Bin Laden have at least one similiar goal-the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq, it's not that surprising that Lamont was called "the al-qaida candidate."

It was bound to happen.

Not by anyone responsible enough to avoid being a shithead.

Sure--I expect it from a mouth breather like Ann Coulter--or you, for that matter--but not from an ostensibly neutral tv anchor.
Too much trouble for you to make a comment without insulting someone?

Nazz is thread-happy today.

The anchor’s an asshole. The politician in question is probably an asshole too.

Too much trouble for you to make a comment without insulting someone?
I've made plenty of them without insult. You just seem to bring out the best in me.

I think it's because someone higher up had their testicles crushed.

I remember The Economist magazine writing an article earlier this year, or late last year, implying financial corruption on the part of some (Indonesian?) government official's family member.

One or two weekly editions later, a lengthy retraction was printed, saying that the claims were false and compensation had already been agreed and paid.

I'm guessing the Foreign Office called. :D

Too much trouble for you to make a comment without insulting someone?
I can't help but wonder which is your real nation. I guess it shall be revealed once you get bored.

I can't help but wonder which is your real nation. I guess it shall be revealed once you get bored.
What do you mean?

It was a slanderous accusation, but when you consider that Lamont and Bin Laden have at least one similiar goal-the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq, it's not that surprising that Lamont was called "the al-qaida candidate."

It was bound to happen.
I think Bin Laden wants us to hang out in Iraq and fuck up as much as possible. It's good business for him.

I think Bin Laden wants us to hang out in Iraq and fuck up as much as possible. It's good business for him.
If by "fuck up" you mean build a successful democracy, then you can bet your ass he doesn't.

If by "fuck up" you mean build a successful democracy, then you can bet your ass he doesn't.
There are few bets on which I would wager my ass, this would be one of them. I'll have you know that I am very attached to my ass.

If by "fuck up" you mean build a successful democracy, then you can bet your ass he doesn't.
A successful democracy can rule more than about a square mile.

The Iraqi government, on the other hand, cannot.

If by "fuck up" you mean build a successful democracy, then you can bet your ass he doesn't.

What successful democracy?

Why was what he said erroneous? He only asked a question. If I was a candidate and someone asked me if I was supported by Al-Qaeda I would say hell no they know that if I got elected I would rain death upon them and go Kaiser Sosei on their keisters.