Can't win the war? Bomb the Press! (1 Viewer)

[aps]

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/opinion/02rich.html

This is a great article by Frank Rich. He points out that when the article came out in New York Times, Tony Snow essentially defended the program. He did NOT attack the NYT for publishing the information. In fact, he complimented the article by pointing out that it was fairly balanced:

MR. SNOW: I think it's important -- the one thing we can say is that Jim Risen and Eric Lichtblau and Bill Keller and others had -- and other reporters who did this, got extensive knowledge and briefing on this. So they knew it. And that's why -- I mean, it's interesting because I think there's a fair amount of balance in the story in that you do have concrete benefits and you do have the kind of abstract harms that were mentioned in there. I think it's important in a case like this, and obviously, we didn't want to print it. But we also wanted to make sure that as the reporters went through and as the editors went through it that they were fully informed so that they could make their own judgment, and that is what they did.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-4.html

Prior to this statement, he stated the following:

I'll just read you a few highlights from The New York Times. "The program is a significant departure from typical practice." Well, so was September 11th, and I think everybody acknowledges that in the wake of September 11th it became necessary to try to use every means at our disposal to try to figure out what terrorists were doing and to try to track them down and to stop their activities. The program is, "highly unusual." I refer you to my previous comment about September 11th.

Id.

Nowhere did Snow attack the New York Times regarding the publishing of this information. Then, suddenly, three days later, he's saying this:

MR. SNOW: So it is -- it's not designed to have a chilling effect. I think what it's -- if The New York Times wants a spirited debate about it, it's got it. But, certainly, nobody is going to deny First Amendment rights. But The New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know, in some cases, might overwrite somebody's right to live, and whether, in fact, the publications of these could place in jeopardy the safety of fellow Americans.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060626-3.html

Huh? He's defending the program and saying that the NYT's article was "balanced" and suddenly changes to NYT putting someone's life at risk? Talk about dramatization! :roll: So what changed?

As Frank Rich says, it was that over that weekend of June 24th/June 25th, the news came out that the Miami terrorists that Gonzales claimed he caught may not be terrorists. Also, over that weekend, it came out that General Casey was drafting a plan to reduce the number of troops in Iraq by 2007--just the kind of plan that the democrats were suggesting but was affectionately called "cut and run" but the republicans.

Basically, when your credibility is on the line, you attack, attack, attack so that Americans won't realize how much the Bush Administration has f**ked up this war and how the republicans in Congress continue to let him. Now that is DISGRACEFUL!

 

[Billo_Really]

aps,

you rock! I just saw that article and it's perfect.

 

[aquapub]

This is a great article by Frank Rich.

:rofl

And I've got an objective opinion on this for you to read from Rush Limbaugh.. :lol:

Could you have picked anyone more notorious for telling one-sided accounts to benefit liberals?

Give me a freaking break.


This thread should be titled, "Object to a partisan liberal paper needlessly revealing the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program and a left-wing columnist FROM THAT PAPER will smear you."

But I guess that far more honest title wouldn't fit, huh?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aquapub:
And I've got an objective opinion on this for you to read from Rush Limbaugh..

Could you have picked anyone more notorious for telling one-sided accounts to benefit liberals?

Give me a freaking break.


This thread should be titled, "Object to a partisan liberal paper needlessly revealing the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program and a left-wing columnist FROM THAT PAPER will smear you."

But I guess that far more honest title wouldn't fit, huh?

Like you know anything about "objectivity".

 

[talloulou]

Huh? He's defending the program and saying that the NYT's article was "balanced" and suddenly changes to NYT putting someone's life at risk? Talk about dramatization! :roll: So what changed?

I'm not seeing what you're saying. Obviously nothing changed. In the first statement by Snow that you quoted he says very clearly...."obviously we did not want to print it."

So clearly the administration didn't think the article should be printed. They thought it was fair and balanced but they also thought it was too detailed with the SWIFT info. Snow is saying, I assume, he is happy that the NYT got it right and that the article was balanced and that they weren't trying to accuse the administration of doing something illegal. At the same time he clearly believes that the release of the information could be harmful thus....they didn't want to see it printed.

Later in the second statement you quoted he makes a legitimate statement that newspapers need to seriously weigh the publics right to know in instances where the release of information could be harmful. I agree....don't you?

Basically, when your credibility is on the line, you attack, attack, attack so that Americans won't realize how much the Bush Administration has f**ked up this war and how the republicans in Congress continue to let him. Now that is DISGRACEFUL!

Seems this works all around. NYT has their credibility questioned and there are serious questions about whether they should or shouldn't have published the piece especially as the program was completely legal and there was no real benefit to the public having this classified info. Now a NYT editorialist is attacking attacking attacking....:rofl

 

[DeeJayH]

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/opinion/02rich.html
This is a great article by Frank Rich. He points out that when the article came out in New York Times, Tony Snow essentially defended the program. He did NOT attack the NYT for publishing the information. In fact, he complimented the article by pointing out that it was fairly balanced:
Prior to this statement, he stated the following:
Id.
Nowhere did Snow attack the New York Times regarding the publishing of this information. Then, suddenly, three days later, he's saying this:
Huh? He's defending the program and saying that the NYT's article was "balanced" and suddenly changes to NYT putting someone's life at risk? Talk about dramatization! :roll: So what changed?
As Frank Rich says, it was that over that weekend of June 24th/June 25th, the news came out that the Miami terrorists that Gonzales claimed he caught may not be terrorists. Also, over that weekend, it came out that General Casey was drafting a plan to reduce the number of troops in Iraq by 2007--just the kind of plan that the democrats were suggesting but was affectionately called "cut and run" but the republicans.

Basically, when your credibility is on the line, you attack, attack, attack so that Americans won't realize how much the Bush Administration has f**ked up this war and how the republicans in Congress continue to let him. Now that is DISGRACEFUL!

i thought this was post by aquapub for a minute
:lol:
seems pretty similar in style

 

[mpg]

This is the media bias forum. Is this thread intended to show the bias of Frank Rich?

 

[aps]

aps,

you rock! I just saw that article and it's perfect.

Aww shucks. :thanks:

 

[aps]

I'm not seeing what you're saying. Obviously nothing changed. In the first statement by Snow that you quoted he says very clearly...."obviously we did not want to print it."

So clearly the administration didn't think the article should be printed. They thought it was fair and balanced but they also thought it was too detailed with the SWIFT info. Snow is saying, I assume, he is happy that the NYT got it right and that the article was balanced and that they weren't trying to accuse the administration of doing something illegal. At the same time he clearly believes that the release of the information could be harmful thus....they didn't want to see it printed.

Later in the second statement you quoted he makes a legitimate statement that newspapers need to seriously weigh the publics right to know in instances where the release of information could be harmful. I agree....don't you?

talloulou, if you can't see a difference in the tone of Snow's statements, then you're not either (1) incapable of seeing it or (2) refuse to see it. There is a serious difference in his tone at each of these press briefings. He was very matter of fact on the 23rd, but then totally outraged on the 26th.

Seems this works all around. NYT has their credibility questioned and there are serious questions about whether they should or shouldn't have published the piece especially as the program was completely legal and there was no real benefit to the public having this classified info. Now a NYT editorialist is attacking attacking attacking....:rofl

Oh give me a break, talloulou. Frank Rich is raising a serious question. Regardless, he is one person. On the other side, there is George Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Snow, Congressman King, Bill Frist, Congressman Hastert, etc. attacking the New York Times. It's called, "Let's hide the ball. We have f**ked up this war and we need to attack the NYT, gay people, Hispanics, flag burners, etc."

 

[aps]

:rofl

And I've got an objective opinion on this for you to read from Rush Limbaugh.. :lol:

Could you have picked anyone more notorious for telling one-sided accounts to benefit liberals?

Give me a freaking break.


This thread should be titled, "Object to a partisan liberal paper needlessly revealing the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program and a left-wing columnist FROM THAT PAPER will smear you."

But I guess that far more honest title wouldn't fit, huh?

Do you want to address Rich's arguments in the article? If not, buh-bye.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aps:
Would you care to address Rich's arguments in the article?

You might not want to use words that are foreign to him. C-A-R-E is a word he might not recognize. In order to know what caring is, you have to have come from a caring environment.

Just a thought.

 

[aps]

You might not want to use words that are foreign to him. C-A-R-E is a word he might not recognize. In order to know what caring is, you have to have come from a caring environment.

Just a thought.

Excellent point. See my post.

 

[talloulou]

Oh give me a break, talloulou. Frank Rich is raising a serious question. Regardless, he is one person. On the other side, there is George Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Snow, Congressman King, Bill Frist, Congressman Hastert, etc. attacking the New York Times. It's called, "Let's hide the ball. We have f**ked up this war and we need to attack the NYT, gay people, Hispanics, flag burners, etc."

:rofl

Last time I checked George Bush was supporting a guest worker program, Cheney has a daughter who's a lesbian, and I don't know what the hell anyone was thinking with the stupid flag burning BS. :shoot :duel :elephantf

 

[aps]

:rofl

Last time I checked George Bush was supporting a guest worker program, Cheney has a daughter who's a lesbian, and I don't know what the hell anyone was thinking with the stupid flag burning BS. :shoot :duel :elephantf

Guess you didn't want to address the first point of my post. You're obnoxious, talloulou. It's hard to take you seriously. I'm done having any sort of discussion with you. Buh-bye.

 

[talloulou]

Guess you didn't want to address the first point of my post.

Well it's hard to get an accurate feel for "tone" in a quote. For example I can't tell if you're seriously annoyed or goofing. Without the whole conversation intact it's even harder to read "tone" so that's why I didn't address that part. You could be right his tone might have been different from one speech to the next but I can't tell for sure based on the bits you provided. Nothing from quote 1 seems to contradict quote two from what I can see.

You're obnoxious, talloulou.

I try.

It's hard to take you seriously. I'm done having any sort of discussion with you. Buh-bye.

Boy you really are a hard core NYT supporter...... I guess that goes well with a deep hatred for Bush!

 

[oldreliable67]

aps,

The Frank Rich article that you cited is one of the pay services of the NYT. If it comes into the public domain, will be happy to read the whole thing, but otherwise, no thanks.

In regard to Tony Snow's comments, the comments of his that you left out add texture that seems to contradict your assertion that "Nowhere did Snow attack the New York Times regarding the publishing of this information.":

Some officials, "expressed reservations about the program." The reservations are not concrete. It says that, "What they viewed as an urgent temporary measure has become permanent." That doesn't tell me anything. That doesn't list a specific violation of anybody's private rights, it doesn't specify any statute that may have been violated. "The program has been described as exploiting a 'gray area.'" Difficult to figure out what that means. The executives voiced, "early concerns about the program." That was at Swift. Apparently those were resolved.

Meanwhile -- go ahead.

Q I think what they're saying is that the justification that you all are using for this program is based on the September 11th disaster, and now this program has been going on for five years, but there's no congressional authority for it.

MR. SNOW: And what's interesting here is, for instance, in the -- well, rise in peace, it says "It arguably complies with the letter of the law." There was no specific allegation of any breach of responsibility for notifying Congress. In addition, intelligence committees have been notified, and they know all about this.

In the cite that you provided, Tony Snow was critical of the NYT story.

 

[aps]

aps,

The Frank Rich article that you cited is one of the pay services of the NYT. If it comes into the public domain, will be happy to read the whole thing, but otherwise, no thanks.

In regard to Tony Snow's comments, the comments of his that you left out add texture that seems to contradict your assertion that "Nowhere did Snow attack the New York Times regarding the publishing of this information.":



In the cite that you provided, Tony Snow was critical of the NYT story.

You have to agree that the tone in his June 23rd press briefing is much less critical than his June 26th press briefing. He never made an allegation that lives were at danger on the 23rd but did so on the 26th.

I probably could have used better words, but Tony Snow was more matter-of-fact on the 23rd than he was on the 26th. If you don't see that, then you're fooling yourself.

 

[oldreliable67]

You have to agree that the tone in his June 23rd press briefing is much less critical than his June 26th press briefing. He never made an allegation that lives were at danger on the 23rd but did so on the 26th.

I probably could have used better words, but Tony Snow was more matter-of-fact on the 23rd than he was on the 26th. If you don't see that, then you're fooling yourself.

Ok, maybe I am fooling myself, but I went back and re-read both press briefings in their entirety - and I find that on balance, there really is no substantive difference in tone between the two. The one brief remark about the public's right to know versus someone's right to live, taken in the context of the entire press briefing, is inconsequential. This doesn't mean a thing. Your quite severe case of BDS appears to have you grasping at straws. Just my opinion - I know you disagree.

BTW, Frank Rich? Is that the same Frank Rich that is or was the theatre critic for the NYT? Any other qualifications that suggest him as someone whose opinion should be respected on this matter? Don't mean that to sound ad hominem, really am curious about this...

 

[talloulou]

You have to agree that the tone in his June 23rd press briefing is much less critical than his June 26th press briefing. He never made an allegation that lives were at danger on the 23rd but did so on the 26th.

I probably could have used better words, but Tony Snow was more matter-of-fact on the 23rd than he was on the 26th. If you don't see that, then you're fooling yourself.

Yeah but aps from the quote you posted.....

"But The New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know, in some cases, might overwrite somebody's right to live, and whether, in fact, the publications of these could place in jeopardy the safety of fellow Americans. "

Snow isn't saying that the NYT article is responsible for killing someone. He is talking generally.....anotherwards the NYT needs to think long and hard in the future when they take it upon themselves to go against the administration and print classified info. He seems to be saying, from my perspective, that if there is even a question that the release of info could put lives in jeopardy that shouldn't be taken lightly and perhaps they should take it upon themselves to err on the responsible side. He's definitely not all the sudden saying the NYT is responsible for taking lives. He is speaking generally and he is addressing journalistic policy in a general way and advising them to be more responsible.....no?

 

[aps]

Ok, maybe I am fooling myself, but I went back and re-read both press briefings in their entirety - and I find that on balance, there really is no substantive difference in tone between the two. The one brief remark about the public's right to know versus someone's right to live, taken in the context of the entire press briefing, is inconsequential. This doesn't mean a thing. Your quite severe case of BDS appears to have you grasping at straws. Just my opinion - I know you disagree.

As usual, you resort to name calling, although I don't mind--I expect it from you. lol

It may be more appropriate to compare his June 23rd press briefing with Bush and Cheney's bash-the-NYT session the week after.

BTW, Frank Rich? Is that the same Frank Rich that is or was the theatre critic for the NYT? Any other qualifications that suggest him as someone whose opinion should be respected on this matter? Don't mean that to sound ad hominem, really am curious about this...

Yup that is him. Personally, I think he is brilliant. He analyzes facts and provides links to substantiate his conclusions.