First, Cheney comes out and says that if you vote for Kerry, the terrorists will attack us:
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told supporters at a town-hall meeting Tuesday.
Breathtaking, isn't it? If you vote for Kerry, the terrorists will hit us again and hit us even harder. Never mind that the last time they hit us, it was when Bush was in office. But even more ridiculous is the furious backpeddling going on:
On the flight back to DC, MSNBC's David reports, Cheney huddled with official and campaign staffers, including Scooter Libby and spokesperson Anne Womack, for about 20 minutes. When Womack emerged into the press section of the plane to talk with reporters, she said: "What the Vice President was saying was whoever is elected will face the possibility of a terrible attack. The question is whether or not we have the right policies in place to protect the country." Asked whether the Vice President stood by his statement, Womack replied, "The Vice President stands by my explanation of the statement."
An absolutely perfect example of the utter banality of political discourse in America. Candidate says something ridiculous and inflammatory; press secretary tells the press that the candidate meant something completely different than what he actually said, and the press reports it dutifully, without saying the obvious - it's an outright lie. Cheney did not say that whoever was elected would face the possibility of an attack. He said if the voters make the wrong choice - a vote for Kerry, of course - the country would face the possibility of attack. What he said and what the press secretary said he said cannot possibly be squared with each other.
The press secretary was simply lying through her teeth - she knows it, and of course the press knows it too. But does the press actually say, "This is a lie and here's why"? Of course not. That would be, you know, actually reporting the truth, and reporting the truth doesn't get you called by "unnamed sources" when they want to get a story out, and it certainly doesn't get your interview requests accepted or get you on the plane for important events so you can get the scoop.
This is what our political system has come to. Candidates and their representatives tell flat out lies to the press, which passes them on to the public without comment even though they KNOW that they are flat out lies. And yet the press wants to be taken seriously as the watchdogs of democracy, bravely shining a light on government to keep the citizenry informed. Sorry guys, that's a lie too. You are little more than amplifiers for the carnival barkers of the political midway. You print things you know are false because if you point out that they are false, or actually do your job and press someone to defend those false statements, you don't get to go along for the ride the next time.
- Log in to post comments
Hey wait a minute, who was in the WH on 9-11 again?
So true and so sad. Reminds me of just how pertinent the Daily Show's interpretation of reporting is:
STEWART: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the US military, and haven't been disputed for 35 years?
CORDDRY: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.
STEWART: Th-that's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.
CORDDRY: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontravertible fact is one side of the story.
STEWART: But that should be -- isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?
CORDDRY: I'm sorry, my *opinion*? No, I don't have 'o-pin-i-ons'. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called 'objectivity' -- might wanna look it up some day.
STEWART: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?
CORDDRY: Whoa-ho! Well, well, well -- sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! high-pitched, effeminate 'Ooh, this allegation is spurious! Upon investigation this claim lacks any basis in reality! Mmm, mmm, mmm.' Listen buddy: not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.
STEWART: So, basically, you're saying that this back-and-forth is never going to end.
CORDDRY: No, Jon -- in fact a new group has emerged, this one composed of former Bush colleages, challenging the president's activities during the Vietnam era. That group: Drunken Stateside Sons of Privilege for Plausible Deniability. They've apparently got some things to say about a certain Halloween party in '71 that involved trashcan punch and a sodomized piñata. Jon -- they just want to set the record straight. That's all they're out for.
STEWART: Well, thank you Rob, good luck out there. We'll be right back.
It was too funny
If you want a glimpse into the "thinking" of the media check out the recent exchange between Jon Stewart and Ted Koppel from a recent Nightline(scroll down).
Look for the part where Ted tries to explain to Jon the difference between "facts" and the "truth".
The idea is that when the media regurgitates whatever party spin doctors tell them they are properly doing their job by reporting the "facts" (it is a fact that the spin doctor said [fill in the blank]...), and that history will attend to the "truth".
So basically, they're useless.