WALTER PINCUS: We used to do at the Post something called truth squading. --President would make a speech. We used to do it with Ronald Reagan the first five or six months because he would make so many-- factual errors, particularly in his press conference. PRESIDENT REAGAN: (3/6/1981) From 10 thousand to 60 thousand dollars a yearÂ…
WALTER PINCUS: And after-- two or three weeks of it-- the public at large, would say, "Why don't you leave the man alone? He's trying to be honest. He makes mistakes. So what?" and we stopped doing it.
BILL MOYERS: You stopped being the truth squad.
WALTER PINCUS: We stopped truth squading every sort of press conference, or truth squading. And we left it then-- to the democrats. In other words, it's up to the democrats to catch people, not us.
BILL MOYERS: So if the democrats challenged-- a statement from the president, you could-- quote both sides.
WALTER PINCUS: We then quote-- both sides. Yeah.
BILL MOYERS: Now, that's called objectivity by many standards isn't it?
WALTER PINCUS: Well, that's-- objectivity if you think there are only two sides. and if you're not interested in-- the facts. And the facts are separate from, you know, what one side says about the other.
I'm still reading the transcript of this, but it talks about an issue near and dear to the heart of a former journalist
11 comments:
Kind of scary listening to how almost every journalist shut off his/her brain in the name of patriotism. I don't like patriotism, and certainly not when it's used like this.
Tim Russert, who hosts the most prestigeous news program in the country, saying he wished his phone had rung, and claiming Cheney's appearance on his program on the same day the "aluminum tubes" "story" broke was mere coincidence was beyond belief.
I noticed that this week, following the first Democratic debate, he had the very weak, no chance of the nomination Joe Biden on his program and not a powerhouse contender like Clinton or Obama. I suppose that's a coincidence, too.
What I now find even more scary is that I've just encountered an American who still believes all the arguments for going to war and says that although we've found no WMDs then they weren't the real reason for the war, but it was the link between al-Qaeda and Iraq that was the key. Even Powell has admitted that there was never any evidence of such a connection.
You found a 33 percenter!
One of my very favorite Bush sound bites is when a reporter at a press conference asks, for about the 100th time, about the connection between Iraq and 9/11. Bush gives out this annoyed, frustrated, "There isn't one," as if the reporter was crazy for wanting him to actually say the words. Even so, and very sadly, many of our troops in Iraq think they are there because of a connection to the terrorist attack that was created by Bush/Cheney & Co., and reinforced by a lapdog media.
I've asked him for the real reasons then since he's very sure it's not oil. No response as of yet. Although we've been told that we should spout such propaganda to his face.
Because if you don't believe in the war the terrorists win?
Because if you don't believe in the war it means you want our troops to die?
Because if you don't believe in the war it means you are a traitor to your country?
Because dissent is not patriotic?
That sounds pretty much like the 90 minutes of that show summoned up into on thing. Patriotism.
But in America, there can be nothing MORE patriotic than dissent. Our founding fathers here were dissenters of such extraordinary measure that they broke off relations with Britain and declared independence.
If today's Bush Co. version of patriotism prevailed then, we'd all be drinking tea and possess the gene necessary to comprehend cricket.
When the it break then? When did dissent suddenly stop being acceptable. I doubt it's only the fault of the Bush era, they just took advantage of it.
"That sounds pretty much like the 90 minutes of that show summoned up into on thing. Patriotism."
But I had to post the entire 90 minutes, otherwise people like your American Patriot friend would just mumble something about "the liberal media" and dismiss any point I tried to make. Like a previous patriot who wanted to dismiss an article from the Boston Globe. Two days later that article went on to win a Pulitzer Prize, so I think it must have had some substance after all.
Of course then they just think the Pulitzer Prize is biased to the left.
Post a Comment