Posted on 01/13/2005 5:47:28 PM PST by Indy Pendance
"There needs to be a clear distinction between journalism and advocacy,"
that leaves out abccbscnnnbcnprpbs and most noospapers.
"Or is Reuters indulging itself in a subtle dig at the President."
A subtle? Subltle? SUBTLE? Do you know that means stealth like? Rooters will openly attack our president, nothing subtle about it.
Translation into normal English: "Our news agencies spout enemy propaganda straight into the White House television! Why don't y'all start loving your country and spouting the pro-American truth into terror central? We all know the answer; you'd get killed if you treated any old dictatorship on their soil like you walk on the good name of our American homeland."
When you look at this, you can see it is Bush being the way he usually is: self deprecating and modest. The weird spin comes from Roto-Rooters, which likes to do selective quotes surrounded by heavy editorializing.
As for the preachers of hate having a more aggressive "diplomacy" than the good guys, he's right - mainly because they get the support of the world press and media, and we don't. That's something that we should try to change, although I honestly don't know how anybody could ever get the press to be favorable or even fair about the US.
silence......................................................................................................................................................................................yeah lets do away with one of the big things that made George W. so endearing. His ability to not be PC. His backbone to say what most Americans were already thinking. Kill 3000 Americans...Hell yes we want Osama and anyone like him DEAD or Alive. Bring to justice? We see what our justice system has become. Disappointed...deeply disappointed.
I absolutely agree, the typed pauses were there to make him look like an idiot. I'm not surprised by that and neither are you. However, if I watch this Friday and this piece rings true to what I hear, pauses in typing won't be necessary to make that distinction. And yes, before all of you get your damned underwear all bunched up, I voted for him. Twice.
I guess we will see tomorrow when the interview plays.
Yea right. Our POTUS really meant to say to our troops to GET SOME. If you know what I mean. What else could he say to such a lame brained rabbit.
Well, they're using elipses, which is supposed to denote omitted words, but it appears they're using elipses where dashes would be more appropriate, to denote a break in speech, like the double and, but even a dash would not be appropriate to denote a pause in a grammatically correct string of words. Or maybe the elipses do indicate omitted words.
LOL. You'd think they'd figure it out after a while, huh?
""There needs to be a clear distinction between journalism and advocacy," "
Not going to happen, we just have to have a 'louder' voice. Free Republic is one avenue!
If they doctor his words as much as they doctor the lens and tape to make Baba Wawa look good, the words will come out nothing like he prolly said them!!!
I heard audio clips on the radio yesterday, and the way Baba speaks when she asks him a question is just SO pathetically condescending, I wouldn't waste a second watching that show!!!!
yeah, free republic is part of the new media, and the old media's controlled by the left.
rush had a good take on it the other day. he said that the left tightened its hold on the media as the democrat party fell out of favor, loosing congress and the presidency.
i agree with that. the newspapers like the los angeles times actually were readable in the 1970s and 80s, but gradually became shrill advocacy journalism.
advocacy journalism arose, of course, guess when, in the late 1960s.
It frankly drives me nuts how many freepers respond to headlines instead of what the article actually says. It's obvious that many don't even read the article, or at least much of it, before they feel sufficiently informed to post their brilliant response.
This article doesn't justify the headline. Maybe the interview does, but not what's printed here.
Some of the words he used in response to 9/11 can be second-guessed, even by him. But would he have changed any of the actions he ordered? I don't think so, and I don't think you'll see him saying so.
I believe the EXACT quote, was "Bring IT on". CAN'T YOU demoCRAT demoCRAT CRAT CRAT CLINTON CRAT CRAT CRAT CRAT CRAT CRAT CLINTON CRAT CRAT CRAT CRAT CRAT CRAT CLINTON CRAT CRAT CRAT CRAT CRAT CRAT, STINKING, LIBERAL, LYING, PERJURIOUS, pornographic CLINTON CRAT CRAT CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON even get that right?
Sad there are some posters on this forum who think otherwise and believe Reuters is the second coming of marx.
I'd almost bet that the first elipse represents a pause rather than an omitted word. As for the repeated "and" -- it's probably an accurate transcription of what he actually said. But don't the papers and newswires sometimes edit those kinds of minor flubs? I'd swear that I've seen them clean up the quote of a stumbling speaker. But maybe not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.