Posted on 05/20/2007 4:43:28 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
Years ago a family member was a prosecutor trying a voting fraud case. The defendants were black, but so were the victims. The media descended upon a small town and crucified the community, painting everyone as racist. The film was "edited" to paint a very distorted picture of the crime and the perpetrators, and I don't remember that the victims of the crime were mentioned at all. Black on black crime didn't fit the template, so they edited the material they did get to fit the story they wanted to tell.
The point is that all us ignorant yahoos out here in flyover country can figure out the truth if you give us ALL the facts, and tell both sides of the story. But keep giving us only one side and we might start suspecting you have an agenda.
>>>”So they were claiming low-ranking Coastguardsmen were out strangling kittens or something? Or was it about the “Deepwater” procurement project and the mistakes made by high-level USCG management?
Like I said, if it’s the latter, Deepwater is already a legendary procurement fiasco that’s been well covered as such by the Defense media - if anything 60 Minutes is simply late to the pile-on party.”<<<
Strategerist, DOD experiments, and other technologically complex projects, have always generated a certain amount of “fiascos” (so-called), and always will. Does that give CBS license to present the CG Commandant as weasel? HELL NO!
When will CBS report on the biggest fiascos of all time, such as the multi-trillion dollar “War On Poverty” tragedy; and the destruction of our once-great education system by costly federal government intervention?
At least Defense Department experiments produce good results more often than not.
Its tough to edit a continuous stream of drooling inanity.
I'm not a naval architect but I work in an office with three of them - one of them was holding forth on what went wrong for about 15 minutes a couple weeks ago, but I can't remember the precise technical details - he hadn't worked on the boats directly, but it had come up in some class or seminar.
Anyway they were starting to modify all the 110' boats to 123', one of the first big projects of the gigantic Deepwater program - they got through 8, spent $100 million, and found out the hull started to buckle on all of them - had to take them out of service and junk them, essentially.
Here's a Congressional Research Service Report on it:
Ok, but I do not expect the reporter to add, in his editing, when he didn't know, who caused the accident, why it happened, what the drivers were thinking at the time, etc. I also wouldn't expect the reporter to leave out KEY footage, like a policeman's statement about fault, if it didn't meet the reporter's agenda.
That is what 60 Minutes did in this story.
Your hissy-fit spittle makes no sense. What I stated still stands. If you cannot understand that much, you are in the wrong business.
bump
Why would you not limit the interview to the time allowed?
Perhaps if the interviewer spent less time editorializing his/ or her questions, there would be more time for the interviewee to actually answer the question.
In my humble opinion, folks who give any creedence to CBS news products are kinda like you. You know, name calling
reactionaries.
Huge ("Paxman") main engines that could not be tamed and were eventually replaced with more docile 3516 CATs..... one eighth inch hull plating that had to be replaced forward with intermediate framing added.....bad corrosion on the delicate 1/8" plating..... etc. ...
The boats in question were NEVER 'successful' and should CERTAINLY never have been modified. They are worn out.
>>>”The networks’ tactics are well-known for obscuring the real story, but here they are talking about the 110 foot fast patrol boats that have had serious problems since they were new.”<<<
Skeptoid, please read my original post. It had nothing to do with the boats, but rather the slanderous tactics by CBS against the CG Commandant.
I don't care if you're "in the biz" up to your neck, there is no call for you to respond to others on this thread in such a hostile and childish manner.
It’s a little weird to deny requests for an interview for a period of time. and then suddenly say you’ll do it live and unedited (something I THINK 60 Minutes has never done.)
Keep in mind it may have been Department of Homeland Security calling the shots on the interview thing, not Adm. Allen.
60 minutes has looooong been the premier program for editing someone. That’s why so few people ever want to be interviewed. Who can blame them.
I’d point out that Allen wasn’t Commandant when most of the bad Deepwater decisions were made, I think, and like I said, it may be PR weasels at DHS calling the shots on the interview thing, not Adm. Allen.
Who I haven’t met personally but I’ve seen him speak, and he seems like a stand-up guy - and he got some pointed Deepwater questions at the event I was at.
>>>I read and re-read your post. <<<
No, you didn’t.
Which is why I haven't watched "60 Minutes" in decades.
Do people not understand that in a 60 Minute (less commercials) program with three different stories + Andy Rooney you can’t give everyone you interview a live and unedited interview?
>>>It’s a little weird to deny requests for an interview for a period of time. and then suddenly say you’ll do it live and unedited (something I THINK 60 Minutes has never done.)<<<
What is weird about it? CBS is notorious for distorting interviews to project their leftist bias. No one in his/her right mind, who was subject to a CBS hit piece, would allow CBS to edit his/her interview with CBS. No one.
Why does CBS not allow unedited interviews? Because CBS is not a news agency. It is a leftwing propaganda outlet.
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.