I guess the WH is pretty pissed about the way NBC edited an interview by non other than the piece of shit Richard Engel, who doesn't have an unbiased bone in his body. Reporter they call him. LOL. He's a piece of shit hit man.

But anyway if you interview the Prez at least give the office of the prez and the peeps of the US the decency to put his answers in the interview.

NBC is taking its lead from MSNBC with an entertainment network, not news. If they go that way, they'll prolly end up with the same audience of 2 to 3 peeps a night too.

Um, how about explaining what they cut and what they ran with?

I mean, it is an interview with the President. I assume there is a whole lot of "umm ... what does that word mean? .... economification is the key here .... Dick didn't tell me the answer to that one."

Yea, they just cut out an 'uh' but thats damn important when you're the Prez. Its a presidential 'uh'

Check out: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/254947 which has pointers to both the edited and unedited version. In neither the edited nor unedited version did Bush specifically answer the main thrust of the question that was asked, apart from the quip about the political calendar (which I thought was a reasonably amusing dodge as dodges go).

It could be argued that it was a somewhat-clumsily phrased question, that Bush didn't actually use the word "pointless" and so on. But, Dubya knew the main thrust of the question. He knew it was about whether his remarks in Israel were about Obama. He non-answered it with his quip, and only after did he pick apart the question.

When I first heard the soundbite, the reporter's question wasn't even part of it. Some local news talking head summarized the question even more briefly, then played only Bush's quip about the political calendar. I suspect that you only saw the NBC guy if you were watching an NBC channel , because other networks don't like giving air time to the competition's reporters.

I was going to post my link but it was FoxNews and I usually get the fn;dcl so I didn't bother.

The most important part was where he told him he had it wrong and he urged, iirc, all peeps to go read the speech again.

If they thought like you do Mxy, that he dodged the question then give his full answer and say that. But its just another example of shody journalism ( I actually have a hard time using journalism and NBC in the same sentence anymore) and biased journalism.

Tahoe, not trying to start something here, but you seem pretty passionate with your dislike for NBC for its "biases" but at the same time you seem to be a pretty big Fox News supporter.

What gives?

Tahoe, give the link. The one Mxy gave only has the unedited version working.

There are some good shows on FoxNews. I don't watch all their shit shows, so I can't vouch for them.

From what I've read over and over over the last few years, I've seen story after story where they just blatantly slant stories or whatever to their bias. Much like your feeling towards Fox.

FoxNews gets beat up around here. I just hit on NBC for an obvious example of them trying to deceive the public.

Tahoe, give the link. The one Mxy gave only has the unedited version working.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/19/white-house-angry-at-nbc-over-depiction-of-answers-about-obama/

Heres the link. I saw the video on the tube and on another site that I can't find right now.

Fuck, that link sucks. Here's better links straight from the source:

Full interview:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24696309#24696309

As presented on NBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24696422#24696422

And, like most others, the only thing that I heard on whatever news channel I was watching was the Bush words about the political calendar, without that initial question or anything else from the initial reporter.

They made it sound like the prez was directing the comments at BO, their lover, with the "political calendar' reply.

Give the entire answer.

The Prez of NBC said he has freedom of the Press so he can do what he wants.

Just give the office of the Presidency respect.

I'm not a political junky but I don't see a big problem with the edit. His initial comments were in regards to the Obama just as the question was. His overall response was the comments about Hitler showing that the world needs to take comments from leaders seriously. NBC ran the intial comments and the conclusion that said to take comments from world leaders seriously.

So the big problem is they cut out "read the speech"?

As for treating the office of the Presidency with respect. I guess I don't see how this is disrespectful. Parallel to that, I'd say the last two Presidents have done little to give themselves the right to claim respect due to office. Both Clinton and Bush purposefully manipulated the media and the general public to cover up and push through things they knew wouldn't fly without deceit.

Tahoe, the only thing they cut out of the interview was one sentence of President Bush trying to reiterate what he said in his Knesset speech - that words should be taken seriously. Honestly, that's the only thing they removed.

You shouldn't refer to Richard Engel as a piece of shit, though. He's one of those guys who gave up years of his life to go live in Iraq so he could see what was going on there firsthand. He's not one of these armchair critics.

Tahoe, the only thing they cut out of the interview was one sentence of President Bush trying to reiterate what he said in his Knesset speech - that words should be taken seriously. Honestly, that's the only thing they removed.

You shouldn't refer to Richard Engel as a piece of shit, though. He's one of those guys who gave up years of his life to go live in Iraq so he could see what was going on there firsthand. He's not one of these armchair critics (like Fool).

I see that. That's fine.

“People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right, either. What I said was that we need to take the words of people seriously.”

Here is one of the lines edited out. The thing is that the question posed to the prez was the most important of the interview. With so much back and forth on 'was he talking about BO" "who was he calling out" ANY DECENT news organization would play the entire answer so peeps can decide for themselvs.

NBC decided to play the part where he talked about political seasons. So it fit into their agenda. Not what he said but their agenda.

Tahoe, the only thing they cut out of the interview was one sentence of President Bush trying to reiterate what he said in his Knesset speech - that words should be taken seriously. Honestly, that's the only thing they removed.

You shouldn't refer to Richard Engel as a piece of shit, though. He's one of those guys who gave up years of his life to go live in Iraq so he could see what was going on there firsthand. He's not one of these armchair critics.

This guy goes out of his to NOT tell the truth, imo. To me he is the WORST reporter out there.

Yea he went to Iraq but if he's just going to tell peeps half truths, or what HE wants peeps to hear, what good is his reporting?

Three lines. One of which was repeated and the repeat was aired. The other two were "read the speech" and "you're wrong". I think you are going overboard in your characterization of the guy based on this.

Gillespie brought up some other grievances, too, including NBC News coverage of the Iraq war and the nation’s economic woes. The White House was not happy when NBC News decided to call the situation in Iraq a civil war and called attention to its decision.
Gillespie said that NBC News has quietly stopped referring to a civil war in Iraq. “Will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?” he asked.

I think NBC should tell the truth - the civil war has ended, and the Iranian-backed Shiite parties have won; the Sunnis have been mostly extracted from Baghdad and cornered; angry Kurds are now sandwiched between angry Turks, angry Iraqis, and angry Iranians; Moqtada Sadr now leads a very Hizbollah-like paramilitary corps; and large-scale violence is well-seasoned and ready to serve in Iraq whether the troops pull out in 6 months or 60 years.

But I think that's basically what I'm getting from Brian Willams right now. Honestly, I get more complex insight from him than I do from the press conferences given by the Administration, so for the White House to paint anything in terms of "civil war or not civil war" makes them sound like enormous thickos with no grasp of the details of the situation.

I think we have a major problem in the media right now that gives rise to differences of opinion like this. People got mad because they thought the news media was taking sides. "You are biased toward liberals!" they said. So the news media stopped passing judgment on anything, just reporting everything said by both sides of an argument as if both sides were equally valid. The problem is that all arguments are not equally valid. In fact, sometimes one side of an argument is so childish and stupid that it should be immediately waved off, but the journalists still refuse to pass judgment no matter how obviously lame it is. So now we have totally lame arguments presented right along smart ones, vast majorities given equal regard as lone cranks, and weirdo hypotheses cooked up by crackpots treated like they were a fully vetted theory of a university professor.

And guess what happened? The news networks, and industrial equipment manufacturers that owned the news networks, figured out that if you treat unequal arguments as if they were equal, you can actually manufacture drama. And dramatic news segments mean more expensive advertising. Before, when journalists were free to criticize dumb things, everyone would see how dumb the dumb ideas were and just laugh about it. "Remember supply-side economics? God that was dumb," they'd say, and chuckle harmlessly to themselves.

But because a very small group of delusional people were crazy enough to hang on to those ideas until the news media changed its priorities, now supply-side economics is treated like a perfectly valid set of ideas, and the psychotic persecution complex dreamed up by supply-siders is actually carefully edited with dramatic music to make it seem like there's anything worth arguing about there.

If you pay attention to the TV or print news long enough, you'll start thinking there are two sides to every story, and they're both worth hearing. But that's not true at all. The truth is: For every topic there is a right way to think about it, and a whole lot of other ways that vary in their amount of wrongness.

end rant.

angry Kurds are now sandwiched

Mmm, kurd sandwiches.

Better yet, angry kurd sandwiches.

I like a little fire in mah kurd.

They taste like Shiite at first, but they're pretty good once you get used to eating them.

I think NBC should tell the truth - the civil war has ended, and the Iranian-backed Shiite parties have won; the Sunnis have been mostly extracted from Baghdad and cornered; angry Kurds are now sandwiched between angry Turks, angry Iraqis, and angry Iranians; Moqtada Sadr now leads a very Hizbollah-like paramilitary corps; and large-scale violence is well-seasoned and ready to serve in Iraq whether the troops pull out in 6 months or 60 years.

But I think that's basically what I'm getting from Brian Willams right now. Honestly, I get more complex insight from him than I do from the press conferences given by the Administration, so for the White House to paint anything in terms of "civil war or not civil war" makes them sound like enormous thickos with no grasp of the details of the situation.

I think we have a major problem in the media right now that gives rise to differences of opinion like this. People got mad because they thought the news media was taking sides. "You are biased toward liberals!" they said. So the news media stopped passing judgment on anything, just reporting everything said by both sides of an argument as if both sides were equally valid. The problem is that all arguments are not equally valid. In fact, sometimes one side of an argument is so childish and stupid that it should be immediately waved off, but the journalists still refuse to pass judgment no matter how obviously lame it is. So now we have totally lame arguments presented right along smart ones, vast majorities given equal regard as lone cranks, and weirdo hypotheses cooked up by crackpots treated like they were a fully vetted theory of a university professor.

And guess what happened? The news networks, and industrial equipment manufacturers that owned the news networks, figured out that if you treat unequal arguments as if they were equal, you can actually manufacture drama. And dramatic news segments mean more expensive advertising. Before, when journalists were free to criticize dumb things, everyone would see how dumb the dumb ideas were and just laugh about it. "Remember supply-side economics? God that was dumb," they'd say, and chuckle harmlessly to themselves.

But because a very small group of delusional people were crazy enough to hang on to those ideas until the news media changed its priorities, now supply-side economics is treated like a perfectly valid set of ideas, and the psychotic persecution complex dreamed up by supply-siders is actually carefully edited with dramatic music to make it seem like there's anything worth arguing about there.

If you pay attention to the TV or print news long enough, you'll start thinking there are two sides to every story, and they're both worth hearing. But that's not true at all. The truth is: For every topic there is a right way to think about it, and a whole lot of other ways that vary in their amount of wrongness.

end rant.

Well, surprise surprise, I disagree.

I don't see how you can say the Iran backed parties have won. Their leader is hiding in Iran. Sadr city is coming back to life. 10k regular Iraqi troops have moved into Sadr city and street vendors are back out, cars are in the streets (in most places), etc.

(if I'm understanding the Iraqi army correctly, their are kind of special forces and regular troops. The special forces guys have pretty much left as after they kicked Sadrists ass and now just the regular troops are there)

The operation was ordered by a Shiite on a Shiite and it was successful. I can't say it will hold, but I would expect the Gov't to go continue to fight for the control of the city.

re: Civil War. I'm glad the WH kind of fought back on the issue. They stand up there and take these loaded questions all the time. They are simply saying..."You described this as a civil war, hows that civil war going? Who won? And the head of NBC ducks the question.

Was there Sunni Shiite violence? Yes. The country was run by a Sunni for decades and he was ruthless. I'm sure there was some backlash on Sunnis when peeps(Shiites) were finally free from his grip.

And to say that all the Sunnis are gone from Bagdad is baseless, imo. Some left and then they returned in huge numbers after the surge took hold.

.........

I wanted to say again...with everyone interpretting the Prezs statement in Israel the way they wanted to, When NBC gets a interview with the Prez and asks that very important question..."GIVE THE ENTIRE FUCKING ANSWER SO PEEPS CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES'

Instead they decided to edit out the parts that don't fit their agenda. The entire answer was I think, 3 or 4 sentences. The entire answer should have been aired.

BTW...I just saw a piece on the Iraqi troops in Sadr. They showed the Shiite clerics welcoming the troops and giving them the Coran, etc.

For every topic there is a right way to think about it, and a whole lot of other ways that vary in their amount of wrongness.

Well, surprise surprise, I disagree.
Isolated from the rest of the context, I agree with Tahoe over Big Swami here.

To whatever extent there's a right way and various shades of wrong ways to look at things, there's lots of issues where humans are going to be wrong and it's just about choosing the lesser of two wrongs. Being wrong isn't evil, even. It often just means a lack of perspective(s). Some things are clearly measured and measurable, while other things aren't. We do our best to muddle through based on what we have, know, and perceive.