3 ms·

You can't find other interviews with Dick Cheney, because he only let Russert, Limbaugh, and a few others interview him. Giving a few questions that skirt the

by LPTS 18y ago

You can't find other interviews with Dick Cheney, because he only let Russert, Limbaugh, and a few others interview him. Giving a few questions that skirt the real issues is exactly the problem. Then, Dick Cheney can say he had a tough interview with a legitimate journalist. When really, he acted the part of the legitimate journalist and then let Dick Cheney manipulate america. From Glenn Greenwald: "When I talk to senior government officials on the phone, it's my own policy -- our conversations are confidential. If I want to use anything from that conversation, then I will ask permission" -- Tim Russert, under oath at the Lewis Libby trial, citing the textbook function of a government propagandist to explain his role as a "journalist." "I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used. It's our best format," as it allows us to "control the message" -- Cheney media aide Cathie Martin, under oath at the Libby trial, making clear how well Russert fulfills his function.

robg 18y ago
But see, your concerns are more broadly addressed to the American media. Russert was the best of the bunch, and you seem unable to separate the disease from one of the doctors. Why? As for "controlling the message", name one government on this planet that doesn't. Russert, in the lead up to the war, WAS asking the critical questions. Few were listening though. And as the highest rated Sunday "news" program, he used his pulpit to the best of his ability and profession. Shoot, name one American TV journalist that did better during that time.
- LPTS 18y ago
  Unable to separate the disease from the doctor? A doctor would not assume that all information he got from direct contact from the disease was not to be used in fighting the disease. It was his personal rule to have communications default to off the record. Don't worry if you're talking to Tim and you screw up. He'll even take it off the record after the fact. That's why Cheney's communications office thought his show was the best alternative to control the message. That's why, and how, he got access, and that's what made him so useful to those that were granting him access. That's not being one of the doctors treating the disease. Did Bill Moyers or Jim Lehrer do better? I bet, but then they don't get access.
  - robg 18y ago
    Did you even watch that show or read the transcript? That interview was hardly controlling a message. And you're taking those quotes out of context and perverting them. The show is broadcast live. It was impossible to take any said "off the record". Where Russert was non-partisan (despite his roots), Moyers is, by contrast, hyperpartisan. And neither him nor Lehrer have close to the same audience or influence. Why do you think that is? Cause they do such a great job at informing the American people? Again, you're placing all the blame for the system on one man even while that same man has done more with what he's had, to be fair and critical, than anyone else in that system. That perspective perfectly explains the reaction to his death - from Fox to CNN to CBS to NBC to senators and presidents and bloggers alike. Again, bemoan the system all you want. But the happiness you've expressed at his death is really just sad reflection on you and how misinformed you are.
    - LPTS 18y ago
      Yes I read it. Russert has been pissing me off for years. "VICE PRES. CHENEY: Who did the anthrax attack last fall, Tim? We don’t know. MR. RUSSERT: Could it have been Saddam?" "MR. RUSSERT: What, specifically, has he obtained that you believe would enhance his nuclear development program?" (enhance presupposes WMDs exist. Loaded questions like this are a propaganda technique.) "MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the issue of Iraq. You have said that it poses a mortal threat to the United States. How? Define mortal threat." ("How?" presupposes a mortal threat, a propaganda technique.) "Mr. RUSSERT: One year ago when you were on MEET THE PRESS just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let’s watch: (Videotape, September 16, 2001): Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation? VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. (End videotape) Mr. RUSSERT: Has anything changed, in your mind? VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that. On the other hand..." (an obvious set up for Cheney to conflate) "MR. RUSSERT: Why Iraq? Why not North Korea? Why not Iran? They, too, have weapons of mass destruction. Why not go after them?" ("too" implies there are WMDs. This is a propaganda technique.) "MR. RUSSERT: So Saddam’s more dangerous than North Korea or Iran?" ("More" presupposes he is dangerous. Propaganda.) "MR. RUSSERT: We have just a minute in this segment. Will militarily this be a cakewalk? Two, how long would we be there and how much would it cost?" "MR. RUSSERT: Bottom line, it looks like we’re going to war." You don't understand propaganda very well Rob.

by LPTS 18y ago

robg 18y ago

But see, your concerns are more broadly addressed to the American media. Russert was the best of the bunch, and you seem unable to separate the disease from one of the doctors. Why? As for "controlling the message", name one government on this planet that doesn't. Russert, in the lead up to the war, WAS asking the critical questions. Few were listening though. And as the highest rated Sunday "news" program, he used his pulpit to the best of his ability and profession. Shoot, name one American TV journalist that did better during that time.

LPTS 18y ago
Unable to separate the disease from the doctor? A doctor would not assume that all information he got from direct contact from the disease was not to be used in fighting the disease. It was his personal rule to have communications default to off the record. Don't worry if you're talking to Tim and you screw up. He'll even take it off the record after the fact. That's why Cheney's communications office thought his show was the best alternative to control the message. That's why, and how, he got access, and that's what made him so useful to those that were granting him access. That's not being one of the doctors treating the disease. Did Bill Moyers or Jim Lehrer do better? I bet, but then they don't get access.
- robg 18y ago
  Did you even watch that show or read the transcript? That interview was hardly controlling a message. And you're taking those quotes out of context and perverting them. The show is broadcast live. It was impossible to take any said "off the record". Where Russert was non-partisan (despite his roots), Moyers is, by contrast, hyperpartisan. And neither him nor Lehrer have close to the same audience or influence. Why do you think that is? Cause they do such a great job at informing the American people? Again, you're placing all the blame for the system on one man even while that same man has done more with what he's had, to be fair and critical, than anyone else in that system. That perspective perfectly explains the reaction to his death - from Fox to CNN to CBS to NBC to senators and presidents and bloggers alike. Again, bemoan the system all you want. But the happiness you've expressed at his death is really just sad reflection on you and how misinformed you are.
  - LPTS 18y ago
    Yes I read it. Russert has been pissing me off for years. "VICE PRES. CHENEY: Who did the anthrax attack last fall, Tim? We don’t know. MR. RUSSERT: Could it have been Saddam?" "MR. RUSSERT: What, specifically, has he obtained that you believe would enhance his nuclear development program?" (enhance presupposes WMDs exist. Loaded questions like this are a propaganda technique.) "MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the issue of Iraq. You have said that it poses a mortal threat to the United States. How? Define mortal threat." ("How?" presupposes a mortal threat, a propaganda technique.) "Mr. RUSSERT: One year ago when you were on MEET THE PRESS just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let’s watch: (Videotape, September 16, 2001): Mr. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation? VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. (End videotape) Mr. RUSSERT: Has anything changed, in your mind? VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I’m not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can’t say that. On the other hand..." (an obvious set up for Cheney to conflate) "MR. RUSSERT: Why Iraq? Why not North Korea? Why not Iran? They, too, have weapons of mass destruction. Why not go after them?" ("too" implies there are WMDs. This is a propaganda technique.) "MR. RUSSERT: So Saddam’s more dangerous than North Korea or Iran?" ("More" presupposes he is dangerous. Propaganda.) "MR. RUSSERT: We have just a minute in this segment. Will militarily this be a cakewalk? Two, how long would we be there and how much would it cost?" "MR. RUSSERT: Bottom line, it looks like we’re going to war." You don't understand propaganda very well Rob.