2 ms·

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 i

by 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.
  - robg 18y ago
    Umm, the entire system is propaganda. The president has a bully pulpit and that drives the news. Meanwhile, from your selective editing (nice bit of propaganda, yourself!) Russert is asking the exact questions that needed to be asked at that time. Still, no journalist was going to be able to dispute a deceptive administration on the WMDs. Their only hope was to question the evidence. And Russert did exactly that. What did you want from him? To call Cheney a liar to his face? Based on what? As it is, he was incredulous at the aluminum tubes.
    - LPTS 18y ago
      My edits crossed your post. I pointed out the parts that are clearly propaganda techniques. It isn't propaganda for me to quote him like this. I just located the examples of subtle propaganda. See, the entire system isn't supposed to be propaganda. Thats why we have a first amendment. To prevent exactly that. It's not a defense of Tim. Russert pretended to question them to help Dick Cheney lay out his case. That's his role. This is not actual questioning. That's the message control his press person testified about Russert giving. Look at the subtle linguistic structure of what he's saying. Propaganda. I wanted him to not ask questions that subtly presuppose the exact things Dick Cheney is trying to deceive the ameriacn people into believing. I wanted him not to work off the record with Cheney's press people before the interviews. I wanted him to tell us when a powerful corrupt person slips instead of later taking it off the record (this is not about the live interviews, but the stuff on background and stuff like that).
      - robg 18y ago
        How could you possibly know he was "pretending"? I suppose he was faking the incredulity at the aluminum tubes too? Journalists cover the news. They don't make it. Unfortunately, the system is unable to ferret out truth, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise. We were failed by a good many journalists who failed to ask the right questions. Russert wasn't one of them. The transcript shows exactly that. Better, what's one question he didn't ask that he should have in that interview? Name one.

by LPTS 18y ago

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.
- robg 18y ago
  Umm, the entire system is propaganda. The president has a bully pulpit and that drives the news. Meanwhile, from your selective editing (nice bit of propaganda, yourself!) Russert is asking the exact questions that needed to be asked at that time. Still, no journalist was going to be able to dispute a deceptive administration on the WMDs. Their only hope was to question the evidence. And Russert did exactly that. What did you want from him? To call Cheney a liar to his face? Based on what? As it is, he was incredulous at the aluminum tubes.
  - LPTS 18y ago
    My edits crossed your post. I pointed out the parts that are clearly propaganda techniques. It isn't propaganda for me to quote him like this. I just located the examples of subtle propaganda. See, the entire system isn't supposed to be propaganda. Thats why we have a first amendment. To prevent exactly that. It's not a defense of Tim. Russert pretended to question them to help Dick Cheney lay out his case. That's his role. This is not actual questioning. That's the message control his press person testified about Russert giving. Look at the subtle linguistic structure of what he's saying. Propaganda. I wanted him to not ask questions that subtly presuppose the exact things Dick Cheney is trying to deceive the ameriacn people into believing. I wanted him not to work off the record with Cheney's press people before the interviews. I wanted him to tell us when a powerful corrupt person slips instead of later taking it off the record (this is not about the live interviews, but the stuff on background and stuff like that).
    - robg 18y ago
      How could you possibly know he was "pretending"? I suppose he was faking the incredulity at the aluminum tubes too? Journalists cover the news. They don't make it. Unfortunately, the system is unable to ferret out truth, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise. We were failed by a good many journalists who failed to ask the right questions. Russert wasn't one of them. The transcript shows exactly that. Better, what's one question he didn't ask that he should have in that interview? Name one.