60 Minutes’ refusal to accept a surrogate in place of Clinton is inconsistent with the way the show handled a similar story about a book critical of President Bush. On March 21, 2004, 60 Minutes ran a segment about former National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke’s then-upcoming book, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror (Free Press, March 2004). The segment included not only an exclusive interview with Clarke but also an interview with Bush administration National Security Council official Stephen Hadley, who was given time to defend Bush from Clarke’s criticism.
A Clinton hater gets free time on prime time to attack President Clinton, with no counter of any sort. Email 60 minutes at 60m@cbsnews.com or call 212-975-3247
The Dan Rather network?
Seriously, there is some wiggle room for producers, in that there is always a deference to sitting Presidents (Although, it could be argued that Clinton is usually busier that Bush), but that does not excuse a one-source story.
There has to be a counterpoint to Freeh. That only makes sense espeically since they are presently preoccupied(network wise) with the charge of ‘liberal bias’. They don’t want the intereviewer to have the burden of appearing biased because he he/she has to frame the counterpoint.. Let the opposing guest raise the questions. It makes no sense.
This is rich. Media Matters accepts the authority of the New York Sun, a publication it has routinely attacked, as the source of the CBS claim.
And, even if it’s true, you can safely blame it on Dan Rather and Mary Mapes’ attempted October surprise of forged documents.
Was Clark’s book an attack on Bush, or an attack on the entire administration?
Is Freer’s book an attack on Clinton or an attack on his administration?
Dugger,
Fair and balances doesn’t mean both sides get equal time to yell whatever crap they want on the air. It means that there is an attempt at discerning truth regardless of bias.
For example: in the Intelligent Design v Evolution debate someone is going to be right and someone wrong. To report fairly is to show the evidence presented by each side and report which is more reasonable. Not to let pundits from both sides have equal time on Tv to spout their propaganda.
OK. You don’t like 60 Minutes and I hate their biased b*tts. Lets agree we get rid of them. You take half the program (TV Pacifica???) and I’ll take the other half.
Dugger
Dugger;
OT. Ancient history now. “Trouble in Paradise’
Response somewhat tardy. Apologies
Hold the presses! CBS is not exhibiting a liberal bias! Holy Crap! Can the Apocalypse be far behind? Don’t step on those raining frogs!
In the end, Freeh matters about as much as other Clinton-haters with an important distinction: the rightwing has pretty much trashed Freeh as well. So, it will be interesting to watch the wingnuts try to revise their opinions on Freeh to attack Clinton.
Freeh is pretty much universally vilified.
Do you attack someone as a man if you attack him as an administrator?
Hating Bush is why you criticize the administration.
…But, despite the left s insistence, many people criticized the Clinton administration, without hating him.
How do these two statements not come across as contradictory to you, Frank? You say that people criticized the Clinton administration without hating Clinton, but that the reason we on the left criticize the Bush administration is because we hate him.
JWG -
If I say that your administration is run incompetently, it inherently calls you incompetent. Unless, that is, these things are simply Never Your Fault.
JWG -
How does one separate the two, logically? If you attack Clinton as a man, you attack him as an administrator. Ditto for Bush.
This is how, when the left criticizes administration policy, they get tagged as “Bush-haters.”
Come now, Frankie.
Wingnuts never attacked the Clinton administration on policy issues; what could they have attacked? Great economy? Peaceful foreign policy?
No, wingers attacked Clinton personally.
JWG raises, accidentally, an interesting point: do you get to “hate Bush” because you criticize administration policy? Hardly.
Hating Bush is why you criticize the administration.
That’s why you assume Freeh hates Clinton — because his book is critical of Clinton’s administration. But, despite the left’s insistence, many people criticized the Clinton administration, without hating him.
Wow, Dugger. You sound positively relatavist.
Bush is probably a likeable, yet intellectually uncurious man who is probably quite amiable. I wouldn’t drink a beer with him, but I can see why someone would. I hate what his administration and its policies have and still are doing to America. The Clinton Haters hate him because he represented all they hate: a fun-loving baby boomer that co-opted much of their agenda and led us in peace and prosperity.
robot,
If there were a prevailing ethic of “get to the truth” and cover all sides equally, fine. But just showing the ‘truth’ of Republican shenanigans only or even mostly won’t hack it. And I’m not sure we’d ever agree on the truth. For instance, is it a ‘truth’ that Bush lied about WMDs; that Delay is guilty of legal ethics violations, that Bush was AWOL? If your answer to any of those is ‘yes’, then we can’t agree on ‘truth”. Your example of Intelligent Design is a good point. We’ll never determine if intelligent design is correct unless its truth is confirmed (agree its not science but by definition ‘God’ is all powerful).
Dugger
JadeGold: Gotta work on that reading comprehension!
What I said was, “Many people criticized the Clinton administration, without hating him.” You said the opposite.
Try again, Tommie
‘Sounds’ can be decieving. There is hard knowledge, certainty. Bush was not AWOL, for instance. There is a core human morality that is not relativist. Stealing is wrong, for instance. An all powerful God could bring about anything, icluding random selection Darwinism.
Dugger
Dugger,
I don’t think any major news outlet is saying that Delay is guilty or that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq. Nor should they. No one [at this point] can conclusively prove either of these things and thus it shouldn’t be mentioned.
Did the President gets the facts wrong about WMD? Did he rush to war without verifying claims that were being objected to by experts? Did he have a pre-9/11 agenda to invade Iraq and created an atmosphere were criticism to his policy was punished with demotion or worse? These facts should be reported, the opinion of whether he maliciously misled [or lied] to the US and the world to strengthen support for the war is left to the viewer.
Similarly, Delay has been indicted. The fact that he has been found indictable by a Texas grand jury about conspiracy and money laundering is what should be reported. As in the case of OJ and M. Jackson the media nor any of its representatives have no place claiming guilt before a verdict is heard. To do so is to lose credibility.
I’m not saying that the media needs to be reformed for the good of conservatives or liberals. I’m saying it needs to become about facts to the benefit of the people.
I think perhaps that is something we all can agree on.
Bush was not AWOL, for instance.
To the contrary–you have a number of military experts who have plainly said Bush did not meet his TANG obligations.
US News & World Report:
COL Gerald Lechliter (USA-Ret): ”He broke his contract with the United States government — without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen,”
MGEN Paul A. Weaver (fmr head of the Air Nat’l Guard) agrees.
Dugger apparently believes that if you steal but don’t get punished–you didn’t steal.
And you haven’t demonstrated that George Bush was absent without official leave…
a likeable, yet intellectually uncurious man who is probably quite amiable
Oliver;
Just curious. Are you saying Bush is an amiable fool?
Or is he just uncurious about the details(mess) part of his decisions and,
quite frankly, does not want to know(see no evil….)?
I ask this because, it seems to me, that neither scenario relieves him of any the responsibility for his decisions.
Actually, Frankie, it’s been repeatedly demonstrated.
Bush had a commitment to the TANG; he failed to honor the terms of that commitment.
I said you haven’t demonstrated it, because you haven’t, Tommie…
And you can call me Frankie, in that condescending, disrepectful way, even if I am twice your age and in no way your friend… You know why?
Because you’re an insufferable prick, an Oliver toady who hasn’t had an original thought since the first post of yours I ever read.
Not according to FactCheck.org
Fac’s — Facs? We don’ nee no e - stinkin’ facs!
Man, the wingnuts are getting awfully short-tempered these days. You can tell things are going pear-shaped in Bushland.
JWG, Frankie:
Who to believe? Fact Check or US military experts?
Face facts, Frankie–your boy avoided Vietnam by having his daddy pull strings for him. Yet, AWOL george couldn’t be bothered with fulfilling that commitment, either.
I’ll believe the official documents, thank you. That’s what FactCheck uses for its analysis and posts for everyone to see.
I ll believe the official documents, thank you.
That’s what the military experts did as well. And they’re posted for everyone to see as well.
My name isn’t Frankie, JadeGold.
If George Bush (who, BTW, is not “my boy” — inaccuracy #2) got out of going to Viet Nam by having his father pull strings, that is 1) Something that was no doubt done by all manner of politicians and influential people from Portland, ME to Portland, OR; and 2) Not so different from getting “your boy” Al Gore a cushy, extremely temporary rear -echelon non - combat job in Viet Nam; and not as bad as 3) Writing a tear - stained letter to the local Draft officer, as “your boy” William Jefferson Davis Clinton did.
And, as some of you might recall, if Clinton hadn’t done that, Bush’s military record wouldn’t have even been an issue.
Frankie: I’ll be the first to admit our last democratically-elected president dodged the draft. As did tens of thousands (maybe more) of young men in his era including Dick Cheney, George Will, etc.
As for Gore going to VN–he did and there’s no question he honored his military commitment. You can pretend that Gore’s service in VN was less than honorable–but to do so you’ll have to smear tens of thousands of VN vets who went to VN but did not see combat. You’ll also have to smear hundreds of thousands of servicemen who served during that time but didn’t go to VN.
But that’s a deflection.
Again, I don’t necessarily begrudge AWOL George seeking to avoid service in VN. But in avoiding VN, he should have honored the commitment he did make.
He didn’t.
JadeGold the Putz: My name is not Frankie: Never was, never will be.
Repetition does not tend toward truth; on the contrary, it tends towards lies.
Makes you wonder how the swift boat vets could support AWOL George who did not go to Nam and did not complete his military committment as a trained fighter pilot. All that training he received and he never put it to use.
>>The Clinton Haters hate him because he represented all they hate: a fun-loving baby boomer that co-opted much of their agenda and led us in peace and prosperity.
Clinton haters (99.9% of the right) also hated Clinton because he very uncomfortably reminded them of all of their own moral flaws.
Of course, now that Clinton is gone, rightfull attention is being paid to the right’s poster boys for immorality…William Bennett (gambling addiction) and Rush Limbaugh (drug addiction), to name a few. Bunch of hypocrytical fools.
One more thing. Frank, you’re boring, in a broken record kind of way (Another hallmark of dumb people.).
JK
>>Repetition does not tend toward truth; on the contrary, it tends towards lies
So, I guess that means that George W. Bush’s 23rd “pep rally war speech” in the last 12 months is a pack of lies? After all, it really hasn’t changed.
Frank…you’re remarkable (or, perhaps rather unremarkable) in your ability to set yourself up for continued ridicule.
From “Talking Point Frankie, ” to “Dig me Dudes.. I’m Dugger!” ….I am reinforced in my view that those of us on the left, if nothing else, are truly blessed not to be them.
JK
Maybe it is, JK, maybe it is…
Nut I’m not taking your word for it.
I don’t set myself up for continued ridicule. I am ridiculed by the ignorant, defending the indefensible.
Yes, you may be blessed, but for reasons far beyond your comprehension.
Just watched Mike Wallace and can’t beleive what I saw. It was 14 minutes into the puff-piece before Wallace asked a critical question. The rest of the show belonged to Freeh. The producers of this show should be forced to repeat Journalism 101.
Leo: Now you know how conservatives have felt watching TV news shows for the last 35 years.
I hope it becomes a pattern for the next 35 years. I can’t wait to post, “Bias? What bias?”
Frank;
You and yours seem to feel you are balanced on the precipice of a ‘revolution’.
A key element of revolution is revenge.
I hope 35 years is enough to quench your need for ‘catch-up’. It would seem you feel the first half of your life was wasted betting on the wrong horse. I hope if you get what you want, you can look back and say it was worth it.
Actually, Leo you are wromg on all thre counts
1) We are not “balanced on the precipice of a revolution”: We are in the second generation of a revolution that began in 1964.
2) A key element of revolution is not revenge. “Revolutions are born of hope.” The key element is a founding ideology, brought to to life by the next generation (see Crane Brinton)
3) I’ve hardly been betting on the wrong horse. I’ve voted for the winner in the Presidential Election since 1968, each time but 3.
What’s your record like?
Let’s see. The first winner in your revolution was….Richard M. Nixon.
Winning is real important to you isn’t it Frank? How far would you go to win?
You say you don’t stretch your principles. Semantics aside, what does that mean to you?
Don’t strain yourself. Here they are:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/10/08/partisanship-is-not-extremism/#comments
And, remember, I said would consider it.
I’m not here to answer your questions. Seriously, who do you think you are?
And, the first person to raise the issue of winning was you: “The first half of your life was wasted betting on the wrong horse”
Finally, the conservative revolution began when Goldwater when chosen to run 1964. You can be forgiven for knowing so little about conservatism. Very few liberals do. That’s why conservatives have won so many elections since 1968 (for the record 7 - 3).
If you look around the threads, you’ll see I’ve got some questions for you. If you answer those, I’ll consider answering yours.