WP reveals that WH propaganda includes pressuring Newspapers

[Pirate Smile]

"The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been --

THE PRESIDENT: We don't want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC about how we should actually word this. Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?

The Post: You used partial privatization.

THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

The Post: To describe it.

THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?

The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.

THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?

The Post: It was right around the election. We'll send it over.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm surprised. Maybe I did. It's amazing what happens when you're tired. Anyway, your question was? I'm sorry for interrupting."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12570-2005Jan15.html

What was that? "We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC about how we should actually word this."

WTF:wtf: Why the hell would the WP bother arguing with the Administration about the language they choose to use?

Did this ever happen with Clinton? I don't think so.

They start winning the issue when they get to frame the issue. Here we go again.
What is the most effective way to fight this? Ideas?

[jasmeel]

1. Must be nice to argue with the people you're supposed to

be reporting about in an unbiased manner. At least he stood up to Bush about the editorializing comment.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. They're letting the RNC frame the debate AND

have you ever noticed that they have a press clip for the RNC rep to speak for himself, but the media whore wraps up the other side in a curt summary: "Critics state that the administration policies will have the opposite effect..." They never allow our Congressmen or NAACP person to get equal face time.

[Union Thug]

2. Bush is a mealy mouthed, lying sack of bovine excrement...

Can you believe that dialogue? It's like trying to get an answer out of a 4 year old who stole cookies from the cookie jar. He's such a putz.

[Al-CIAda]

33. Yes, monkeyboy is sounding like Vinnie Bobarino.

http://tinyurl.com/6yok6
Supporting cast-
Kotter= American citizens
Washington= Powell
Ebstein= Gonzales
Horseshack= Wolfowitz

[Union Thug]

38. HA!!! Too funny! What? Where? Why? /eom

[Cats Against Frist]

3. I replied to this in another thread, and the reply went like this:

Now that's funny, because by all definitions of the word, Bush IS talking about privitizing social security -- the Post said HE even said it.

What Bush meant to say was not that the WP was editorializing, because they were using correct language, but that the interviewer wasn't using "the carefully crafted, deceptive pre-approved language of Bush administration propaganda."

That's fucking sick, when a Bozo like Resident Asshat is taking control of dictating what certain words can be used, in what ways, in the English language.

[bobweaver]

4. Demand that the WP start listing GWB as its editor.

[Dr Fate]

5. DEMs should be on TV saying "Bush paid the media to lie for him."

Swing voters would understand this.

[mattclearing]

11. That's actually probably libel.

Because the reality is that the Post donated to Bush's campaign, and it's not clear that Bush has paid to be interviewed by the Post.

Libel requires that the statement be demonstrably false, published, reflect poorly on the person concerned, and intentionally forwarded to damage that person.

Any dem that said what you are suggesting would likely be guilty of libel if they can't prove that the Post was bribed.

[Dr Fate]

15. Hell, that would be AWESOME if they sued us for telling the truth!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050107/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_journalist

Education Department Paid Journalist (AP) - AP - The Bush administration paid a prominent black journalist to promote President Bush's education law and give Education Secretary Rod Paige media time, records show.

It would force a discussion of the issue. Let the GOP/media sue DEMS for telling the truth about them- it will make them look defensive.

Fear of Libel did not stop the GOP/media from lying about Swiftboats or Clinton, so it should not stop us from telling the truth....

[mattclearing]

18. I was referring to the Post thing.

I'm not sure Armstrong Williams actually lied, as he has repeatedly said he believed in NCLB regardless of the bribery.

The sad thing about Armstrong Williams is that it is not that far off from common PR practices...most people have no idea how manipulative the PR business is.

[Dr Fate]

19. I was refering to the fact that "Bush pays the media to lie for him"...

...so we cant believe anything he says about anything-including social security."

If it was from Bush, there is a lie in there somewhere, dont worry about that part.

We need to stop comming up with excuses as to why we cant be frank & agressive and start kicking some ass.

As far as Armstrong goes- why did they have to bribe him if was telling the truth? Since when do you bribe folks to tell the truth?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

22. Still Armstrong took money to promote it.

[Dr Fate]

36. Thats right- "Why does he need bribe money to tell the truth?"

"Somthing is awfully dishonest about this monkey business of paying the media..."

Thats what I would say if I were on TV making an issue of Bush/media's credibility.

[snippy]

42. He criticized NCLB before he went on the payroll. n/t

[Clark2008]

23. It's not libel if you say,

"The Bush Administration has paid many in the media to lie for them."

For two reasons:
1.) We know they paid Armstrong Williams and he says "there are many others." It would be up to the Bush Administration to prove this statement isn't accurate - but, first they would have to file the lawsuit and,
2.) How can you libel an entitey? "The media" may be made up of people, but it's not people. And, despite the fact that most are owned by whoring corporations, it isn't a corporation (corporations are treated as "people" under the law. Stupid, I know, but the are). It's not a physical being.

[atre]

31. Actually, you're very right

Hornbook tort law says that the greater the target group you're allegedly "defaming," the greater the chance that a court will find there is no actionable defamation. IIRC, courts have refused to find actionable defamation for target groups of anything greater than 25, although there is no hard and fast rule in that regard. Certainly deriding groups as expansive as "the media" or "the Bush Administration" can't give rise to a cause of action.

But, as I indicate below, you don't even get to that issue because the statement is a matter of public concern directed at public officials and figures. New York Times v. Sullivan governs.

[SemperEadem]

26. He wouldn't win

* would have to prove actual malice because he's a public figure. Besides, it's the truth and that's neither slanderous nor is it libelous.

* sits behind the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity" (U.S. Citizens do not have the right to hold a sitting President accountable for anything), so he feels he can pretty much say/do anything he damn well pleases because, well, what are we all gonna do about it? Sue him?

[atre]

32. Actually, he's a public "official," although the same rule applies

There actually is a difference, although it's more phraseology than substantive.

[atre]

30. Wrong...

When you have a statement referring to a public figure as to a matter of public concern, the plaintiff alleging libel must prove "actual malice," "knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to truth or falsity." Read the seminal case New York Times v. Sullivan, which applied the First Amendment to states' defamation laws.

That statement would NOT be defamatory.

[snippy]

41. Excellent idea. This should be repeated as often as possible.

BUSH PAID THE MEDIA TO LIE FOR HIM

[bobweaver]

6. It's obvious the Bushies have decided to ban the word "privatization"

[Pirate Smile]

7. The Democrats should make sure they use "privatization" every time they

speak - multiple times, over and over again.

[crispini]

10. LOL, Pirate.

Twins! :toast:

[crispini]

8. Which means WE should use it as much as possible.

Also with the REAL editorializing variant which I prefer, "pirateization." heh heh heh.

[Pirate Smile]

9. Oohhh - that's nice! You're good!

:evilgrin:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. Administration about the language they choose to use?

time I saw anything like that it was about "is".

Alice In Chains, Jar of Flies.....

[fooj]

13. What an embarrassment to this country...

not to mention an ABSOLUTE liar!

[Cocoa]

14. Rummy argued with reporters about saying "quagmire"

he basically threatened them, said something about "consequences" for people that used that word.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. I think a LTTE at least would be appropriate to ask the WP, " WTF?"

in a more diplomatic way of course.

This is something I think some of the hosts at Air America Radio might be interested in.

From the quoted comments in the transcript, it gives the impression that the WP is willing to debate with the RNC about their editorial policies and it gives the impression that the WP is willing to be swayed by the RNC in their editorial policy, i.e. their use of English and the resultant tone of a story.

It's a damn short ride from there to the RNC dictating what stories are or aren't published in the WP and the WP becoming a de facto branch of the RNC.

[bush_is_wacko]

20. Just a request that you place a link for this post on the 2004 election

forum. I think they might enjoy this one!

[Pirate Smile]

21. OK - good idea!

:)

[bleever]

24. Thanks, PS. Really important find there, thanks for linking to the

2004 Election Forum.

:)

[TrueAmerican]

25. Has that part been scrubbed?

I can't find it.

[Pirate Smile]

29. It is still there - bottom of page 3 to top of page 4.

[Rose Siding]

27. "The Articles of Confederation were a bumpy period of time"

Sorry- OT, but I skimmed the interview.

...Witness our own history. We weren't -- we certainly were not the perfect democracy and are yet the perfect democracy. Ours is a constitution that said every man -- a system that said every man was equal, but in fact, every man wasn't equal for a long period of time in our history. The Articles of Confederation were a bumpy period of time. And my only point is, is that I am realistic about how quickly a society that has been dominated by a tyrant can become a democracy. And therefore, I am more patient than some, but also mindful that we've got to get the Iraqis up and running as quickly as possible, so they can defeat these terrorists.

Most of the time, it's hard to believe he's president. What a dope.

[kentuck]

28. Bush has them by the balls and....

they are begging for mercy.

[robbedvoter]

34. Nice catch. He was tired so he let the cat out of the bag....

[robbedvoter]

35. Perfect companion piece from Fiore

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/truth.html
as to fighting this - for starters - send it to Media matters.

[Supersedeas]

37. b/c truth is not enough...we have to run the spin by the RNC

[John_H]

39. Even worse: the Preznit said "privitization" 3 times before the election

and it got zero play in the MSM.

[KittyWampus]

40. Nice Catch. The GOP KNOWS We Don't Want Privatization & That's

why they refuse to use the term.

And that is a great soundbite.

[Pirate Smile]

43. kick

[eg101]

44. would the Post be just as accomodating to Kerry? Yes, they would

The elite media always cozies up to power.

[patcox2]

45. "Amazing what happens when your tired" Sure is amazing.

Fopr Bush, apparently, when he is tired and loses it, he sometimes makes a mistake and tells the truth.