Elisabeth Bumiller: Rove will not be indicted

[Stevendsmith]

She said it on The Chris Matthews Show. She said it won't happen Monday, or in two weeks, or ever. She said he will receive a "declination" -- which I assume to be a formal exoneration.

I think she's talking out of her ass.

[tridim]

1. Did she use the word "unfazed" by chance? nt

[MissWaverly]

16. wait a minute, didn't we just hear that Armitage

was "snuck" into the court by an aide of Fitzgerald on Friday and it is said that he is
testifying against Rove so how will Rove not be indicted.

[movonne]

20. Who is Elizabeth Bumiller??

[TomInTib]

21. She is georgie's official apologist at NYTimes

Official Streetwalker (with apologies to streetwalkers everywhere).

[ruggerson]

24. You know you shouldn't talk of that you do not know

She detests Bush.

[Southsideirish]

29. How do you know?

[TomInTib]

32. She is the worst thing going.

Her kiss-up articles on the idiot are nauseating.

[TomInTib]

30. WHAT????

Bumiller is georgie and pickle's lap bi**h.

Do you subscribe to the Times?

We do, and I can look at the headlines and identify her columns. I have been reading her claptrap for several years now.

You, ruggerson, are the one speaking without foreknowledge.

She is the worst.

Every article she writes is a personal kiss-up to bush.

I will gladly give you my NYTimes username and password so you can check the whore's archives.

But first, we make a large wager.

[ruggerson]

35. I've read the Times every single day since I was a kid

and work with people who are close friends of hers.

You do not know what you are talking about.

[TomInTib]

38. If that's the case, then she is a hypocrite.

If she has been spending the last few years fluffing the fool while actually detesting the boy, then she is a hypocrite - the lowest of the low.

I would like to test the strength of your conviction(s).

Wait until Monday and make a post on DU.

Title it "In Defense of Elizabeth Bumiller" and line out your beliefs on this subject.

Deal?

I may be wrong and you may be right. I have never met her, but I have read crap from her that made me ill.

I have NEVER read one article from her deriding/criticizing georgie. Maybe you can dig one up for me.

In the meantime, I will look forward to your "In Defense of.." post on Monday.

Thank you.

[ruggerson]

40. You're the one with the heated convictions

I don't give a rat's ass about Elisabeth Bumiller. I just wanted to correct a factual inaccuracy that you posted and that I know not to be true.

My point remains: many at DU seem to lionize "news reporters" who talk out of their ass, as long as the story is something that makes us all feel good: Bush is going insane and is drinking again; Karl Rove has been indicted, etc. They also tend to demonize the writer of a report that say something we don't want to hear: Karl Rove may not be indicted. Bush's speech was well received, etc.

This is truly moronic behaviour. Professional journalism is all about finding an objective balance and reporting facts, not opinion mongering. I imagine, if Bumiller is demonized by rightwingers for being too liberal and by some of you for being to accomodative to Bush, then she's probably journalistically right about where she should be.

[emcguffie]

45. I must say --

-- I do not know E. Bumiller, but I did give up my subscription to the NY TImes partly based on her inane writing.

It may be that she has a brain, is capable of critical thinking, and the NY Times powers-that-be shut all that down and force her to sound like a Bush-loving suck-face. I do not know. What I do know is that I stopped reading that paper, partly because of Ms. Bumiller. If I have spelled her name correctly. If not, I beg pardon.

[TomInTib]

46. OK, what 'factual innacuracy'?

You have really piqued my curiosity.

I need some factual accuracy.

I am not being facetious - maybe I have missed something.

Not lionizing or demonizing anyone, I just believe one should be judged on their particular body of work.

Can you (please) enlighten me with just ONE article of Bumiller's showing anything but the forever shiny, effervescent, introspective side of George W Bush?

I, too, have little patience with knee-jerk, hubristic (is that a word?) responses to singular pieces on one side or another.

But Ms Bumiller has a track record (on george, anyway) that smells like a sewer.

[ruggerson]

51. That she's an apologist for Bush

If you meant by that you think she doesn't journalistically write pieces that would be at home at "Truthout.org", then I imagine you would be correct. She is a professioinal journalist after all.

If you meant that she personally approves of this President and her writing reflects that, then you are factually incorrect.

[ourbluenation]

50. I agree with you 100%. re: journalism ruggerson. and EB is no

* apologist.

I didn't see the Chris Matthews show today - I wonder if this was the "tell me something I don't know" segement.

[slor]

94. I will not dispute what you have heard...

but I have seen her on tweety's show, and she went ballistic on Katty Kay (I think that is her name) regarding the "I do not read newspapers" statement by bush. I do not need to point out, that bum-miller was defending the chimp, against his own words.

[ruggerson]

96. I am sure there are times she comes across to

people who dislike Bush as if she was defending him. Just as I'm sure there are times when she comes across to sycophants who love Bush as if she is attacking him.

Read the links I've provided above.

Here's yet another take from below:

http://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/northwestern/summer2005/features/bumiller/index.htm

"Famously Bumiller took a critical eye toward the now-notorious "Mission Accomplished" speech President Bush delivered on the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Two months after sending troops into Baghdad, the president donned a flight suit and flew in a U.S. Navy S-3B Viking onto the Lincoln beneath a banner that read "Mission Accomplished," to announce the U.S. victory in Iraq.

On the carrier before the Lincoln's cheering crew the president said: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

The next week Bumiller portrayed a different picture in a front-page story on the speech. She wrote: "George W. Bush's Top Gun landing on the deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln will be remembered as one of the most audacious moments of presidential theater in American history."

In the story Bumiller explored the efforts of the president's staff to positively influence the media and the public with carefully planned press events. She reported how at one event White House staff used masking tape to conceal "Made in China " imprints on boxes to promote American patriotism.

This type of reporting, Bumiller says, sometimes causes waves between the New York Times and the White House. However, Bumiller refuses to relent. "It's a contentious relationship," she says. "Our intentions are not the same here, and this administration is especially hard to crack."

[dogday]

59. I never even knew who she was

until this post but after reading both sides, I decided to google her and read up... I found an article on her at Alternet.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20532

scroll down half the page to read the article.. I am afraid it is not a good piece on her...


"A post-mortem of election post-mortems reveals the winner of the prize for worst campaign journalist of 2004."

[Canuckistanian]

36. Honest mistake

You must have confused the word "detest" with the phrase "wants to have his baby".

Go here:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/

And search "Bumiller"

[ruggerson]

37. Nah, just calling it like it is

There are infinite amounts of rightwingers who SCREAM that her reporting is nothing but leftwing, liberal bias. Here are just a couple of links to prove my point:

http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/227

http://www.timeswatch.org/topicindex/B/bumiller_elisabeth/welcome.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/beltway/058415.html


And if some on here think the opposite: that her reporting is too deferential to Bush, then she probably, journalistically, is doing it about right.

[Canuckistanian]

42. Well, I looked through all 3 links..

And I can say that she's not at all a total Bushbot, but neither do I see any of this detestation of Shrub.

What I see is more or less honest reporting, more of a detached view, simply pointing out the fact that there's a lot of dissent in the country.

Mind you, that's enough to get you banned for life on a RW blog or news site.

But I don't equate this with a genuine dislike for the man or even serious criticism of his policies, aside from the (recent) immigration debacle.

And by far, in the long run, she's been a cheerleader for war and for her man Shrub.

I pray you read this link to get the real picture of her in the past:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh040504.shtml

She may have changed recently, but she has a lot to answer for in the past.

[ruggerson]

44. Um, that was my point

The fact that I relayed was about her PERSONAL feelings. As far as I can tell, her REPORTING plays it without any ideological baggage. I would not expect her to let her personal feelings influence her reporting. Which is exactly as it should be.

As I wrote above, if there are rightwingers who despise her and leftwingers who think she's a Bushbot, she's probably being pretty darn fair.

[Canuckistanian]

49. Fair enough

But my observances of her on almost any talk show is that of an apologist and downright slanderer of real critics of the Shrubbolini.

And beyond him, I have major issues with the part she played in the 1999 smearing of Gore.

THAT was clearly beyond the pale.

[ruggerson]

52. And, btw, I hope she's dead wrong

and that Rove is indicted sooner rather than later.

But I would also hope that real reporters would give us FACTS as quickly as they can responsibly ascertain them to be true, without regard as to whether or not those facts make us rejoice or depress us.

[yardwork]

74. How do you know her personal feelings?

Unless you are Elizabeth Bumiller yourself, I don't see how you can be sure of her personal feelings. Perhaps she is a close friend of yours, and she has told you that she detests Bush. However, I've read her articles for years and I must say that they are usually puff pieces about how wonderful GWB is - or at the very least how misunderstood he is. Her recent article about how he "really cares" about immigrants was a good example.

I don't agree with your premise that "in the middle" is the right place to be, or the fact that the rightwing accuses Bumiller of leftwing bias proves anything. The rightwing does that all the time, often as a cover.

[TomInTib]

39. Hey, Canuckistanian...

see my post #38 (right above yours).

'She hate him'.

Jeebus X.

[Canuckistanian]

43. Yeah, I know

Should be interesting on Monday.....

[BlueManDude]

48. funny way of showing it n/t

[KoKo]

62. It wasn't Bumiller according to post down below. It was Kathleen Parker..

:shrug:

[spindrifter]

2. Did she have any "facts" to

back her assertions?

[Stevendsmith]

5. Nope. It was during the "Tell me something I don't know" segment.

She seemed to be gloating, and remarked that she knew that many, many people would be disappointed.

[The Straight Story]

56. Sure she did - she checked it out with truthout :) (nt)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

3. I hope so. Bad part, if he is "exonerated" we will never know

how and why.

[DancingBear]

4. "I think she's talking out of her ass"

Well, thankfully nobody on our side goes off half-cocked making inditement statements.

Boy, wouldn't THAT be a mess.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. Imagine.............

Why, what if people just made things up and treated them as if they had really happened!

Or, better yet, what if people got all bent out of shape about things that were SUPPOSED to happen, but didn't, and then the people, left high and dry, said, "Oh, wait, it'll happen."

Where's Godot when you need him? Bastard is so unreliable.

Imagine. People making up things and acting as if they were facts.

Boy, wouldn't that be WEIRD?

[BlooInBloo]

8. And what if 1000s of people believed in it? Without ANY evidence?

That would be some fucked up shit, man.

[otohara]

11. Boy Howdy - The Librul Media

pundits, like Matthews, Klein, Friedman, Brooks, Roberts (cookie), Blitzer, Paula, Russert, Snow Job, forget about the "wild accusations" they've made over the past 14 years.




One need only look at the "shit they pull out of their asses" on Media Matters and for a walk down memory lane, there's this.
http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html

[OldLeftieLawyer]

22. Without a shred of accountability,

without ever having to apologize, to admit they were wrong, to bow out with grace for having fucked up so badly.

Nope.

They just go on to the next thing, and keep collecting paychecks.

AND PEOPLE KEEP LISTENING TO THEM AND BELIEVING THEM!

That last one is the one I really do not understand.

[LA lady]

7. on Saturday??

I didn't even know it came on saturday

[Stevendsmith]

9. I wasn't Hardball. It was "The Chris Matthews Show."

Don't watch it if you anger easily.

[Stevendsmith]

10. Oh, jeez, it was Elisabeth Bumiller (n/t)

[Halliburton]

12. what evidence did she cite

who has she talked to?

[Semblance]

13. Meaningless

That show is worthless, and the stupid "predictions" they make are extra worthless. They just try to say outrageous things to get attention. There is no discussion of the substance.

[meisje]

14. No less credible than Truth Out at this point

[CatWoman]

15. and even less credible than The National Review

and The Spectator.

I've never read anything written by this woman that didn't reek of cheap monkey love.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

33. "Cheap monkey love!"

[Stevendsmith]

17. She cited no evidence. The statement took all of ten seconds. (n/t)

[Halliburton]

18. well then she's no more accurate than leopold

she's such a media whore.

[demobabe]

53. Bingo

Until someone shows some proof or gets an official quote from someone who would really know (say, Fitz), all of this is speculation. However, she took the safer route in that she is correct until Rove actually gets indicted. Had she come out and said that Rove already received that exoneration letter, NOW THAT would be a different story.

[Mr_Spock]

19. Oh good! Looks like his chances of being indicted just went up!

This indictment follows "opposite day" rules :D

[Missy Vixen]

23. And she knows this how?

EVERY attorney that I have heard in the mainstream press and those who post on such well-regarded blogs as firedoglake and TalkLeft (both of which feature attorneys as the main writers,) have ALL said that Rove's fifth trip to the grand jury was for no other reason than to keep his ass from being indicted. It evidently wasn't successful, or again, it would have been announced long before now. The fact that Rove is widely acknowledged to be "Official A" in Patrick Fitzgerald's filings, (and the fact that every damn one of his filings that's featured an "Official A" also saw that person indicted as well,) maybe Ms. Bumiller has been taking lessons from Steno Sue on GOP talking points.

Question: What other reason was Rove essentially demoted for? Do you honestly think he was asked to step aside because he's NOT in serious legal jeopardy? * can't function without Rove's hand moving the levers in his back, can he?

If Rove was going to be exonerated -- and this has been repeatedly stated -- he would have been LONG before now.

Elisabeth Bumiller has no more credibility than any other pundit commenting on this matter, and probably has NO solid facts, either.

Julie

[ruggerson]

25. Why when we agree with something, is it credible

and when we disagree, the source is suddenly an idiot.

One would hope that there would be some adults here who wouldn't base their observations on what they desperately wish to happen.

[Semblance]

27. No

Bumiller is an idiot and we've known that for years. Nothing new there.

This is not news. The reporters on that show get a few seconds at the end to say something shocking.

[ruggerson]

28. I didn't see it, so I'm not commenting on whether it's credible or not

I'm commenting on the tendency on DU to praise and fawn over fictitious "news" stories when they report something we hope will happen and denigrate stories that do the opposite.

That's childish and asinine.

[yardwork]

75. Um actually, you made very strong statements above

You stated that Bumiller "despises" Bush. I don't know why this thread got highjacked into (yet another) discussion of Truthout, but let's not engage in bait-and-switch.

I have not posted about the Truthout issue and don't plan on it. I do, however, have an informed opinion about Bumiller's writing and obvious bias toward GWB.

[ruggerson]

83. And she does

And what does that have to do with the fact that I commented that I did not see the Matthews show in question and therefore did not want to pass judgement on the specifics of what I did not see with my own eyes?

It turns out, it wasn't even her, which makes this entire thread pretty "Alice Through The Looking Glass."

[Cocoa]

66. Bumiller is NOT credible on Bush

she's a total Bush whore.

[Snivi Yllom]

26. put me on Chris Matthews

I could spew the same bullshit she, TO and Will Pitt sprayed.

And I would be just as useful if I told them, Rove will be abducted by UFOs.

[treestar]

31. Whoever the hell she is, she cannot possibly know that he will

never, ever be indicted. Because he could be.

[Catherine Vincent]

34. If she feels so sure about that, then she should write an article.

Put it in writing.

[Patsy Stone]

41. Well, then it's settled.

I mean, if she said it... :eyes:

[dweller]

47. a 'declination'? .. oh my

is that like being neutered?

or was she reading his star chart, and predicting his distance from the equator?

nah, most likely the most common meaning of the word: he's going down .......

dp

[grasswire]

54. Mr. Bumiller was George's classmate at Yale

There's a tie existing, for whatever that's worth. They go to the same parties.

[Peace Patriot]

55. The known facts of the case point strongly to Rove perjury (at least), so,

if he is NOT indicted--or if an existing sealed indictment is never used--it is likely because the "aspens" have settled on a designated fall guy. Could be Libby (Rove ratting him out on the main crime), although I tend to doubt that Fitzgerald would settle for lateral finger-pointing in the junta power structure. Could be Cheney (he of the 15% approval rating), so they can stick Ms. Mushroom Cloud in as v-p, for the war profiteering corporate news monopolies to fawn over for the next two years, to prep her for becoming Chevron's Diebolded-into-the-White House's president. Cheney would then fake his own death and disappear to some fortified island in the South Pacific (likely built with OUR money), and that would be that. Don't think they haven't been planning for this.

Can Fitzgerald penetrate this wall of lies, deception, horrid evil-doing and war profiteering corporate news monopoly narrative-writing? Possibly. If anybody can, he can (is my impression of him). I'd say we know about 1% of what HE knows about this gang. I DO think Traitorgate is a coverup for something else, something(s) much worse. (I also think Rumsfeld is the ultimate mastermind of the knowns and the unknowns of Traitorgate.)

I was fascinated to hear Bill Clinton speaking to Tulane grads on my c-span car radio today, saying how he loved Bush. I didn't catch all of it. He might've been referring to Daddy Bush, who is on some sort of private fund commission re: New Orleans, with Clinton. And I noticed that it was Clinton and Daddy Bush who came out and somewhat weirdly stood behind Jr. at a press thing during Katrina (in the first days, when Rove was apparently on strike, and everybody seemed to have abandoned Jr.--who was out there in public getting caught on camera eating cake, while poor blacks died of dehydration and drowning in N.O.). Anyway, I thought, whoa, somethin' goin' down--and I think it was Traitorgate, which was lurking way in the background of Katrina, but may have been A BIG DEAL behind the scenes. Like a coup or something. I dunno. I'm thinking the Clintons may have made a deal with the Dark Lords. And you know what? I loved hearing Bill! (--at Tulane). He was talking about hopes and dreams, and quoting De Toqueville and what-all. For all my suspicions and huge policy differences, I have to admit he made me feel like I was in safe hands. Like SOMEBODY was in charge. And, if not in direct charge, at least keeping an eye on these whacko, mass murdering, thieving democracy-wreckers. Could it be that Bill Clinton has managed to "get to" Bush (Jr)--during some big Traitorgate crisis* at the White House --and is somehow holding the Republic together with sheer charm?

----

*(I'm thinking the "aspens" telling Cheney go to his island now, he's history. If this is the plan--Rove giving up Cheney--then of course this would explain why Rove may not be indicted, or his indictment unsealed. It would also explain why Jason Leopold's sources THOUGHT he was going to be. They would have to lay out some sort of schematic that he was pressured and in legal jeopardy. If it was a sting (of Leopold), it sure had Rove written all over it--"seeding" the info around, untraceable to its source, so that somebody picks up on it, hopefully a leftie blogger eager for a scoop.)

[Catrina]

82. Excellent post Peacepatriot ~ especially your last paragraph ~

From the beginning (long before Leopold's article) people were worried that if Rove ever came close to indictment, Bush would not let him go ~ and being the malevolent little troll Rove is, I can imagine him (and Bush) laughing at the anticipated disappointment of those who eagerly awaiting his downfall. An added bonus to the 'off the hook' celebrations would be to let all of us think he's finally going to be indicted, and I can also imagine them utilizing their Plame plan once again, to mislead some eager, ambitious 'leftie' reporter while sitting back and watching the fallout to the blogosphere. Two birds with one stone ~

I hope this is not the case, but it could be, and many people raised that possibility after reading about his imminent indictment. This could be why the MSM, who do appear to have known something, decided to hold back. They are getting used to Rove's tricks by now, I would imagine, and I'm sure this scenario occurred to the more intelligent amongst them. After all, this is what his father did.

[Halliburton]

57. it was actually kathleen parker

some right-wing hackjob from the orlando sentinel.

[ruggerson]

60. It wasn't even Elisabeth Bumiller?

ROFL

[seaglass]

63. Now THAT is funny. It runs late here in Boston and I'm

watching it now. I was wondering where Bumiller was hiding.:rofl:

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

58. the "tell me something i don't know" segment could be a miniseries

in tweety's case.

[spanone]

61. ...and she knows this how???? Wishful thinking.

[Gabi Hayes]

64. pretty funny...a true RW ideologue, mistaken for a "journalist"....

lots of good stuff here, including links to Wimblehack, Matt Taibbi's seminal deconstruct of the awful awful reporting during the 04 election fiasco

http://www.tatteredcoat.com/archives/2005/02/20/beware-bumiller-bylines/

It never fails: I notice a headline in the New York Times that seems strikingly pro-Bush, one that appears to accept at face-value whatever dreck Karl Rove has decreed will be fed to the news media. The article that follows presents Bush, and those around him, in the best-possible light. It treats him as a celebrity, and reports, in the kind of breathless asides that usually appear in gossip columns, King George’s slightest whims and preferences.

After a while, I have begun to notice something–all of these articles have one line in common:

by Elisabeth Bumiller

You might remember Bumiller’s name from an earlier post. Bumiller won the NY Press’ Wimblehack competition, which crowned her as the country’s worst campaign reporter.

Among her many missteps, as Matt Taibbi noted, she kindly gave an “off-the-record spokesmen a chance to allow Bush to split the difference on the gay-marriage issue” in this passage:

''When President George W. Bush announced his support last week for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, his body language in the Roosevelt Room did not seem to match his words. Bush may have forcefully defended the union of a man and a woman as “the most fundamental institution of civilization,” but even some White House officials said he appeared uncomfortable.''

Wimblehack
http://www.nypress.com/17/40/news&columns/feature.cfm

why she won
http://nypress.com/17/46/news&columns/taibbi.cfm
try the cache
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:IaZOpizF7JsJ:www.nypress.com/17/46/news%26columns/taibbi.cfm+matt+taibbi+elisabeth+bumiller&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

[Gabi Hayes]

65. from the Wimblehack winner section:

One trademark of President Bush's first term was his aversion to news conferences, which his staff says he often treated like trips to the dentist. So on the morning after Mr. Bush's re-election, Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, was taken aback when the president told him he was ready to hold a news conference that Mr. Bartlett had suggested, win or lose, the week before.

"I didn't have to convince him or anything," Mr. Bartlett said. "Without me prompting him, he brought it up."

It was a small but telling change for a president whose re-election has already had a powerful effect on his psyche, his friends and advisers say.

This habit of taking at face value the unconfirmable assertions about the personal feelings of officials—assertions hand-delivered to the journalist by a paid mouthpiece whose very job is to deadpan preposterous pieces of mythmaking to the media—is nothing new to most political reporters. But almost no one consumes this stuff more eagerly than Bumiller.


................


but go ahead, defend her all you like

[ruggerson]

67. If you read the links provided upthread

you will see that conversely many rightwingers think that she is a hardcore lefty.

This entire thread is laughable. It apparently wasn't even Bumiller on Matthew's show. If that is true, the OP doesn't even relate the basic facts correctly.

Whether Bumiller does "fluff" or not was not the discussion. It was whether she is a Bush apologist or "rightwing hack" as you assert.

You are factually incorrect. The woman is not a rightwinger.

[Gabi Hayes]

68. your postings are laughable! hahahahahaha! see?

whether she's a right winger herself is immaterial

what she writes is demonstrably slanted toward the junta

examples of such writing are amply provided

that you choose to ignore them is your problem, and your connection to Bumiller via your swell pals at the NYT makes your assertions suspect

you provide nothing but your own second hand "knowledge" of Bumiller's personal beliefs, which, again, mean nothing, when weighed against the concrete evidence of her own outupt

and your silly reliance on right wing claims of Bumiller's alleged left leanings are just another example of pushing the clearly ridiculous RW tactic of saying ANYTHING issuing from the NYT is just more liberal spewing

it's hard to take that sort of posturing seriously

funny stuff, though

thanks!

[ruggerson]

69. If you call someone a "rightwing hack"

and then turn around in your very next post and backtrack and say "whether she's a rightwinger herself is immaterial," I don't know that we have any common ground for having a rational discussion.

Your post relied on links from leftwing sites. And then you turn around and try to discredit the opposing links as being ideologically motivated.

The salient point is that both leftwingers and rightwingers criticize her as being unfair to their side. And the larger point remains. News is not about advocacy. A distinction some folks on here have a great deal of trouble with.

Glad you're amused by yourself.

[Gabi Hayes]

71. when you show me where I call her a rightwing hack, I'll bother

to respond to your increasingly lame assertions. but, then, you can't, cause I didn't, so you have even less credibility than before, which isn't saying much.

more on your cred.....the New York Press is a CONSERVATIVE alternative to the Village Voice. guess you didn't know that, did you. another credibility hit.

here's a thought.....there's all this linkage to Bumiller's own material, supporting the assertions of posters here. why don't you try to provide some examples of Bush bashing that you so slavishly maintain is a hallmark of her writing

this should be fun

[ruggerson]

72. Well you've edited your post

For now, at least, you've left up "rightwing ideologue." So let's go with that. A post or two later you say that whether she is a rightwinger herself or not is immaterial.

So, which is it? If it's immaterial that she is a "rightwing ideologue", why did you put it in your subject line?

Your very premise (that she is a rightwing ideologue) is conjecture on your part and happens to be factually incorrect.

Whether you have a hard on for her fluff pieces on the personalities of various rightwingers in the administration is irrelevant and is just flailing on your part to try to misdirect attention from your factual inaccuracies.

[ruggerson]

76. Oh, and btw

is tatteredcoat.com another "conservative" site? Or a non partisan site?

[Gabi Hayes]

78. nice try.

and don't accuse me of editing out things that weren't there in the first place. If I called her a right wing hack, I'd be happy to admit it, but I DIDN'T.

I'm telling you I didn't call her a right wing hack. NEITHER did I call her a right wing ideologue

you're disingenuous to the point of not being worth responded to

and I notice that you haven't come up with any instances of her going after Bush.

why don't you start there? perhaps you'll achieve a slight bit of credibility here.

why are you here, anyway, btw?

why do you defend the indefensible?

so long, EC

better things to do

[ruggerson]

84. Again, there are links upthread

Which other folks have read and come to the conclusion that she is fairly even handed. Read the links.

There are some partisans on both the left and the right who will accuse a journalist of being biased, simply because she/he doesn't parrot THEIR partisan views about the subject.

You hate what Bush has done to this country, I presume. So do I. But it's NOT HER JOB to play a one sided Bush critic on the pages of the NY Times. That's not her job description. And just because she doesn't parrot YOUR sentiments in print, doesn't mean she isn't doing her job.

"Why are you here, anyway?"

Ah, yet another spurious personal attack. You belong at DU, but others don't who disagree with your subjective point of view about Elisabeth Bumiller.

Makes sense to me.


:crazy:

[Gabi Hayes]

85. you can stop wasting everybody's time with your BS

it's so transparent

EC

[ruggerson]

87. Ah, yet more wisdom and rational, coherent thought n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

90. as I said

EC

buh bye

[ruggerson]

91. Späterer alligator n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

70. I do want to thank you, though, for reminding me to reread Taibbi.

he's always entertaining, especially when he writes about his favorite of all favorite hacks:

''In this particular, article Bumiller uses a technique that my research indicates is peculiar to her alone. In this passage, she actually swallows an apocryphal story from one aide about another apocryphal story about a different aide's apocryphal relationship to the president. This is Bumiller, reporting from the unseen alien planet New Hampshire, quoting Karen Hughes telling a story about Karl Rove talking to George Bush:

Other times Mr. Rove likes to playfully withhold news of recent polls from the president. "He'll smile and say, 'I'm not going to tell you about the latest numbers,' but he'll have a big smile on his face," Ms. Hughes said.''

yeah, those wingut pals of yours sure have a lot to complain about....all that nasty, far-left hatcheting she does against Bush

[ruggerson]

73. "Wingnut pals"

Ahhh Yes. The old standby. If you're losing a debate on the facts, start slinging personal mud and even better, try to link your adversary to bad people, subliminally attempting to smear him. Kinda Rovian, ain't it?

[Gabi Hayes]

81. your game has become obvious, and tiresome

kiss my monkey

buh bye

what did I edit out of this one, liebchen?

[ruggerson]

86. Probably a profanity

which you then realized would make you look even more foolish. Just a guess.

Happy trails!

[Gabi Hayes]

89. well, if that don't take it all!

once again, you reveal your utter ignorance

too funny

too funny for words, liebchen

raust mitten sie!

[Catrina]

79. Rightwingers think CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NYT, et al are 'liberal' media

To say that the rightwing doesn't think she is 'right enough' means nothing. Fox and Rush is their standard of 'fair reporting' and they are even upset with Fox when they don't outright condemn anyone, even Moderate Repubs if they don't spew the party line.

Truth is not what the people you are speaking of care about, if a reporter hasn't openly taken an oath of loyalty to the regime, to the rabid right, they are 'liberals' ~

But what the right doesn't understand is that there have to be a few plants in the propaganda machine to fool the less rabid among us. They're not in on that little 'tactic'. A few of them have been outed to those who pay attention. Judy Miller comes to mind, but she's by far, not the only one.

So forget about the argument that 'even the right' criticizes her. They're supposed to, that way we can say 'but she can't be a bushbot, even the right criticizes her' ~ let's not fall for that long over-worked, and old defense of the treasonous collaborators we are supposed to rely on for 'news'.

As for the prediction that Rove has been 'exonerated' or whatever the word was, just read what Bush Sr. did with all the criminals, both indicted and convicted who could have nailed him for his role in Iran/Contra, and I am perfectly willing to believe that Rove was either very close to being indicted, or actually was and that Bush pardoned him thereby 'throwing more dirt' in the Umpire's face.

And no, I have no sources, I'm not a 'reporter' so that's just my opinion having taken the trouble to study this cabal over the past two years or so. They couldn't function without their collaborators in the press ~ so she may be right. I bet she has way more access than any honest reporter, after all.

Grasswire in a post above, says that the woman in question, Bumiller (if she was the reporter on CM's show) is married to an old classmate of Bush at Yale. Maybe he's a Skull and Boner also.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[midnight]

77. At least the media is saying the words Rove

and indictment. Leopold's story might have caused a discussion that may have never happened.

[Stevendsmith]

88. It was not Bumiller. Please see my correction in the thread linked below.

http://tinyurl.com/n8wkj

[Gabi Hayes]

92. watch out! this is from a 'left winger,' so it must NOT be true!

The Assault on the Media
EJ Dionne

I write about it now because of the new reports and because I fear that too many people in traditional journalism are becoming dangerously defensive in the face of a brilliantly conceived conservative attack on the independent media.

Conservative academics have long attacked "postmodernist" philosophies for questioning whether "truth" exists at all and claiming that what we take as "truths" are merely "narratives" woven around some ideological predisposition. Today's conservative activists have become the new postmodernists. They shift attention away from the truth or falsity of specific facts and allegations -- and move the discussion to the motives of the journalists and media organizations putting them forward. Just a modest number of failures can be used to discredit an entire enterprise.

Of course journalists make mistakes, sometimes stupid ones. Dan Rather should not have used those wacky documents in reporting on President Bush's Air National Guard service. Newsweek has been admirably self-critical about what it sees as its own mistakes on the Guantanamo story. Anonymous sources are overused. Why quote a nameless conservative saying a particular columnist is "an idiot liberal" when many loyal right-wingers could be found to say the same thing even more colorfully on the record? If the current controversies lead to better journalism, three cheers.

But this particular anti-press campaign is not about Journalism 101. It is about Power 101. It is a sophisticated effort to demolish the idea of a press independent of political parties by way of discouraging scrutiny of conservative politicians in power.By using bad documents, Dan Rather helped Bush, not John Kerry, because Rather gave Bush's skilled lieutenants the chance to use the CBS mistake to close off an entire line of inquiry about the president. In the case of Guantanamo, the administration, for a while, cast its actions as less important than Newsweek's.

the rest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/26/AR2005052601538.html

[savemefromdumbya]

93. that's what a few web sites have now, 'declination'

no doubt the fascist thugs are rounding on Fitz?

[ruggerson]

95. Yet Another Bumiller Take

Yep. Sounds like a hardcore Bushbot to me.

http://www.northwestern.edu/magazine/northwestern/summer2005/features/bumiller/index.htm



Most famously Bumiller took a critical eye toward the now-notorious "Mission Accomplished" speech President Bush delivered on the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Two months after sending troops into Baghdad, the president donned a flight suit and flew in a U.S. Navy S-3B Viking onto the Lincoln beneath a banner that read "Mission Accomplished," to announce the U.S. victory in Iraq.

On the carrier before the Lincoln's cheering crew the president said: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

The next week Bumiller portrayed a different picture in a front-page story on the speech. She wrote: "George W. Bush's Top Gun landing on the deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln will be remembered as one of the most audacious moments of presidential theater in American history."

In the story Bumiller explored the efforts of the president's staff to positively influence the media and the public with carefully planned press events. She reported how at one event White House staff used masking tape to conceal "Made in China " imprints on boxes to promote American patriotism.

This type of reporting, Bumiller says, sometimes causes waves between the New York Times and the White House. However, Bumiller refuses to relent. "It's a contentious relationship," she says. "Our intentions are not the same here, and this administration is especially hard to crack."

[Gabi Hayes]

97. more funny, funny stuff....

a fawning puff piece about, surprise!, an NU grad, by an intern for....Men's Health Magazine

now THAT's journalism

good boy

here's your reward:



http://www.doggienews.com/lib/food/presidential-dog-treats.htm

[Gabi Hayes]

98. that's your favorite tactic, right? denigrating the factual basis of a

story by casting aspersions upon the source?

right?

I think I'm getting the hang of it

thanks for the lesson in obfuscation 101!

[ruggerson]

100. What happened to "buh bye"?

[Gabi Hayes]

101. some things are impossible to ignore. here's another example

of the faux journalism foisted upon DUers in defense of, well, you already know



Adoring subject-sanctioned profiles of the Important Campaign Journalist appear with numbing regularity in student/alumni magazines. For reasons that are probably obvious only to the people who went to those sorts of schools, they appear more often than not in Ivy League circulars – though there are exceptions. The feature will typically include a handsome photo of the hack in a regal, professional pose, over the implied caption: "In his exciting career as a swashbuckling toilet who eagerly receives the piss of powerful political interests, X never forgets his Yale roots."

Such an article appeared recently in Beta Theta Pi, the fraternity's quarterly magazine. Appropriately in its How I Spent My Summer Vacation issue ("What Did You Do This Summer?" Summer 2004), the fraternity profiled its famous journalist brother, Howard Fineman (Colgate '70). The story featured a gigantic, illustrated version of a Newsweek cover in which the irrepressibly serious Aaron-Brown-wannabe face of Howard Fineman appears over the headline: "Howard Fineman."

Most of the article is just the inoffensively overwrought flattery of the amateur feature writer ("As a journalist, NBC News analyst and active family man, Fineman is 'on the go' a lot"; "His personality is disarming and his demeanor is relaxed, evidence by his loosened tie and disheveled hair"). But late in the article, the writer gets Fineman to come out with this:


He once interviewed the President on his cell phone from his son's little league game. "I know Bush is no dummy – he's a shrewd, effective leader," he said, referring to Bush's cool persona that allows for a seemingly effortless style. "I recognized him from my fraternity life," he said. "They're a different breed."
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20197/

you make it too easy

and how's that German going for you?

did you look it up yet?

[ruggerson]

102. What the hell does Howard Fineman have to do with

this discussion?

Gotta love the anti-ivy league shrillness in this though. My personal, totally subjective take on Fineman is that he is devoid of anything interesting to say or any insightful analysis, but not because Colgate (a non ivy league school) wrote a puff piece on him.

Glad you parrot the so called "anti-elitist, anti ivy league" of the rightwing. Guess that makes you an ideological descendent of Richard Nixon.

[ruggerson]

99. This was posted for rational, thoughtful people. n/t