Letterman vs Bush vs CNN

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 69
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    The Whitehouse supplied the wrong info to CNN ( they kind of remind me of Microsoft ). End of story.



    Good God.



    Does *ANYONE* have any proof of this beyond the CNN clip which we *KNOW* was full of bullshit on the actual content?!?



    Anyone??



    Jesus. And we're sitting here calling CNN a bunch of monkeys incapable of critical thinking.





    I mean look, I have no problem believing that the Republican National Committee would run down baby carriages if it thought it would get it ahead. But that doesn't mean it *HAS*. (Same goes for DNC, too.)



    I have no problems believing that the White House would feed CNN info. But that doesn't mean *IN THIS CASE* that they *DID*. ESPECIALLY given CNN's utter lack of caring about facts in their reporting!



    Good lord.
  • Reply 22 of 69
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    One of these people:



    http://www.results.gov/leadership/dept_WH.html




    ok, that is undrestandable, now if it is not a backround breif, why cant or didnt cnn say "joe smith, (insert job title here) says that...", that sounds a lot more creadible than "the white house says..."
  • Reply 23 of 69
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Let's get one thing straight here: it's highly unlikely that no phone call took place.



    Of course it could have been a breakdown in communication somewhere. My guess, however, at the extreme least we are talking about a situation as described by Kickaha a few posts ago. But I think that's at the extreme least, though certainly possible. It would, however, be unusual.



    Also, you can bet that the white house knew about the show. You really believe that no one from the president's staff has any clue about how the president is being portrayed on a major show on a major network?
  • Reply 24 of 69
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Kick: you're looking at this all wrong.



    What possible motivation does CNN have for claiming factual retractions after running that clip? They were reporting a funny clip run by Letterman (as filler basically). Thereafter, suddenly they feel compelled to say the kid wasn't there... THEN they feel compelled to say that the kid was there but not behind the President?



    The ONLY possible source for the double-retraction (on a filler story), is someone in the administration who feels the tape could be embarassing to the President. DUH. Not trying to be an asshole but common... of course the contradictions came from the White House. Where else?? Don't get me wrong. If that was John Kerry with the kid behind him, and he was President, I'd be making the same exact argument against CNN.



    They didn't verify their facts ahead of time. They should've talked to CBS BEFORE running the retractions (which were false, it turns out). CNN has no motivation -- none -- to run false retractions about this particular topic. The story is not harmful to their image, it's harmful to the President's. Put two and two together here... no conspiracy theory needed. The whole thing is plain as day.
  • Reply 25 of 69
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Of course they knew - they were probably laughing their asses off with the rest of us at the poor kid, Bush or no Bush.



    I just have yet to see *ANY* proof, or even substantive evidence that the White House did indeed tell CNN that it was faked, on purpose, and with intent.



    CNN is a small short step above The National Enquirer for their veracity, and this just demonstrated that quite well. So why on *Earth* would you accept a snippet of a sentence known to be mostly false, and act like it's condemning proof?



    Because it fits your world view?



    Well *that's* convenient.
  • Reply 26 of 69
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    Kick: you're looking at this all wrong.



    What possible motivation does CNN have for claiming factual retractions after running that clip? They were reporting a funny clip run by Letterman (as filler basically). Thereafter, suddenly they feel compelled to say the kid wasn't there... THEN they feel compelled to say that the kid was there but not behind the President?



    The ONLY possible source for the double-retraction (on a filler story), is someone in the administration who feels the tape could be embarassing to the President. DUH. Not trying to be an asshole but common... of course the contradictions came from the White House. Where else?? Don't get me wrong. If that was John Kerry with the kid behind him, and he was President, I'd be making the same exact argument against CNN.



    They didn't verify their facts ahead of time. They should've talked to CBS BEFORE running the retractions (which were false, it turns out). CNN has no motivation -- none -- to run false retractions about this particular topic. The story is not harmful to their image, it's harmful to the President's. Put two and two together here... no conspiracy theory needed. The whole thing is plain as day.






    WHAT????



    False *RETRACTIONS*?!?



    What the bloody fricking HELL are you blathering about, Moogs??



    I've got a better one for you:



    White House watching CNN. Sees CNN say "White House says..." "Um guys, did anyone here say that? No? Hello, CNN?" "Okay, White House does *not* say..."



    Jeez. It's simple. It's easy. It's entirely too believable.





    But it doesn't make the White House look evil, so it couldn't have happened?



    I give up.
  • Reply 27 of 69
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Good God.



    Does *ANYONE* have any proof of this beyond the CNN clip which we *KNOW* was full of bullshit on the actual content?!?



    Anyone??



    Jesus. And we're sitting here calling CNN a bunch of monkeys incapable of critical thinking.





    I mean look, I have no problem believing that the Republican National Committee would run down baby carriages if it thought it would get it ahead. But that doesn't mean it *HAS*. (Same goes for DNC, too.)



    I have no problems believing that the White House would feed CNN info. But that doesn't mean *IN THIS CASE* that they *DID*. ESPECIALLY given CNN's utter lack of caring about facts in their reporting!



    Good lord.




    Sure, but this particular White House has a well established track record in this area, they do it all the time. It's not as if would be a startling departure for this administration.



    Wolf Blitzer recently alluded, on the air, to unnamed white house sources that told him that "Clarke had some pretty weird stuff in his personal life".



    I really think that "the white house has informed us" is not a phrase that can be attributed to "sloppy journalism". Getting the name of a source wrong, reporting unsubstaniated rumor, not fact checking is sloppy journalism.



    "The White House has informed us that that kid was edited in" would have to be a complete fabrication, which makes no sense. What possible reason would CNN have to just throw that in after a "funny" clip?



    Kickaha, I'm not quite getting your point about CNNs integrity. You're saying that if we believe they were duped by the white house then we can't believe it when they tell us they were duped by the white house because they have already demonstrated that they can't be trusted?



    Surely that's not what you mean.
  • Reply 28 of 69
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Akumulator

    I saw this second clip the other night on Letterman and now found both clips online..... I thought some of you might find it amusing.



    clip 1



    clip 2




    Thanks, I was wondering about that too!



    I heard CNN say that and I was like "Noooo? Dave doesn't fake stuff, because faking stuff isn't funny...??"



    Seriously, I mean I suppose Dave has faked something at some point (can't think of a single time off hand) but in general his show depends on real actual footage, reality is far funnier in the context of his show. Sure, some staged/edited/faked things are funny too but only in the context of other shows.



    This really is, for me, the straw that broke the camel's back about the Bush administration. Not 9/11. Not Iraq. Sleepy Fat Kid.



    Is the monkey washing that cat FAKED???? OMG! CGI owls eating mice? Say it ain't so...
  • Reply 29 of 69
    naderfannaderfan Posts: 156member
    Still, the clip itself is kind of funny.
  • Reply 30 of 69
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    WHAT????



    False *RETRACTIONS*?!?



    What the bloody fricking HELL are you blathering about, Moogs??



    I've got a better one for you:



    White House watching CNN. Sees CNN say "White House says..." "Um guys, did anyone here say that? No? Hello, CNN?" "Okay, White House does *not* say..."



    Jeez. It's simple. It's easy. It's entirely too believable.





    But it doesn't make the White House look evil, so it couldn't have happened?



    I give up.




    Could you maybe give some reasons for your animosity towards CNN? I am not aware of constant problems with their reporting.



    By your scenario above, White House calls CNN, CNN responds by saying, OK, the boy was there, just not where he is shown. That makes no sense whatsoever.



    And as far as "proof" goes, when a reporter says on air "The White House has informed us", that is the incident itself. To reach for the notion that that constitutes an "error" on the reporters part which requires some kind of further confirmation to be taken seriously is to try much too hard.
  • Reply 31 of 69
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    edit: wait, maybe i dont agree after all;



    addabox why do you last 2 posts seemingly contradict eachother.....



    argggh no time...
  • Reply 32 of 69
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    OK. We're having a semantic problem here.



    Fact: Letterman ran actual footage of a kid falling asleep behind Bush.



    Fact: CNN runs a filler story about the Letterman clip.



    Fact: CNN turns around (right after the commercial break that followed the clip) and says "we're BEING TOLD BY THE WHITEHOUSE that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into the footage...."



    Fact: CNN then runs a SECOND factual retraction "we're told (no source named but the implication is obviously there) that the kid WAS there, but not... standing behind the President, so you can put it all together... ha ha this is funny"



    Fact: The kid was at the rally, was behind the President and was doing all those things... and CNN would have KNOWN that, if they had picked up the phone and said "Mr. CBS producer... is this tape legit, can you give us the exact context of the filmed event?" BEFORE they ran the retractions.



    Yes, retractions. When a news anchor says, "gosh we have to let you know that the context behind that last video spot was not as it seemed, because x, y and z..." THAT's a retraction. It's a way of saying "we presented the story as A, but it was really B... we apologize for the confusion." CNN did exactly this.



    That's all I'm saying. And I AM implying that this sort of thing goes on all the time in my estimation, based on the lackluster quality of factual content I see on the news every night and in some published work.



    So now, are you saying that someone from CNN fabricated the whole story about the White House calling in and wanting a clarification to be made? Or that it was all a big goof? What kind of misscommunication would cause that?? If you're in an interntaional newsroom and someone spouts out during the break "Hey that kid wasn't really there, I bet they edited him in..." you're not going to tack on "The Whitehouse has said" into that retraction unless you KNOW the Whitehouse has said that... GMAFB already.



    I said they were lazy, not stupid.
  • Reply 33 of 69
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    Sure, but this particular White House has a well established track record in this area, they do it all the time. It's not as if would be a startling departure for this administration.



    No, it wouldn't. But is there really a need to go seeing conspiracy theories and paranoid scenarios at *every* turn?? Is there really zero room for basic human error in some people's world view, such that every little thing has to be chalked up to evil intent by *someone*?? Call me weird, but I think people are stupid more often than they're evil.



    Quote:

    I really think that "the white house has informed us" is not a phrase that can be attributed to "sloppy journalism". Getting the name of a source wrong, reporting unsubstaniated rumor, not fact checking is sloppy journalism.



    It's a canned phrase, one that's thrown about all the time. Rolls off the tongue way too easily for talking heads, since we *do* know that they're just going to blabber what ever is put in front of them anyway.



    Quote:

    "The White House has informed us that that kid was edited in" would have to be a complete fabrication, which makes no sense. What possible reason would CNN have to just throw that in after a "funny" clip?



    Most live television studios are like a giant game of post office. News programs try and limit this, but it can happen. Try this on for size: someone watching the clip says "Now watch, the White House will tell us it was faked." Person B mishears it, passes it along innocently. Person C does so as well. And so on. Until it gets on the air by accident.



    No evil intent, no effort to fabricate. Just accident.



    It's how gossip starts, it's how rumors start, and it's how missteps happen.



    Quote:

    Kickaha, I'm not quite getting your point about CNNs integrity. You're saying that if we believe they were duped by the white house then we can't believe it when they tell us they were duped by the white house because they have already demonstrated that they can't be trusted?



    Surely that's not what you mean.




    *sigh*



    No.



    CNN is more than capable of screwing things up on their own without the White House doing it for them, is all my point is. They make stupid idiotic comments all the bloody time, ones that have zero basis in reality. Why is this one any different? Why is it that only *one half* of the comment is to be taken as gospel? And worse, proof of nefarious doings?
  • Reply 34 of 69
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    Could you maybe give some reasons for your animosity towards CNN? I am not aware of constant problems with their reporting.



    By your scenario above, White House calls CNN, CNN responds by saying, OK, the boy was there, just not where he is shown. That makes no sense whatsoever.



    And as far as "proof" goes, when a reporter says on air "The White House has informed us", that is the incident itself. To reach for the notion that that constitutes an "error" on the reporters part which requires some kind of further confirmation to be taken seriously is to try much too hard.




    Oh jesus, I give up.



    You're all crack monkeys on a bad trip.
  • Reply 35 of 69
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Let's put it this way Kick, I don't think by someone just commenting "I bet the White House will say X" during the commercial break, would lead to the Anchor saying exactly that without something from the Producer. You're not understanding how newsrooms work. Not that I'm a huge newsroom expert, but I do know you don't just hear something off-hand (as an anchor) and then repeat it as soon as you come back on air.



    Their are reporters in the background constantly calling around and gathering facts on the internet and everything else, and they feed those to the producer and editors who make the decisions about what is going to air next. It's not like the anchor is listening to reporters in that little ear piece or other "little guys"...she's got the friggin Producer in her ear.



    The Producer is telling the anchor exactly what they need to focus on in the next segment, not having chit-chat about "gosh I wonder if X happened with this tape", and then suddenly it's reported. Doesn't work that way. There's no time for it.



    [PS - I still think you're swell. ]
  • Reply 36 of 69
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    And yet they obviously did *not* do any fact checking on this one before it got through this supposedly tight net, did they?



    So, they screwed up on that one, demonstrably.



    Why is it so hard to simply attribute something to stupidity?



    Why is it *necessary* to add a conspiracy into the mix?







    I simply asked for proof that the White House did indeed intentionally feed erroneous information to CNN. None has been forthcoming, only further assertions. If there is proof, then godammit, let me see it. It's not like I particularly *like* the White House, I just have this thing in my head that has this odd capacity called critical thinking.



    Some want to assume evil over stupidity, I assume stupidity over evil. I see a lot more stupidity in the world, and take that as the norm.
  • Reply 37 of 69
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha



    Why is it *necessary* to add a conspiracy into the mix?




    Because they've done it before.
  • Reply 38 of 69
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Because they've done it before.



    My cat has peed on the carpet before.



    Does that mean the every time I find liquid on the carpet, it's my cat again?



    Or could it be that my wife while watering plants, spilled a little?







    I want any proof... ANY EVIDENCE, other than the CNN clip, that this actually came from the White House.



    Anything.



    Seriously.



    Otherwise, this is just conspiracy masturbation.
  • Reply 39 of 69
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    See my edit above... don't be angry with me. I'm just the messenger.







    Seriously, it's not a conspiracy at all. I find it very easy to believe... that ANY press secretary or press official from ANY administration, is constantly eyeing CNN and other networks. And in fact, they do. Most of their "10 hour days" are spent watching the news media, so that they can constantly keep on-message and keep on top of things as they arise.



    That the White House (and by that I simply mean Bush's press officials) would call up right away and say "Hey guys that kid wasn't there", doesn't surprise me even a little. Because they know, 9 times out of 10, the CNN's of the world will take it as gospel and report it. That's what happened here.



    What needs to happen in an ideal world, is that the CNN's say "ok, we'll check up on that and run the retraction if it proves appropriate." And then when it doesn't, they either: call the Whitehouse and tell them to take it up with CBS, or they run a different sort of story saying "The Whitehouse said X about CBS' tape, but CBS has provided details x,y and z. After hearing this the Whitehouse had no further comment, blah blah."
  • Reply 40 of 69
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    kick's new phrase seems to be "crack monkey"



    g
Sign In or Register to comment.