NYT suckers KP by carving up Rumsfeld’s speech

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Actually I think Bush's speech came after Rumsfeld's

And, it's not changing the context of the speech. Look at the shit surrounding what he said. It's a clear cut case of reading between the lines and understanding the broader Administration objective by coordinating phrases and wording in speeches.

It's pretty obvious. Being unwilling to look deeper into the meaning and message of the speech in context with what's going on today in the world and here at home doesn't change the fact that this had an obvious meaning.

The first example is what I'm talking about. The latter one is a pretty misrepresentation of facts. There are others though that were discussed today on NPR and I agree with what I heard about who's feet he's laying some of these criticisms.

The first is dead on though. Who do you think that "some" is referring to?

Obviously the "cut and run, hate america first, leave before the job is done" liberals who oppose Iraq.

The latter one is a pretty misrepresentation of facts?

I agree the first one says what Rumsfeld was talking about. But never mentioned critics of Iraq. To say Rumsfeld pointed his quote to a certain audience is wrong.

I don't think this is a huge misinterpretation. And it's also likely that the conservative outlets will misinterpret a lot of this in the same way since it helps their agenda as well.

The problem I have though is that we need to start holding the media responsible for reading between the lines and telling us what they're fairly certain Rumsfeld meant, as opposed to what he actually said.

This isn't a NY Times incident. And this really isn't a big deal reading the quotes. I just feel we need to hold them fully accountable, no matter who is doing the "interpreting" as quotes.

[motivez]

He doesn't have to mention it directly when it's implied in his statement. It's obvious who he was talking to and why.. and that's reinforced by the fact that the rest of the Administration has made similar speeches with the exact same language as part of their talking points.

I think they should clarify that it's somewhat interpreted, but I don't think they were wrong except on that one point.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

He doesn't have to mention it directly when it's implied in his statement.
....
I think they should clarify that it's somewhat interpreted, but I don't think they were wrong except on that one point.

I agree with what you said later on in your post and it's all I've really been saying.