Thursday, September 11, 2008

Sigh...Palin's words on Russia twisted...

Anyone who actually watched it or bothered to read the transcript actually knows the context. Yet considering ABC ran with the headline of "EXCLUSIVE: GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY" it's clear that they aren't interested in the truth either. One of the valid reasons why Palin should have just continued to refuse interviews. It's stupid to help your opposition and it's clear most of the media is the opposition...Here's what was really stated:

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

It's like I said on the Blog Bunker the other day, it's all about gotcha moments where words are twisted and not about substance, context or even the issues anymore.


T. F. Stern said...

The media is the opposition; isn't that a real shame that the media has forgotten or intentionally neglected to carry out its job of reporting and instead has defined its role as journalism.

Lisa Renee said...

I can justify in my mind, while I still don't agree, I can at least justify, when bloggers who are passionate about a candidate or against a candidate stretch the truth or spin headlines to get noticed.

For the most part they are not paid journalists, and while at times I'll chime in and offer a correction, at least on a blog the ability to disagree and provide proof is more possible.

Professional journalists that are not being paid as editorial or opinion writers are supposed to remove their own personal bias to at least create the impression of fairness. The only people I've seen thus far who felt this interview made Palin look bad have been those who support Obama.

How far we've come in losing touch with the ability to be objective in both the professional media and the blogosphere is only going to hurt us as a nation. Eventually people are going to feel betrayed. The backlash is not going to be pretty.

Jason R. said...

You said it Lisa Renee. Our Ohio blogger friends are hard at work at twisting her words whenever possible and then making wild accusations.

Mark W Adams said...

This would all be fine and good -- if it were true.

Steve M at No More Mr. Nice blog insists the parts they claim were edited were shown on Good Morning America. Sometime when a two day interview is shown on three different programs over three days, ya might miss something. Go figure.

Moreover, I specifically remember hearing the dialogue Mark Levin claims was edited out. The trade delegation stuff, the Georgian democracy/keeping your eye on Russia/not repeating the cold war.

I remember it because her constantly saying "Charlie" was getting annoying and then I got a bit confused in her answer on meeting heads of state when she talked about trade delegations when Gibson broke in with, "I'm talking about heads of state . . . ever met one?"

They were walking along the pipeline when I saw that on the first night on Nightline at the end of the coverage that night if I recall right. You can go to the tape if you like, but it was there.

Reading what Rush Limbaugh's old lawyer (why are you linking to Levine btw?) highlighted as being edited, it wouldn't change the meaning of anything since she didn't answer the original question and he had to ask it twice.

Since I didn't see the second or third segment, it's kinda funny I remember what you think was cut out. Maybe it was news coverage of the interview and not the interview itself. But isn't it a bit incredible that ABC provides a transcript of the interview so they can be caught trying to distort what Palin said by editing the tape?

Kinda dumb, huh? Please come back from the Dark Side Lisa.

I also remember the cold war line. I think it was at that point threw an empty bottle of tylenol at the TV since her shrugging off the idea of war with Russia earlier ("Perhaps so...") just didn't seem to comport with the idea of keeping good relations with Russia.

It was then the thing went flying or the fourth time she regurgitated the same memorized line that we would never question Israel -- even if they were about to start WWIII and hurl nukes around. In that Palin is more to the right than Bush or McCain. The only US politician I've heard say something like that was . . . Hillary -- and she walked it back.

Look, I wouldn't mind if my bus driver were a mother of five -- but I expect her to know how to drive. And I sure as hell expect her not to lie about how much the ride costs and what stop is coming up.

Palin is an accident waiting to happen. Blaming the media for her obvious short-comings is predictable, and fun, and often appropriate -- but not here. Unfortunately since she won't actually meet with reporters for a live interview, this is all we got.

If she were ready, if picking her wasn't the biggest political gimmick since the Terri Schaivo fiasco -- and almost as sad, just as cynical and way more irresponsible -- then we wouldn't be questioning her credentials.

No one ever questioned Hillary's credentials. She earned our respect. She'd been vetted by the public for 20 years, not two weeks. She took great pains to show how tough she was, her mastery of every issue, her devotion to her cause. In comparison, Palin is a joke, and never, ever would have been picked if Hillary was on the ticket either at the top or VP slot. Never.

If anything, I thought Hillary would bend over backwards too much to show her bona fides. Sometime she's pander too much to the flag waving crowd for my taste, but I realized she had to. But Hillary was never afraid to meet the press. She would have been insulted if any adviser suggested she act the way Palin has and sequester herself, just reading the same script again and again. And that adviser would have been fired on the spot for suggesting it.

Palin doesn't have advisers. She has handlers. No way is she ready for prime time, mo matter how you edit the tape.

Lisa Renee said...

Mark, this post was about the headline that ABC used, not the transcript issues. That's the most recent post where I stated as a part of the post that I don't agree with all that was claimed was cut out, because I remember hearing parts of it as well. I do however know parts of what was stated was cut out.

I agree it's stupid to provide a transcript for things cut out. This post however, was to point out that the context of the statement was twisted for the headline.

I'm also not part of the dark side, unless you believe the dark side is one who ignores things that are matter who does them...