Clearing up the facts after 9 democrats debate Tuesday night

[CADsortaGUY]

I'm suprised no one has posted this or anything else about the debate yet....oh wait...maybe I'm not suprised

Candidates Leaving Out Facts in Debate
<snip>
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who studies political rhetoric at the University of Pennsylvania, said the debate was filled with hyperbole and exaggeration typical of candidates trying to unseat an incumbent president.

"If you were trying to get facts from this debate, you are going to get confused," she said. "You have the party out of power exaggerating the negative impact of the administration and ignoring the positive impact."
</snip>

Anyway...is there really a "political rhetoric" field of study at U of Penn?

CkG

 

[Ferocious]

ummm....welcome to the world of politicians.

 

[SuperTool]

Very biased piece.

 

[DealMonkey]

Do you really think the dems would get very far chatting up the positive things Bush has done? I'm not quite sure what you expect. Besides, one could argue that most of the good economic news has occured in the last few months, so it's not like we've had 3+ years of solid economic growth or anything. Don't get me wrong, it's very promising, and I'm glad to see it, but I still think we need a couple more strong quarters.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Very biased piece.

What parts are biased or untrue? Seems like the AP writer was an equal opportunity fact finder to me. Doesn't seem like it picked on one candidate more than another but yes nothing was mentioned about Sharpton, Braun, or Kucinich but those 3 really aren't contenders anyway.

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Very biased piece.

What parts are biased or untrue? Seems like the AP writer was an equal opportunity fact finder to me. Doesn't seem like it picked on one candidate more than another but yes nothing was mentioned about Sharpton, Braun, or Kucinich but those 3 really aren't contenders anyway.

CkG

It's writtened in a biased way. It's written to bash Democrats. It only brings up Democrat "inaccuracies", and not Dubya's. Have you seen any WMD's around by any chance?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Very biased piece.

What parts are biased or untrue? Seems like the AP writer was an equal opportunity fact finder to me. Doesn't seem like it picked on one candidate more than another but yes nothing was mentioned about Sharpton, Braun, or Kucinich but those 3 really aren't contenders anyway.

CkG

It's writtened in a biased way. It's written to bash Democrats. It only brings up Democrat "inaccuracies", and not Dubya's. Have you seen any WMD's around by any chance?

An article written about the debate is biased because it only talked about the democrat's inaccuracies during the debate!? WOW!! Really? whodda thunk it?!
And anyway - when is the last time you've seen an article posted that when talking about Bush's and also the democrat's?

CkG

 

[miguel]

The piece was about the democrats, not GWB. Does everything have end with WMD with you, SuperTool? Does every article need to bash Bush to be valid?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: miguel
The piece was about the democrats, not GWB. Does everything have end with WMD with you, SuperTool? Does every article need to bash Bush to be valid?

No, but it couldn't hurt. EDIT: Better to be on the safe side and just go ahead and Bash. That way you can claim 'fair and balanced' bragging rights.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Very biased piece.

What parts are biased or untrue? Seems like the AP writer was an equal opportunity fact finder to me. Doesn't seem like it picked on one candidate more than another but yes nothing was mentioned about Sharpton, Braun, or Kucinich but those 3 really aren't contenders anyway.

CkG

It's writtened in a biased way. It's written to bash Democrats. It only brings up Democrat "inaccuracies", and not Dubya's. Have you seen any WMD's around by any chance?

An article written about the debate is biased because it only talked about the democrat's inaccuracies during the debate!? WOW!! Really? whodda thunk it?!
And anyway - when is the last time you've seen an article posted that when talking about Bush's and also the democrat's?

CkG

This article is not written as unbiased commentary on debate. For example it bashes Dean for wanting to bring in foreign troops. Did Dean say there weren't any foreign troops in Iraq already? No. But the author tries to invent an "inaccuracy" where there isn't one, and then refute it. The whole thing is written that way. Then it bashes Dean for saying 3M jobs were lost under Bush, but admits there were in fact 3M jobs lost. So what's the need to clear up the facts? I mean this is a Bush apoligist piece which would be a halfway descent editorial, but is by no means an unbiased news piece.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Very biased piece.

What parts are biased or untrue? Seems like the AP writer was an equal opportunity fact finder to me. Doesn't seem like it picked on one candidate more than another but yes nothing was mentioned about Sharpton, Braun, or Kucinich but those 3 really aren't contenders anyway.

CkG

It's writtened in a biased way. It's written to bash Democrats. It only brings up Democrat "inaccuracies", and not Dubya's. Have you seen any WMD's around by any chance?

An article written about the debate is biased because it only talked about the democrat's inaccuracies during the debate!? WOW!! Really? whodda thunk it?!
And anyway - when is the last time you've seen an article posted that when talking about Bush's and also the democrat's?

CkG

This article is not written as unbiased commentary on debate. For example it bashes Dean for wanting to bring in foreign troops. Did Dean say there weren't any foreign troops in Iraq already? No. But the author tries to invent an "inaccuracy" where there isn't one, and then refute it. The whole thing is written that way. Then it bashes Dean for saying 3M jobs were lost under Bush, but admits there were in fact 3M jobs lost. So what's the need to clear up the facts? I mean this is a Bush apoligist piece which would be a halfway descent editorial, but is by no means an unbiased news piece.

So you think it's biased against Dean? Maybe you just missed the parts about the other candidates. And don't forget the CONTEXT of the whole piece....like in that it was about what was said at the debate. It isn't biased because it only talked about them.

Nice try ST but your Dean apologizing doesn't play here. He's trying to play the anti-war guy and he(and some of the other candidates) clearly tries to mold his statements to make it seem like we are doing this all alone - which is clearly not true.
And the 3M jobs thing...well it might have been true a while back but to say the current numbers are 3M would be a falsehood.

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Very biased piece.

What parts are biased or untrue? Seems like the AP writer was an equal opportunity fact finder to me. Doesn't seem like it picked on one candidate more than another but yes nothing was mentioned about Sharpton, Braun, or Kucinich but those 3 really aren't contenders anyway.

CkG

It's writtened in a biased way. It's written to bash Democrats. It only brings up Democrat "inaccuracies", and not Dubya's. Have you seen any WMD's around by any chance?

An article written about the debate is biased because it only talked about the democrat's inaccuracies during the debate!? WOW!! Really? whodda thunk it?!
And anyway - when is the last time you've seen an article posted that when talking about Bush's and also the democrat's?

CkG

This article is not written as unbiased commentary on debate. For example it bashes Dean for wanting to bring in foreign troops. Did Dean say there weren't any foreign troops in Iraq already? No. But the author tries to invent an "inaccuracy" where there isn't one, and then refute it. The whole thing is written that way. Then it bashes Dean for saying 3M jobs were lost under Bush, but admits there were in fact 3M jobs lost. So what's the need to clear up the facts? I mean this is a Bush apoligist piece which would be a halfway descent editorial, but is by no means an unbiased news piece.

So you think it's biased against Dean? Maybe you just missed the parts about the other candidates. And don't forget the CONTEXT of the whole piece....like in that it was about what was said at the debate. It isn't biased because it only talked about them.

Nice try ST but your Dean apologizing doesn't play here. He's trying to play the anti-war guy and he(and some of the other candidates) clearly tries to mold his statements to make it seem like we are doing this all alone - which is clearly not true.
And the 3M jobs thing...well it might have been true a while back but to say the current numbers are 3M would be a falsehood.

CkG

It's not biased just against Dean. It's biased against the Democratic candidates. It's not reporting on the debate, it's trying to debate on behalf of Dubya.
You can spin it any way you want, but this is not news reporting, it's editorializing.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

It's not biased just against Dean. It's biased against the Democratic candidates. It's not reporting on the debate, it's trying to debate on behalf of Dubya.

Stating a fact is not biased just because you disagree with it, thats an intellectual cop-out and shows YOUR bias.

But, does anyone expect them to get up there and tell everyone how good a job Bush is doing? They are running for President, of course they are leaving the good stuff out.

 

[0roo0roo]

you can't have a real debate with 9 people, its absurd, the turds with 1-2% of the vote need to just leave.

 

[chess9]

Readers give it a 2.11 rating as of this a.m., so I don't think the author should sit up waiting for the Pulitzer Prize Committee to call.

Anyway, all politicians do the same thing. They emphasize the facts that make them look good and ignore their flaws and mistakes. Except GW of course. He's always right 'cause the Fox Cartoon Network says so and I believe them. If Drudge ever says so then GOD will have spoken and we can simply get on with the coronation of the BushLeaguer.

-Robert

 

[BDawg]

If Bush had debated Tuesday evening, Ms. Jamieson would still be up trying to find all of the innacuracies.

 

[chess9]

OrooOroo:

Without Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich, who'd have watched after the first debate? Gebhart, Clark and Kerry give boring a whole new dimension. Talk about boring WASPS.... I'd almost rather listen to Bush. Lieberman is the best of the rest in terms of entertainment value, although even he sounds like a broken record on automatic pilot some times. And the reason Edwards isn't moving up is because his schtick is completely broken. How he got all those jury verdicts is a mystery to me. Good looks must be enough for some folks in N.C.

Frankly, after listening to these debates, I think I'd make a much better President than any of them. I can count on the votes of everyone here, right? I'd want Moonie to be my VP...of Eschatology and Foggonicity.

-Robert