Newsweek: Losing Afghanistan... Unless you're American of course!

[senseamp]

Corporate-government media complex in action. Why didn't Fox ask Bush what he did about Cole? Same reason GE's NBC and Viacom's CBS didn't. $$$

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Corporate-government media complex in action. Why didn't Fox ask Bush what he did about Cole? Same reason GE's NBC and Viacom's CBS didn't. $$$

I don't know what Fox asked Bush, but how about what they asked Rumsfeld on March 28, 2004: "MR. WALLACE: But looking back, sir, and I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it's more than an individual manhunt. I mean -- what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived... -- pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?"
Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Fox News Sunday

Same question Wallace asked Clinton huh? So much for your argument.
"WALLACE: Let me ? let me ? may I just finish the question, sir?

And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.

I understand that hindsight is always 20/20. ...

CLINTON: No, let's talk about it.

WALLACE: ... but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?"

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Corporate-government media complex in action. Why didn't Fox ask Bush what he did about Cole? Same reason GE's NBC and Viacom's CBS didn't. $$$

I don't know what Fox asked Bush, but how about what they asked Rumsfeld on March 28, 2004: "MR. WALLACE: But looking back, sir, and I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it's more than an individual manhunt. I mean -- what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived... -- pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?"
Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Fox News Sunday

Same question Wallace asked Clinton huh? So much for your argument.
"WALLACE: Let me ? let me ? may I just finish the question, sir?

And after the attack, the book says that bin Laden separated his leaders, spread them around, because he expected an attack, and there was no response.

I understand that hindsight is always 20/20. ...

CLINTON: No, let's talk about it.

WALLACE: ... but the question is, why didn't you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?"

Perhaps I'm giving Wallace too much credit, but look at the subtle difference in how the question was asked and tell me it's the same exact question.

When talking with Rumsfeld, Wallace suggests his particular question is 20/20 hindsight, with Clinton he talks in more vague generalities ABOUT hindsight. On the surface it sounds the same, but any linguistic analyst will tell you that when someone is talking in vague, general terms, it's because they are trying to distance themselves from the statement. A minor difference, I suppose, and maybe a meaningless one, but still interesting...

But the big difference is what exactly the question is asking. When Wallace was talking to Rumsfeld, he gave Rumsfeld credit for what is assumed in the interview to have been the "right" approach, then simply asked whether Rumsfeld should have been THINKING more about it before 9/11. With Clinton, Wallace was far more blunt, asking Clinton "why didn't you do more". No attempt at all to soften the blow, no distancing language implying that the subject should have been thinking about action, just a blunt accusation that Clinton should have, but didn't, take direct action.

Of course astute posters will notice that the subjects are not totally identical. Perhaps Clinton DID deserve harsher treatment on that topic than Rumsfeld...and as I've said many times, an independent media should not confuse unbiased with "balanced", if one side deserves more of an attack than the other, it is their duty not to hold back. Facts are facts, regardless of who they support. But the REAL reason I think Wallace is a ****** journalist and a biased jackass is how the interview was conducted. Watch his expression and tone as he asks the question of Clinton...it's sort of how I would picture Pabster interviewing Clinton, a smug grin as he delivers some snarky right wing attack. Clinton got REALLY pissed, and I can see why. The question itself wasn't the problem, it was how it was delivered...it's not how a professional journalist is supposed to conduct himself.