Orwellian behavoir on the part of the White House

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Apparently the new White House strategy is when someone says something embarassing, simply deny that it was ever said regardless of the evidence.

NEW YORK Presidential Press Secretary Scott McClellan's short answer to a question at his daily press briefing last week has prompted a dispute between the White House press office and two news organizations that offer transcripts of the events.

A spokeswoman for McClellan's office told E&P today that the White House is standing by its version of what he said.

At the Oct. 31 briefing, David Gregory of NBC News stated the following question to McClellan about White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby: "Whether there's a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations."

The official White House transcript states that McClellan's response was "I don?t think that's accurate."

But two outside news agencies, Congressional Quarterly and Federal News Service - which provide transcripts for a fee -both reported the response as "that's accurate."...

White House officials contacted the news outlets and ask for a change to their versions of the transcript.

"They asked me to take a look at it about a week ago," said Kirk Hanneman, news director of Federal News Service, which provides transcripts of different government events. "We took a look at it because they did have a problem with it and in the end, we had what we originally had and we are sticking by that because we believe it is correct."
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/art..._display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001477236

Now to verify what was actually said, here's the video of the press conference from the White House itself, the exchange starts at about 5:30 in.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/print/20051031-3.html
(McClellan clearly says that's accurate.)

If McClellan mispoke in the first place, he could certainly start his press conference by explaining how he mispoke in the previous press conference and what he meant to say. However, altering the actual transcript and trying to get the press in general to also do so is completely unacceptable. Its one short step from that to just periodically editing out of transcripts things that representives of the White House have said that could get back to haunt them.

I find it increadibly disturbing that with White House officials having easy access to the video in question to check, one day after this contraversy started the White House is still maintaining their version of the transcript is the accurate one.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
OK, the White House is right, and the other guys are wrong. Come on, this about Rove! We can trust him and everyone around him. What are you so worried about?

90% odds this never hits a MSM news network...
 

azazyel

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2000
5,872
1
81
This reminds me of a quote from Dr. Who,

"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Install this program
http://www.xi-soft.com/default.htm

It will download most any video you have a link to..

Here is the direct link to the above video
rtsp://a841.v59134.c5913.g.vr.akamaistream.net/ondemand/7/841/5913/43669565/whitehouse.download.akamai.com/5913/20051031-3.v.rm <<<<<<<<<< you have to copy the link into the program

 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: azazyel
This reminds me of a quote from Dr. Who,

"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
QFT :cool:
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
I do hate such 'cover' ups.

Are you equally angry that Senator Clintons quote about how she is adamantly against illegal immigrants (the people) is being covered up by changing the word immigrants to immigration (the act)?

If so, then neither of us are hypocrites. If not, then you are.
 

azazyel

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2000
5,872
1
81
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
I do hate such 'cover' ups.

Are you equally angry that Senator Clintons quote about how she is adamantly against illegal immigrants (the people) is being covered up by changing the word immigrants to immigration (the act)?

If so, then neither of us are hypocrites. If not, then you are.

Linky?
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: azazyel
Linky?
Honestly before the assertion has any meaning at all, ExpertNovice needs to link to exactly what he is referring to so we can judge the details.

This case is closer to Hillary Clinton arranging for the Senate's record to be altered to make it record that she didn't vote for a bill, when she actually did vote for the bill, in order to avoid criticism for her action.

By the way, it appears that the White House is STILL sticking with its story and has not corrected its version of the transcript to match the video evidence.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
This is nothing new. The White House has a history of amending these transcripts to mask the most embarrassing Bushisms. They have tended to edit and shorten his malapropisms to make them sound more like sane, intelligent commentary.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: azazyel
This reminds me of a quote from Dr. Who,

"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views, which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."

good good quote :)
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: azazyel
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
I do hate such 'cover' ups.

Are you equally angry that Senator Clintons quote about how she is adamantly against illegal immigrants (the people) is being covered up by changing the word immigrants to immigration (the act)?

If so, then neither of us are hypocrites. If not, then you are.

Linky?


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041213-124920-6151r.htm

In an interview on WABC radio, she said: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."


Of course since that statement was uttered the press has changed the word immigrants to immigration.


Originally posted by: Aegeon
Apparently the new White House strategy is when someone says something embarassing, simply deny that it was ever said regardless of the evidence.


My question still stands. Does the OP have a problem with liberals who have a "strategy is when someone says something embarassing, simply deny that it was ever said regardless of the evidence."

My guess is that the party of hypocrisy does not.

Other examples involve most every liberal politician who saw the same daily briefings that President Bush saw about Iraq including those who saw them during President Clinton's terms. All came to the same conclusion. All voted the same. All made the same statements. They told the truth but Bush lied. But wait, they said the same things. Yep, the party of hypocrisy.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
In an interview on WABC radio, she said: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."
Hold on there.

It's not much of a stretch fo believe that Clinton MEANT "immigration" but said "immigrants".

It's entirely different that McClellan actually said, "That's accurate" (a positive statement), and the White House wants "That's not accurate" (a negative statement) on the record.

I watched the video of the new conference, and McClellan clearly DID say "That's accurate." There's no doubt about it.

Twisting a "yes" into a "no" is a much bigger stretch than what you're accusing Hillary of.

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: azazyel
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
I do hate such 'cover' ups.

Are you equally angry that Senator Clintons quote about how she is adamantly against illegal immigrants (the people) is being covered up by changing the word immigrants to immigration (the act)?

If so, then neither of us are hypocrites. If not, then you are.

Linky?


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041213-124920-6151r.htm

In an interview on WABC radio, she said: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."


Of course since that statement was uttered the press has changed the word immigrants to immigration.


Originally posted by: Aegeon
Apparently the new White House strategy is when someone says something embarassing, simply deny that it was ever said regardless of the evidence.


My question still stands. Does the OP have a problem with liberals who have a "strategy is when someone says something embarassing, simply deny that it was ever said regardless of the evidence."

My guess is that the party of hypocrisy does not.

Other examples involve most every liberal politician who saw the same daily briefings that President Bush saw about Iraq including those who saw them during President Clinton's terms. All came to the same conclusion. All voted the same. All made the same statements. They told the truth but Bush lied. But wait, they said the same things. Yep, the party of hypocrisy.


Are all of Hillary's words kept on record on the White House Official webpage?

Who cares what Hillary said.. I am against Illegal Immigrants too.. What about you? Are you PRO Illegal Immigrant or ANTI Illegal Immigrant

Do you always compare one wrong to another wrong as though they will cancel each other out?
 

Kibbo86

Senior member
Oct 9, 2005
347
0
0
I think that his point was to determine whether or not the criticisms of the White House's behaviour are the result of partisanship or not.

In both cases, there is a difference between what was actually spoken and the records of that speech.

In one, the press is not treating the misstep with charitability, but rather it is challenging the speaker. That speaker (or, at least, the body that speaker represents) is insisting that the records are correct, and that the recordings are wrong.

In the second, the press seems to be treating the case more charitably, assuming that it was a simple error on the part of the speaker. The analogy breaks down, because we cannot see Clinton's reaction to the situation.

If the White House were to issue a release that claimed that McClellan simply misspoke, it would seem much less authoritarian. (Though, perhaps, equally incredulous.)

If Clinton issued a similar statement, it would seem much more plausible, simply because that is a more plausible misspeak.

Edit:
Although an argument could be made that this difference in coverage is the result of medial bias, I think that a more plausible view would be simply that the White House undergoes much more scrutiny from the press than does a single Senator. Though this case it is impossible to refute the bias argument altogether. Bias, by it's very definition, is a matter of statistics, and this sample is too small to determine any kind of trend.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
I fully understand what you are saying.. but partisanship or not.. how would it really matter.. The White House must be held to the highest standards whether a Democrat or Republican is the liar...

a wrong is a wrong.. but like you said.. higher level of scrutiny.. I think it is also a higher level of accountability.. I am more angered if a Priest molests a child vs a common citizen and likewise am more angered if The White House lies and continues to lie in the face of Facts than I am if some simple Senator did a similar act.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
In an interview on WABC radio, she said: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."
Hold on there.

It's not much of a stretch fo believe that Clinton MEANT "immigration" but said "immigrants".

It's entirely different that McClellan actually said, "That's accurate" (a positive statement), and the White House wants "That's not accurate" (a negative statement) on the record.

I watched the video of the new conference, and McClellan clearly DID say "That's accurate." There's no doubt about it.

Twisting a "yes" into a "no" is a much bigger stretch than what you're accusing Hillary of.


If there is no difference, why change it? Other than to make liberals look good and conservatives look bad. Yep, more hypocrisy.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: azazyel
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
I do hate such 'cover' ups.

Are you equally angry that Senator Clintons quote about how she is adamantly against illegal immigrants (the people) is being covered up by changing the word immigrants to immigration (the act)?

If so, then neither of us are hypocrites. If not, then you are.

Linky?


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041213-124920-6151r.htm

In an interview on WABC radio, she said: "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."


Of course since that statement was uttered the press has changed the word immigrants to immigration.


Originally posted by: Aegeon
Apparently the new White House strategy is when someone says something embarassing, simply deny that it was ever said regardless of the evidence.


My question still stands. Does the OP have a problem with liberals who have a "strategy is when someone says something embarassing, simply deny that it was ever said regardless of the evidence."

My guess is that the party of hypocrisy does not.

Other examples involve most every liberal politician who saw the same daily briefings that President Bush saw about Iraq including those who saw them during President Clinton's terms. All came to the same conclusion. All voted the same. All made the same statements. They told the truth but Bush lied. But wait, they said the same things. Yep, the party of hypocrisy.


Are all of Hillary's words kept on record on the White House Official webpage?

Who cares what Hillary said.. I am against Illegal Immigrants too.. What about you? Are you PRO Illegal Immigrant or ANTI Illegal Immigrant

Do you always compare one wrong to another wrong as though they will cancel each other out?


No, I point out hypocrisy.

Until BOTH sides agree that each side has idiots (extremists) and that anybody can misspeak I will continue to point out hypocrisy. While it is easier to point it out when coming from the left I have and will point it out when uttered by anyone. Oh, my family and friends are included in that and they don't like it either. They DO, however, love it when they catch me making a hypocritcal statement, to which I rethink my positions and determine why I was being a hypocrit.

Until BOTH sides agree that we are not the enemy but the politicians and media (mainstream, conservative, hollywood, etc.) are I will keep pointing that out as well. Unfortunately, most here don't care about such trivial matters and would rather be destroyed by the divided-we-fall tactic. So, I come here to learn and educate elsewhere.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Of course since that statement was uttered the press has changed the word immigrants to immigration.
You'd better show, HOW and WHEN the press changed the statement, because right now your complaint looks like BS. If the press always claims the quote is from the interview, that's one thing but if they say Hillary is against illegal immigration, that's almost certainly the result of Hillary later clarifying her position which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do as I already noted. Saying she is against illegal immigration and not illegal immigrants is a perfectly nuanced position for a Democrat because the other statement suggest a personal dislike of the immigrants themselves, which is a perception Democrats may wish to avoid.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Of course since that statement was uttered the press has changed the word immigrants to immigration.
You'd better show, HOW and WHEN the press changed the statement, because right now your complaint looks like BS. If the press always claims the quote is from the interview, that's one thing but if they say Hillary is against illegal immigration, that's almost certainly the result of Hillary later clarifying her position which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do as I already noted. Saying she is against illegal immigration and not illegal immigrants is a perfectly nuanced position for a Democrat because the other statement suggest a personal dislike of the immigrants themselves, which is a perception Democrats may wish to avoid.

Did you look at the link or did you just look at NYT and CNN?

As for hypocrisy, does anyone care that the mainstream media keeps ignoring the report by Mr. Wilson that Saddam did try to buy Uranium from South Africa? A report that Mr. Wilson denied writing. A report that destroys the attacks made by the mainstream media against President Bush in his statments to the U.N. Thus, a report that the media never mentions.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Yep, didn't think so. The ends justify the means even if the means is killing another 6 million in gas chambers.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,479
6,027
126
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Of course since that statement was uttered the press has changed the word immigrants to immigration.
You'd better show, HOW and WHEN the press changed the statement, because right now your complaint looks like BS. If the press always claims the quote is from the interview, that's one thing but if they say Hillary is against illegal immigration, that's almost certainly the result of Hillary later clarifying her position which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do as I already noted. Saying she is against illegal immigration and not illegal immigrants is a perfectly nuanced position for a Democrat because the other statement suggest a personal dislike of the immigrants themselves, which is a perception Democrats may wish to avoid.

Did you look at the link or did you just look at NYT and CNN?

As for hypocrisy, does anyone care that the mainstream media keeps ignoring the report by Mr. Wilson that Saddam did try to buy Uranium from South Africa? A report that Mr. Wilson denied writing. A report that destroys the attacks made by the mainstream media against President Bush in his statments to the U.N. Thus, a report that the media never mentions.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Yep, didn't think so. The ends justify the means even if the means is killing another 6 million in gas chambers.

What??
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
Did you look at the link or did you just look at NYT and CNN?

As for hypocrisy, does anyone care that the mainstream media keeps ignoring the report by Mr. Wilson that Saddam did try to buy Uranium from South Africa? A report that Mr. Wilson denied writing. A report that destroys the attacks made by the mainstream media against President Bush in his statments to the U.N. Thus, a report that the media never mentions.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Yep, didn't think so. The ends justify the means even if the means is killing another 6 million in gas chambers.
Of COURSE I looked at the link and obviously my point still stands. You need to show some media source that quotes the interview and has Hillary say something else for your point to have any relevance whatsoever. You have NOT show that Hillary Clinton did anything vaguely like the Bush administration pulled here.

Your conduct in this thread emphesizes the complete moral bankrupcy of some members of conservative right in this country. You can't come up with similar behavoir on the part of Democrats, but try to change the subject with an increasingly incoherent rant about liberal media bias which actually has NOTHING to do with the behavoir the Bush administration was involved with in this case.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: Kibbo86
I think that his point was to determine whether or not the criticisms of the White House's behaviour are the result of partisanship or not.

In both cases, there is a difference between what was actually spoken and the records of that speech.

In one, the press is not treating the misstep with charitability, but rather it is challenging the speaker. That speaker (or, at least, the body that speaker represents) is insisting that the records are correct, and that the recordings are wrong.

In the second, the press seems to be treating the case more charitably, assuming that it was a simple error on the part of the speaker. The analogy breaks down, because we cannot see Clinton's reaction to the situation.

If the White House were to issue a release that claimed that McClellan simply misspoke, it would seem much less authoritarian. (Though, perhaps, equally incredulous.)

If Clinton issued a similar statement, it would seem much more plausible, simply because that is a more plausible misspeak.

Edit:
Although an argument could be made that this difference in coverage is the result of medial bias, I think that a more plausible view would be simply that the White House undergoes much more scrutiny from the press than does a single Senator. Though this case it is impossible to refute the bias argument altogether. Bias, by it's very definition, is a matter of statistics, and this sample is too small to determine any kind of trend.
The thing is as far as I can tell, the two cases have clearly NOTHING to do with each other. In one case you have the Bush administration clearly claiming they said something different than they actually said. Its not an argument they mispoke, its an outright denial. It makes perfect sense that this opens up the Bush Administration to criticism and ridicule.

In Hillary's case, she came out with a position in an interview, and apparently later decided to clarify her position with a slightly nuanced rephrasing. To the best of my knowledge she certainly has not attempted to deny what she said in that interview. This is actually quite acceptable behavoir and SHOULD be treated differently. Assuming Hillary took a position that her original phrasing potentially conveyed personal animosity toward the illegal immigrant that she wished to avoid, its a quite legitimate change in phrasing. Its simply a nuanced position that you can be against the effects of illegal immigration upon America without hating individual immigrants, and it can lead to slighly different policies that you advocate as a result. If the press were to take the original position in the interview as Hillary's current one and make no attempt to mention her later clarifications, that would actually be irresponsible behavoir on the part of the press.
 

ExpertNovice

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
939
0
0
Maybe I read the opening sentence incorrectly.

Apparently the new White House strategy is when someone says something embarassing, simply deny that it was ever said regardless of the evidence.

So, allow me to rephrase.

Apparently the liberal strategy is when someone says something embarassing, simply deny that it was ever said regardless of the evidence.


Followed by:

However, altering the actual transcript and trying to get the press in general to also do so is completely unacceptable.


My question stands. Why is it ok for liberals but not conservatives?

As stated many times, a fact a couple of you ignore, is that I believe any such manipulation is wrong. It should be obvious from the responses that liberals think it is ok for their demagogues to act in such a manner.