More Proof of Media Bias
[Guest post by DRJ]
Straight from Katie Couric’s mouth:
“Speaking at the National Press Club Tuesday evening, CBS “Evening News” anchor Katie Couric pulled back the curtain on her personal views of both the war in Iraq and former “Evening News” anchor Dan Rather. “Everyone in this room would agree that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war,” said Couric, adding that it is “pretty much accepted” that the war in Iraq was a mistake. “I’ve never understood why [invading Iraq] was so high on the administration’s agenda when terrorism was going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that [Iraq] had no true connection with al Qaeda.”
Further, Couric said the Bush administration botched the war effort, calling it “accepted truths” that it erred by“disbanding the Iraq military, and leaving 100,000 Sunni men feeling marginalized and angry…[and] whether there were enough boots on the ground, the feeling that we’d be welcomed as liberators and didn’t need to focus as much on security.” She added “I’d feel totally comfortable saying any of that at some point, if required, on television.”
Some of Katie’s quotes might even cause red-state Americans to question her patriotism:
The former “Today” show anchor traced her discomfort with the administration’s march to war back to the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. “The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying ‘we’ when referring to the United States and, even the ‘shock and awe’ of the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and just a little uncomfortable. And I remember feeling, when I was anchoring the ‘Today’ show, this inevitable march towards war and kind of feeling like, ‘Will anybody put the brakes on this?’ And is this really being properly challenged by the right people? And I think, at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic and it was a very difficult position to be in.”
Couric referenced comments made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday’s “The Charlie Rose Show,” and said she actually agreed with Ahmadinejad on one point. “Oftentimes Westerners don’t really understand fully the values of this particular culture,” said Couric. “And I think the jury is still out as to whether democracy can really thrive in Iraq.”
Not surprisingly, Couric saved a few choice words for Dan Rather but I’m sure she will be forgiven. After all, as Katie said, everyone at the National Press Club agrees … on just about everything.
— DRJ
Yeah, why didn’t anyone say something at the time? It’s just too bad that someone didn’t speak out they way Katie felt about the march to war…somebody say that was on the highest rated morning TV show in the USA every day of the week.
Katie, who are you crapping? You sat in a powerful seat on the Today show and now on the news (though I don’t think anyone pays attention to you) and supposedly felt the march to war was wrong, blah, blah, blah but didn’t say a darn thing. You never understood, etc, but didn’t ask anyone you interviewed any tough questions about your concerns. Puh-leeze. C’mon. Quit trying to pretend like you understand anything. I guess when you get desperate for ratings you’ll say anything. Call it the “Olberman effect”
ThreeSheets (71f951) — 9/26/2007 @ 1:18 pm[…] more proof that great minds think alike. Hello to you eph-bloggers, by the […]
Somebody stop me… I’m about to blog about perky Katie Couric again… at Amused Cynic (691ade) — 9/26/2007 @ 1:18 pmI wish the Left would get its talking points straight. On the one hand, they carp about how Bush invaded Iraq and deposed its democratically-elected leader. On the other hand, they tell us that they don’t think Iraq is capable of democracy.
Which is it???
Steverino (be89b2) — 9/26/2007 @ 1:37 pm“Oftentimes Westerners don’t really understand fully the values of this particular culture,”
Don’t confuse understanding with acceptance, Katie. I understand the culture, I simply don’t accept it. In my opinion, it needs to be either changed significantly or destroyed altogether.
Sorry if you don’t agree, but don’t get that confused, please.
mojo (55cff8) — 9/26/2007 @ 2:06 pm“I’ve never understood why [invading Iraq] was so high on the administration’s agenda when terrorism was going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that [Iraq] had no true connection with al Qaeda.”
Katie, if you want to understand, just ask Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, they both voted for the war. Also remember Bill Clinton’s CIA chief, George Tenant, told us that “its a slam dunk” Iraq had WMDs.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 9/26/2007 @ 2:09 pm[…] Aces, The Jawa Report, Patterico’s Pontifications, Hot Air, NewsBusters.org Bookmark to: Tags: Dan, Rather, , CBS, , Fake, News, , Documents, , […]
Right Voices » Blog Archive » Rather In Seeking To Depose Bush In Lawsuit: “I’m not in this — mostly — with anybody else.” (1466f5) — 9/26/2007 @ 2:18 pm2007.09.26 Politics and National Defense Roundup…
The Times Swings Its Hatchet at Bush … and Hits MukaseyEven by low Gray Lady standards, a journalistic abomination.Andrew C. McCarthy Liberty and security are forever in tension, and never more so than in wartime. This is particularly true when,…
Old War Dogs (72c8fd) — 9/26/2007 @ 2:20 pm“The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying ‘we’ when referring to the United States
Apparently Katie doesn’t appreciate the values of America’s particular culture. Or she doesn’t consider herself part of it, or something.
MayBee (a2697c) — 9/26/2007 @ 2:26 pmI don’t think she’s unpatriotic, and I don’t think the administration called anyone that questioned it unpatriotic. Though it’s possible someone who finds it a problem to call themselves “we” when discussing the United States might sound a tad unpatriotic.
“The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying ‘we’ when referring to the United States …”
Well, I read that as a renunciation of US citizenship.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 9/26/2007 @ 2:35 pmI like it when she wears her big girl serious glasses. She almost looks like a grown up.
daleyrocks (906622) — 9/26/2007 @ 2:53 pm…cause red-state Americans to question her patriotism:
Irony or humor, DRJ?
alphie (99bc18) — 9/26/2007 @ 3:00 pmThe defense of”being misled’,DOES NOT work for H. Clinton, all the Dems on the Intell COMMITTEE and MR. RATHER.Congrats on joining this dubious collection of fools.
mike191 (094ec5) — 9/26/2007 @ 3:03 pm“Irony or humor, DRJ?”
We give up, Alphie, which were you attempting?
SPQR (6c18fd) — 9/26/2007 @ 3:19 pm“Saying “we” when referring to the United States …”
I don’t question her patriotism. I’m convinced she doesn’t have any.
nk (7d4710) — 9/26/2007 @ 3:29 pmIs there any other country where everyone has to wear a flag lapel pin to be a patriot?
Andrew J. Lazarus (f0940c) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:10 pmAlphie:
Fact.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:11 pmEven in the 15 “Red” States, there are people who are against the war, DRJ.
Or is “Red” State actually a state of mind.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:15 pmAlphie,
You’ve hit on one of the points of this post. Katie Couric believes that everyone in that room agrees with her. She’s probably right but most people – even red staters like me – have friends and co-workers who have a variety of opinions about politics and world affairs.
Katie really needs to get out more.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:21 pmEven W. hisself admitted Saddam didn’t have any WMDs, DRJ.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:29 pmIs there any other country where everyone has to wear a flag lapel pin to be a patriot?
Actually, flag lapel pins violate the Flag Code. But that’s not how “Perky” meant it or how you mean it, Andrew.
nk (7d4710) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:30 pm(Deep breath). Nobody in any country HAS to wear a flag pin to be a patriot, Andrew, as you already know. And I am unaware of anyone, on this forum or elsewhere, claiming that patriotism requires that “everyone has to wear a flag lapel pin”. As is often the case, straw men make for weak arguments.
Of course, if you LIKE the idea of wearing a mandatory pin, there is always North Korea.
John Barrett Jr. (241ec0) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:31 pmWhat would you expect?
Couric along with the VAST MAJORITY OF THE MEDIA fell for the war drums, hook, line and sinker.
Couric is the penultimate talking-head who can barely read a teleprompter, much less speak extemporaneously. Now she is mouthing the the groupthink arising from retrospective analysis.
Just like civil cases which have a lower standard of proof (preponderance of evidence) than criminal matters (reasonable doubt) the evidence for the media seems to be largely, they screwed up.
They are simply proving they would rather ‘ask for forgiveness, than for permission.’
They are trying to rectify their bias in favor of trusting this administration. The pendulum swings……….
John from Cincinati (4741c2) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:34 pmJohn from C., is me. Sorry.
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:36 pmEven Democrats thought Saddam had WMDs, Alphie.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:37 pmSemanticleo,
Maybe Democrats need a little less groupthink.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:39 pmYeah, but they were “misled” DRJ.
Are you saying there are members of the national press who think Saddam somehow smuggled his WMDs to…where was it?
Syria?
alphie (99bc18) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:40 pm“Maybe Democrats need a little less groupthink.”
Not sure what you mean…..
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:42 pmKatie caught a ton of flack from the left, both inside and outside the media, for not being adversarial enough with the U.S. military during her reports from Iraq earlier in September. Her comments at the National Press Club were in part Couric’s efforts to prove to her colleagues she didn’t suffer from Stockholm Syndrome during her trip to Baghdad, and deserves to be put back on the ‘A’ list of the coctail party circuit.
John (3f30ef) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:45 pmIn 1998, President Willian J. Clinton proclaimed that the policy of the United States was to effect “regime change” in Iraq.
President George W. Bush put fini to that policy in 2003.
Another Drew (758608) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:51 pmAre you saying there are members of the national press who think?
That’s a good question.
nk (7d4710) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:53 pmSemanticleo/John C.:
Liberals believe the Bush Administration scammed them with false stories of Saddam’s WMDs and the need for war. (Never mind that the Clinton Administration thought he had them, too.) As a result, the new conventional wisdom is that because Bush can’t be trusted, liberals must do everything they can to frustrate and stop Bush policies.
Isn’t it groupthink when a group of people all adhere to the same beliefs? Like Katie, liberals need to get out more and consider different opinions.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:57 pmDRJ,
Maybe Bush was one of the ones who were “misled.”
I think your own biases are making you read things into Couric’s statement that aren’t there.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/26/2007 @ 4:59 pmAlphie,
Katie said “the war in Iraq was a mistake.” Would she have called Iraq a mistake if a Democrat like Bill or Hillary Clinton were President?
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/26/2007 @ 5:03 pmHaha, DRJ,
I think most people feel the Iraq war was a mistake…including many U.S. generals.
All American’s aren’t getting a slice of the $190,000,000,000 Rummy jr. asked Congress for today to keep the train rollin’ another year.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/26/2007 @ 5:06 pmI think Saddam did have a WMD program and I don’t believe Iraq was a mistake. But, either way, Katie’s statements were that “people in this country” were misled about Iraq, WMDs, etc. The only credible way to construe that is that she thinks the Bush Administration did the misleading.
Do you think I’ve misread this and Katie is actually upset with George Tenet and the CIA for misleading Bush, too?
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/26/2007 @ 5:18 pmMaybe ol’ Slam Dunk was mislead, too, DRJ.
I’ll wait for the historians to sort it all out.
alphie (99bc18) — 9/26/2007 @ 5:26 pmEverytime I read a leftist’s comment on a post critical of a journalist or supportive of GW Bush I am reminded of just how bad their reading comprehension is.
Alan Kellogg (0821f1) — 9/26/2007 @ 5:39 pm“scammed them with false stories of Saddam’s WMDs and the need for war.”
DRJ;
I respect your moderate tone but I think you sound a little naive about the runup to the war.
There was a background of intelligence noise that
advised caution and preparedness as a prelude to any such invasion. The best I can say about this Admin in that regard is that they seem to
have had good intentions.
At worst, they seemed to exhibit a reckless disregard for the consequences of hasty action in the pursuit of their noble objectives.
As to ‘groupthink’; don’t you think there is a greater portion devoured by the Right, than by the Left?
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 9/26/2007 @ 5:44 pmSeman/John-
MayBee (f39c71) — 9/26/2007 @ 5:45 pmYou spelled Cincinnati wrong.
These two statements taken together say one of two things.
You were not paying much attention to events in 2002-2003 and are mouthing talking points.
or your definition of hasty is not common usage.
The run up to OIF was anything but hasty. If anything the delay spent in exhausting other options before going with the military campaign was a huge mistake.
Just Passing Through (ff997a) — 9/26/2007 @ 6:07 pmRight. Authorized in October ’02, commenced in March ’03. You could stash an awful lot of stuff in half a year.
What if we hadn’t bothered dithering with the UN all that time? What might we have found if we didn’t telegraph our intent for so long?
Tenet (and who appointed him again?) might have been right.
Pablo (99243e) — 9/26/2007 @ 6:18 pmAnd when you add in the bogus quote in George Tenet’s book about Iraq being mentioned on Sept 12th, 2001, one gets a whole new take on “hasty”. Damn, I guess I need a new dictionary too.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 9/26/2007 @ 6:20 pmMaybe he was talking about the USA Today poll that found something like 75% of Americans thinking Saddam was behind the attacks, which was published on 9/12/01. USA Today…George Bush, what’s the difference, right?
Pablo (99243e) — 9/26/2007 @ 6:23 pmEvidently to the head of the CIA, not much.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 9/26/2007 @ 6:25 pmSo now we know why couric has been such a sop in the past. Her coverage in Iraq recently was as rah rah as you could get. Know we know she was merely protecting her right flank by pandering as the press has been doing for years. But of course one slip and they get attacked as inamerican.
Here’s a link for you http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001298
Read the whole thing before you go back to rewatch fox’s patraeus hagiography.sbd on the run up to the war look up the documents just released by the Spanish government. Transcripts of bush and asnar.
blah (db3598) — 9/26/2007 @ 7:19 pmMy god you people are ducking idiots.
‘Ducking’ idiots.
blah (7fdbf2) — 9/26/2007 @ 7:28 pmBlame it on blackberry.
Semanticleo #38,
Perhaps I am naive (or cynical) because I think most political leaders are doing their best, but I also think there are many moments when political leaders – liberal and conservative – exhibit reckless disregard. Both qualities go with the territory of leading, in part because there are too many variables to know the consequences of every action in the world today.
That’s one reason I’m a conservative. I’d much rather politicians do nothing because the results of doing nothing are much easier to forecast and live with. However, sometimes you have to do something even if the consequences can’t be predicted with certainty. WWII was one of those times. The period following 9/11 was another.
As for groupthink, I believe we all have a tendency to do that. However, conservatives are more likely to embrace groupthink on cultural issues while liberals do so on political issues.
Think of the values that bond you to people with a similar worldview. For conservatives that’s typically cultural issues like religion and family values. For liberals it’s more secular concerns like free speech, feminist/gay choice and other political issues. I think conservatives are generally predictable on cultural issues and liberals are generally in lockstep on political issues.
Just my 2 cents.
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/26/2007 @ 7:50 pm‘Ducking’ idiots.
Blame it on blackberry.
I dunno. I thought it good wordsmithing. Totally wrong but rhetorically effective.
nk (7d4710) — 9/26/2007 @ 7:55 pmActually blah, I’m just going to blame it on your cheap namecalling of which I already got enough.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 9/26/2007 @ 8:27 pmJust read the ducking link.
blah (f887f5) — 9/26/2007 @ 9:12 pmI agree with Pablo (#41)…if we hadn’t given Saddam so much time, who knows what we would’ve found? Everyone’s memories seem to be fading, but Saddam did have WMDs. I remember Hanz Blix and his pals found something like 5000 lbs. of anthrax at one site before the war and there were more things found as well.
There are many reports of truck convoys heading to Syria, too. Does anyone remember the sarin they found in Jordan in 2004? It was enough to kill 60,000 people. Gee, I wonder where that came from?
They found jets buried in the sand after the invasion. Everyone, including the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc…believed that Saddam was a threat.
I’m tired of the Bush lied people died line. Who cares now anyway? What is done is done. We are doing the right thing killing fanatics who want to kill us…better over there than here….
Stacy In Tucson (b99466) — 9/26/2007 @ 11:36 pm“I think conservatives are generally predictable on cultural issues and liberals are generally in lockstep on political issues.”
DRJ;
I think we could argue that one but suspect neither will be persuaded. Part of the political advantage of Republicans, for several decades, is the disarray Dems display because, IMHO, they are free-form and flexible in attitudes, opinions and beliefs.
Generalizations usually break down when seen on a ‘case-by-case’ process. But isn’t it the exception, which proves the rule?
conservative synonyms
adjective
1. Strongly favoring retention of the existing order: orthodox, right, rightist, right-wing, Tory, traditionalist, traditionalistic. See keep
2. Kept within sensible limits: discreet, moderate, reasonable, restrained, temperate. See plain, restraint
3. Clinging to obsolete ideas: backward, reactionary, unprogressive. See politics
liberal definition
Semanticleo (4741c2) — 9/27/2007 @ 3:16 amadj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
Ahh, c’mon, Semanticleo. That’s BS. You know as well as I do that there are plenty of open-minded conservatives, just like there are plenty of close-minded liberals. You can’t pull out a dictionary definition of the words “liberal” and “conservative” and expect that to mean anything; you have to treat the terms as jargon in this context. Liberals and conservatives are both tied to their respective platforms.
All that said, I think DRJ’s “groupthink” comment falls into the same category (BS, that is – no offense, DRJ)
Also:
“Liberals believe the Bush Administration scammed them with false stories of Saddam’s WMDs and the need for war. (Never mind that the Clinton Administration thought he had them, too.”
-DRJ
Clinton wasn’t so stupid as to go to war based on a gut feeling.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 9/27/2007 @ 6:39 amClinton wasn’t so stupid as to go to war based on a gut feeling.
In other words, Clinton pushed for sanctions against Iraq that he had no intention of enforcing. Christ what a nutless wonder that guy was.
spongeworthy (45b30e) — 9/27/2007 @ 6:55 am“George Bush – More Balls Than Brains”
I suppose that would be true even if he’d lost one testicle in a tragic brush-clearing accident.
Leviticus (ed6d31) — 9/27/2007 @ 7:01 amOh, and for those following along, Barcepundit has already shown the kerfluffle about the transcripts of Bush and Asnar are not matching the misleading headlines.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 9/27/2007 @ 8:11 amIndeed, I have created a straw man. I interpreted the original post’s reference to flag lapel pins as “You must wear a flag pin to be patriotic.” I see that the correct interpretation is “Being uncomfortable about having everyone wear flag pins is unpatriotic.” So someone who wears a flag pin but is uncomfortable about the jingoistic pressure to do so is questionably patriotic in the red states, while not wearing a lapel pin but encouraging others to do so (something I can imagine from Rush Limbaugh) would be OK.
I’m still not aware of any other democracy where there’s an unwritten rule politicians have to wear flag lapel pins, and I’m a little worried that presumably a great many Americans would decide how to vote on this basis or the politicians wouldn’t bother damaging the weave of their suites. I’m checking pictures of Washington, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts for lapel pins without success, but I do recall seeing one on Richard Nixon. So the lapel pin doesn’t seem like a reliable indicator of a good president.
While we’re at it, nk is referred to 4 USC §8 apparently permitting a flag pin on the left lapel.
Andrew J. Lazarus (b12c84) — 9/27/2007 @ 7:42 pmMark Steyn has the last word on why Katie Couric is uncomfortable saying “we.”
DRJ (ec59b5) — 9/27/2007 @ 8:20 pm