Wash. Times' Pierce reprinted GOP talking points (literally)
In his February 23 "Inside Politics" column for The Washington Times, Greg Pierce reported on the Republican National Committee's "key findings" about leading 2008 Democratic presidential candidates by printing the title of each of the RNC's smear sheets verbatim and providing no analysis beyond his assertion that the "findings" were not "a pretty sight." Additionally, Pierce stated that the "findings" constituted "everything [the RNC] could dig up" on the candidates but did not note that the RNC smear sheets cited Washington Times articles, columns, and editorials a total of 14 times.
As Media Matters for America noted, The Politico's chief political correspondent, Mike Allen, touted the "just-the-facts fashion" of the "sophisticated" RNC documents and falsely claimed that "[s]uch 'talking points' used to be closely held," when in fact, the RNC has been distributing talking points to media outlets for years. Allen did not acknowledge that the RNC documents cited his articles for The Politico six times.
From the February 23 edition of The Washington Times:
Short and unsweet
The Republican National Committee has just released everything it could dig up about the Democratic presidential candidates, and it isn't a pretty sight. Here's an abbreviated version of the committee's key findings:
- Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois: "An inexperienced, insulated, arrogant, unabashed liberal."
- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson: "A self-promoting, Washington insider with a controversial record."
- Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut: "A New England liberal, past his prime, on an unrealistic vanity run for the White House."
- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York: "A calculating, divisive, lifelong liberal with political baggage."
- Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware: "An undisciplined, self-described Northeast liberal, in love with the sound of his own voice."
- Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina: "A hypocritical, inexperienced liberal with a new negative attitude."
- Former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa: "A tax-hiking, mismanaging, 'blip' candidate with no foreign policy experience."
Republicans: war mongering chickenhawks, unconcerned about the military, more concerned about helping the rich than the poor, unconcerned about the environment, distrust science but think the Bible's parables are to dictate policy, homophobic, sexist, racist...
What did I miss? Is it OK to pigeon-hole every Repub into one summary list and publish to the masses?
Of course it's OK. You've got the First Amendment on your side. Unfortunately, so does Greg Pierce and the RNC.
Good! First Amendment it is!!
Now if only I could own a major publication or two, hire a few "reporters" and publish talking points, I'm golden. Maybe I'll just get permission to record Fox News and play it back in another order.
Unfortunately, non-reporting is accepted and/or ignored in American media by most. I wonder how Pravda is doing these days? First amendment or not, same crummy results handed to a misinformed public.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
Take note to the extent of our demise as a democracy, freedom of the press has been sold to corporate media moguls that have no shame about promoting their own interests at our democracy's expense!!
Save Democracy, Vote for a Democrat that will implement the Fairness Doctrine and restore our "free press" from corporate control !!
We are little more than a shell of a democracy, we have allowed the RNC and their corporate cronies to transform our great country into a new version of American Fascism!! We tore up our Bill of Rights, and Constitutional protections from our government on the word of cowards, scoundrels, and our "Dual Unitary Executives Draft Dodgers."
Imagine that Rev. Moon has his thumb on the voice of America and our former free press. How pathetic is that!?
The Republican leadership has betrayed American Democracy, their oath of office to "protect, defend, and preserve the Bill of Rights, and Constitution of the United States of America,' and deserve no less than the rest of their lives in a federal pen!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
And the Democrats have stood next to the Republicans and voted for the destruction of the country with them. Do not forget that.
COpy and paste journalism at it's finest. What a puppet!
Has there ever been any doubt? The Moonie Times, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all the other professional liars have been regurgitating GOP talking points for years. I guess they've gotten so accustomed to lying that they don't even pretend any more.
The Washington Times - right wing leaning newspaper. The Republican National Committee - enough said. No hidden, anonymous sources here. Seems to me this is gift handed to each candidate for they know exactly what they will be combatting from their opponents.
Would you rather this be some stealth memo sent to the media?
I'd rather that these twits stop pretending to be journalists.
Word.... It is unreal that the *newspaper* literally repeated VERBATIM what the RNC said on their site....unfreakin'believable...
Why? It sources it and identifies them verbatim.
Yes...I know...it does not advance any point other than parroting the one-liners the RNC has for the candidates....there is no substance, no analysis....
Yes...I know...it does not advance any point other than parroting the one-liners the RNC has for the candidates....there is no substance, no analysis....by mr. L
It wasn't meant to be an analysis piece from what I can tell.
The Republican National Committee has just released everything it could dig up about the Democratic presidential candidates, and it isn't a pretty sight. Here's an abbreviated version of the committee's key findings
Then the list.
What would have wanted them to write? They were simply giving you a list that was out there for anyone to read. Not a secret document. It spoke for itself. It required no further analysis.
So IF the Washington Post had a list concerning the Republican candidates released by the DNC and printed it without analysis would you be upset?
Probably not....
The Moonie Times essentially printed a special interest group's press release without any journalistic analysis. Any newspaper above the level of the Podunk Weekly Tattler knows that's just not done.
They cease to be real journalists for a real newspaper. They have become loudspeakers and relay towers.
This isn't crap crap journalism to you? Why not just have a two page ad for GOP.com? This article undermines their credibility as a news source due to its bias and they should rightly be called on it. If the agreed with the content they could at the very least make a halfed a$$ attempt to provide supporting info.
How would you feel if they cherry picked instances where they could offer up some evidence of these RNC points? Would that make you feel better? Because all politicians have some such baggage, that if not viewed in their totality, could fall under some of these accusations.
They laid them out there, as I said, any reader certainly knows by the author of them that they are highly partisan and consider their source.
How would you feel if they cherry picked instances where they could offer up some evidence of these RNC points? Would that make you feel better?
We wouldn't be having this discussion, but that is not what happened is it?
No, because that would be unabashedly unfair and incredibly biased.
"negative attitude", "in love with the sound of his own voice", "unrealisic vanity run". those are really some deeply researched "findings", huh? i guess only for jokers like you.
"Any reader"? Persons who would subscribe to the Times conceivably have it read TO them? And lack the sense to save the money and invent their own lies?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
"Would that make you feel better? Because all politicians have some such baggage, that if not viewed in their totality, could fall under some of these accusations." // Tommy
Ok Tommy; realizing that ideologues’ see through a prism of their own presumptions of reality, thus all reality fits their ideals no matter. Whether that means we all get to kiss a speeding train whether we see the coming danger or not they expect us to appease their ideals!
The problem is that a one of our two parties of our two party democracy has seen fit to take control of the press as a tool for it's message, and a presumed free press feels compelled to print "news" in the form of RNC talking points, word of word!!
That sir is not a free press, and certainly not a free press in an American Democracy!! That is "The Propaganda of the RNC" replacing our free press!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Clear cut example of "news" media directly promoting the message of the Republican party.
And it only took 10 minutes before the first "What's wrong with that?" comment. I wonder how long before the first "This isn't in the MM mission so they shouldn't even post this" comment. Oh, and the "just a business decision" comment.
Let's get them all out of the way within 20min to save time.
This was a piece identifying it's author as the RNC - anyone with a brain knows their agenda where the Democratic presidential candidates are concerned. A huge chunk of salt, obviously. If there was a similar one put out by the DNC, I would view it exactly the same way.
the point is that Greg did NO journalism....he just repeated exactly what the RNC talking points are...there is no news or investigation, or anything of any real substance in his article...
I won't argue with that, but a case could be made that it's strictly an informative or highlighting type article - that its purpose is to report the strategy where the RNC is concerned regarding the Democratic candidates. In that case, it does just that.
Welcome to Pravda.
except for the fact that it is NOT informative....go to the site linked above...it is just random one-liners with NO substance and no coherence...it is garbage...seriously- go to it and tell me it's worthy of being repeated EXACTLY in a major *newspaper* and to be touted as *news*...
as someone else noted, these are presented as "findings". as in someone researched this and they found such and such. but you already knew that, right tommy?
The Washington Times is the paper version of Fox News.
Not an excuse, merely a fact.
I'm sure Fox will repeat the Washington Times article verbatim [if they haven't already]
Then MMFA will have a thread highlighting Fox repeating what the Washington Times wrote...
aw cmon, nocomment. you want to eliminate people saying "why is this here" and "this is not misinformation"? if we did that, tommy would be out of a job.
As long as the Wasington Times continues to delude itself that it is a source of objective and decent journalism, MMFA should point out when they aren't acting like they pretend at every turn.
People with a brain knows the RNC is not objective, and to point out they are behind this piece is the decent thing to do.
I stand by my remarks.
;^)
The problem is not only is that it is not journalism, but it is the misleading language. Note the two key series of words: "dig up" and "findings". Both terms imply that these are statements of fact. The first further implies that these "facts" were hidden (and therefore are somehow nefarious). The second implies that they are "solid facts" as "found" by a committee in search of the truth.
Same ol' tactic. Repeat the lie over and over again until it becomes the truth. I do not begrudge the RNC, that's politics. I however loathe the "journalist" who abets this.
Thats right its partisan nonsense. So why was it NEWS? Thats right it wasnt it was a partisan cheapshot and GOP campaign commercial by the Moonie Times. A political JOKE. Not to be confused with a REAL news organization, which is why it is here
Well at least they don't have to worry about Vilsack anymore. He withdrew today.. Not that he was going to go anywhere really. Wasn't he first one in, first one out.
What I'm mystified about is this one: New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson: "A self-promoting, Washington insider with a controversial record."
How is a Governor of New Mexico a Washington insider? I'm actually curious about that one.
I think that is code for, the big boys let him sit at their lunch table.
Richardson served as ambassador to the UN and as Secretary of Energy in the Clinton administration. I think the "controversy" refers to problems with secret materials going missing at Los Alamos while he was head of the overseeing department.
I'm disappointed...
The Republicans are slipping... none of these concise descriptive phrases are short enough to comfortably fit on a bumper sticker. Maybe the Republicans are saving some of these for BIG bumper stickers that would fit better on their Hummers. The way the Republicans constantly reduce everything, whether it's a complex issue or a candidate, to vapid, overly simplistic, bumper sticker type slogans and phrases never ceases to amuse me. I guess it's worked for them in the past... at least for a while it did. ;>)
I take it that the Republican National Committee, by way of the washington times, is endorsing Gov. Bill Richardson and/or former Gov. Tom Vilsack for the Democratic nomination...
...because they were the only ones not described as "liberal" (whatever that means), all the others bearing that stain.
So when you go to cast your vote in your local State's Democratic Primary, but you don't want to vote for a "liberal", you're reduced to two candidates (according to the RNC via the washington times):
"A self-promoting, Washington insider with a controversial record"
...or...
"A tax-hiking, mismanaging, 'blip' candidate with no foreign policy experience"
Slim pickings.
I wish I knew what the heck a "liberal" was, so I could try and rid the Democratic Party nationally of them, and thereby increase the choices for Democrats to select from.
Otherwise, I'm forced to furrow my brow and go to wondering, just what's so "controversial" about Mr. Richardson, and just what is it that Mr. Vilsack has "mismanaged".
Not to mention Mr. Vilsack being the 'blip' candidate.
What's that supposed to mean... he suffers from chronic hiccups?
Richardson was part of the Clinton White House, he was Clinton's UN ambassador for a good while....as Iraqis and Kosovars died at the hands of the US. He didn't stop the killing, he participated in it. Richardson has bloody hands. While all too common in DC, it shows he has no sympathy for ordinary human beings and is willing to kill for political gain.
We need to stop electing killers to public office.
The Republican National Committee has just released everything it could dig up about the Democratic presidential candidates, and it isn't a pretty sight.
I'll say it isn't a pretty sight. It makes the RNC look like a bunch of petty and desparate dinks. Or totally incompetent investigators.
You're exactly right, and many may certainly view it that way.......it's not all positives for the RNC, it does make them look a little worried and ridiculous.
Remember though, these are the same jokers who came up with Purple Heat Band-Aids for Kerry in 2004, shame on them for doing that. And also the same jokers who came out with the "Bore Losermann" bumper stickers in 2000. I'm starting to think that there are many, not all, but many who consider themselves republicans that just play along with whatever their people say. Sort of the RNC dittoheads. No, not sort of, but actually RNC dittoheads. They learned it all from Rush. Listen to what I say, and don't question anything.
I do have to hand it to them though, their strategy has worked pretty well, up until 2006. 2008 might be a bloodbath for them by the time the elections are over, because it does appear that folks are actually starting to snap out of it, and think for themselves. I mean, it only took 12 years or so, but they're coming around.
One thing to consider is that the purple heart bandaids, the flip-flops, and the bore/loserman bumperstickers probably had nothing to do with past republican success. Ineffectual acts are ineffectual in both directions. These talking points are ineffectual, and don't have the advantage of seeming to be brilliant because they're riding a current of success. Karl Rove has been regarded as brilliant - during republican success. But when the chips are down (like Bush's poll numbers), the genius Rove has no answer. Turns out he was just another typical politician, riding the current of success to a false reputation. And amidst the current of failure, these talking points are the bubbles of a desparately drowning RNC.
"...it does appear that folks are actually starting to snap out of it, and think for themselves."
Maggie, I hope I'm not just delusional but I honestly believe the same thing about people coming to their senses politically. I know it may not be great empirical science to base an opinion like this on a few anecdotal experiences but I'm noticing a change. A couple of days ago I talked to a good friend of mine who is a long-time Republican... but he's rational. an exception, I know. He is so sick of Bush and Cheney's lies and pure incompetence that he can't wait for Bush and Cheney to leave office. He's sick of the hatred and division in America... he said we're like the "Sunnis and Shia". And he said if he had to he would hold his nose and vote for a Democrat in 2008.
But I've talked to other people too and my sense is things are changing... people are beginning to think more for themselves because they've been let down so badly by their leaders, their political parties, and even their favorite media personalities.
We can only hope...
The Washington Times is so disgusting with its lies.
I think the RNC probably has a longer list than this. That one will not appear in any news paper or on any of the repub friendly tv/radio shows. (but you'll here what it says as 2008 comes around).
But it would be interesting to cut and paste the above list into a word doc. Then watch and see how many times repub canidates repeat the list almost verbatum.
This is hilarious. Everything they could dig up is a bunch of purely subjective opinions. "insulated", "arrogant", "unabashed", and these are recited as if they are actual concrete criticisms. What a joke.
The only lie I see is that they called these people "liberals". All other points are valid.
I guess as long as opinions count for journalism, we have to assume this was reported only in trash papers found at the checkout counter.
Why doesn't every paper run the following? Why not publish it every day? Why not place ads on TV, radio, drop fliers on the troops, etc? -- Because only Mad Magazine would include this in their "Realistic Headlines we'd like to see" section. Where is the so-called Liberal media?
Still don't change the fact none on those listed are liberals. Most are guilty of war crimes from their voting records.