Discussing Tenet book, Kurtz referred to "a bunch of journalists of questionable patriotism"
Note to readers: Several readers have posted comments below saying that in this item, Media Matters has misinterpreted Howard Kurtz's "questionable patriotism" and "liberal media" comments. They write that it is apparent that Kurtz was purporting to represent the Bush administration's view of the press, not his own.
But even if this is what Kurtz was trying to do, by presenting the administration's view that the media is liberal and unpatriotic without addressing the merits of such a claim, Kurtz granted that view undue credence. Given that Kurtz is among the nation's most prominent media critics, his audience might expect him to address the substance of the conservatives' media critique rather than simply repeating it.
In fact, this would not be the first time he has suggested that the media exhibit a liberal bias. Media Matters has documented numerous instances of Kurtz suggesting the media are hostile to the Iraq war.
* * *
On April 30, discussing former CIA director George Tenet's just-released book, At the Center of the Storm (HarperCollins), on Washington Post Radio, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz asserted: "So what's interesting here is: This is no longer the liberal media saying this. This is no longer a bunch of journalists of questionable patriotism saying the Bush administration rushed to war; wanted to invade Iraq all along; didn't have a serious debate." Kurtz continued: "This is the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and I think, in some ways -- leaving his motivation aside -- he has validated the press accounts that we've seen about the way that this war unfolded."
According to an April 30 Reuters article, in his book, Tenet "criticized the Bush administration's preparations for war and accused the White House of ruining his reputation by falsely asserting that he told President George W. Bush finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would be a 'slam dunk.' "
From the April 30 broadcast of Washington Post Radio's morning broadcast:
JESSICA DOYLE (co-host): And he seems to be -- there's a war of words between him and Condoleezza Rice, Secretary Condoleezza Rice, over that, that whole "slam dunk" controversy and the lead-up to the war. What do you make of her comments yesterday?
KURTZ: Well, look, she is still part of the administration. She has to defend this war. She has to defend the intelligence, so, obviously, she's going to have a very different take. And, look, it's Vice President Cheney who said on Meet the Press -- I saw this clip replayed several times in the last couple days -- that "George Tenet told us it was a slam dunk."
So what's interesting here is: This is no longer the liberal media saying this. This is no longer a bunch of journalists of questionable patriotism saying the Bush administration rushed to war; wanted to invade Iraq all along; didn't have a serious debate. This is the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and I think, in some ways -- leaving his motivation aside -- he has validated the press accounts that we've seen about the way that this war unfolded.
And in Howard Kurtz, we have a journalist of questionable intellect.
Correct, but in Kurtz we have a journalist, who doesn't do his job. Unless his job is to protect and defend the Bush administration.
This statement is so disgusting and slimy, plus, it reminds you of some kind of old Soviet Union Pravda "journalist" talking about the corruption of the communist ideal or something.
Understand the DYNAMIC of his statement.
Tenet has now come forward. Kurtz says, "This is NO LONGER the liberal media saying this. This is NO LONGER a bunch of journalists of questionable patriotism saying the Bush administration rushed to war; wanted to invade Iraq all along; didn't have a serious debate."
All because TENET has come forward.
The correlary is, if TENET had NOT come forward, then all the above listed things that are "no longer" true, would instead REMAIN true.
If Tenet had NOT come forward, the STATUS QUO would remain:
* This is the liberal media saying this.
* This is a bunch of journalists of questionable patriotism saying the Bush administration rushed to war; wanted to invade Iraq all along; didn't have a serious debate.
Kurtz announces a "sea change" in the "norm", as a result of Tenet coming forward. By doing so, he has characterized media coverage UP TO THIS POINT. And done so by describing the media as Karl Rove projects it. MISINFORMATION!
KURTZ!! Thank you for clearing up, in April of '07, why Bush rushed into war... I, ..I've been waiting 5 years for the answer... by the way, Kurtz, you have questionable patriotism because you are starting to believe the former director of the CIA instead of Cheney and Bush- please take yourself to the nearest police station, or better yet, detainee center, and check yourself in...
Questionable Patriotism?How disgusting.
If you paid me 2 million, I would write what every the media wanted me to write also. You see Doris, Tent has no creditabilty because he was part of the Clinton administration, oh sorry I mean Bush, that war monger.
As a matter of fact, mein weblog has gone so far as to ask over recent weeks the burning question "Who's the REAL patriot?" by presenting two diametrically-opposed specimens of a common issue, leaving the reader to ponder the issue for themselves.
In the process, urging some critical thinking being exercised as opposed to the doublethink which the conservative propaganda machine expects us to play.
"This is no longer a bunch of journalists of questionable patriotism saying the Bush administration rushed to war"
How can he say this after appearing in "Buying the War"?
I hope he was trying to be sarcastic here.
It sounded like he was trying to put "air quotes" around those descriptions of the media. Maybe as a way of indicating how critics had been described by administration supporters. Of course, "air quotes" are tough to do effectively on radio.
i think the context makes it clear that he's referring to the way the bush administration characterizes journalists who write stories it doesn't like. kurtz is not saying these journalists are of questionable patriotism, but that bush can't throw that line out there this time because it's his own guy who's doing the talking.
Exactly......this item should be removed. It is twisting Kurtz's words into an altogether different meaning thus removing their context.
Apparently when someone is consistently in this website's line of fire or a favorite target, as Kurtz is - these errors happen. But they shouldn't.
Gotta agree.
Reading the transcript doesn't do it justice. It was sarcasm. You can hear it in his enunciation, and his use of the "liberal media" just prior indicates to me that he was being sarcastic.
Tommy, you've got a valid "why is this here?" on this one, in my opinion.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
This is no longer a bunch of journalists of questionable patriotism saying the Bush administration rushed to war;//KURTZ
Tommy would notice the distinction were he not so determined to rationalize that a generalization of dissenting reporting could be so matter-of-factly characterized as unpatriotic!
So, who are these unpatriotic journalists, name them!! Robert Sheerer was the best columnist on the LA Times, and a distinguished academic in international affairs & intelligence matters until he came out and shot wholes in the rationale for the war! Is he unpatriotic? He was considered a reliable and truly expert opinion until Dick Cheney questioned his patriotism, then within months he was without his column! I wonder how that could happen! This is an example of how over the past 6 years dissenting voices have been silenced under the cloak of patriotism, to be replaced by scoundrels who will be pleased to pound the drums of war!
If you’re still rationalizing that by pointing to this type of suppression of freedom of debate, freedom of information, and denying that the media has been surrendered to be an arm of the RNC, then you are no longer a bystander, you’re a participant!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
LawrenceWilliams, after reading your comment and replaying the interview, I'm guessing you're correct. You can hear Kurtz's comments as questioning the patriotism of those questioning the war, or being sarcastic against Bush. But it seems a sloppy way for the media critic of the Washington Post to word it, especially on radio. I think he'll catch flack for this from others outside this world. And I posted a comment on the Moyers Journal blog before reading your post, so it'll spread a bit more quickly.
Yeah - you can almost hear the quotation marks around "journalists of questionable patriotism" in the audio clip.
LW is probably correct on this. Perhaps MMFA didn't pick up on his meaning as well as they should have, but knowing their usually stellar track record, I don't think we should be too hard on them. Their focus is on journalistic integrity as much as it is on misinformation, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were to remove this post or print a retraction, something that is rarely done by the people and organizations they scrutinize.
Okay, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he should have put quotation marks around the phrase. I think he's meaning that the administration can't use it as a dodge. I could be wrong, though.
Nerzog, I agree with your assessment. Kurtz appears to be saying that the Bush administration is going to be able to saddle this on some unpatriotic journalist, somewhere
I agree, that's how it seems to me too.
But I can't blame MMFA for taking the quote at face value. After all, this IS what a lot of people are saying.
There should be no "taking quotes at face value" - that is sloppy, lazy and exactly what some accuse this website of doing, which I don't believe they do. And that would be removing context.
I blame MM. They're the unpatriotic journalists.
Now, Rush, you don't have to work tomorrow.
I don't think he was speaking literally. I think he was using this administrations own words and accusations against them. I mean, are they going to call George Tenet unpatriotic?
Gotta agree with most of above, even if that means (ugh) defending Kurtz...I think MM's take is not being charitable in the way Kurtz meant this. Maybe you could say he doesn't warrant charity, and that's a reasonable point, but MM for its own sake needs to hold itself to a little higher standard. This site's too important.
MMFA obviously can't detect tone--Kurtz was clearly being sarcastic in using those comments. But then again, people reading the article can come to their own conclusions, so whatever.
It's sloppy of Kurtz - it's not as if he's a media neophyte. It would have been easy for him to clarify "so-called liberal media" "what the administration tried to portray as journalists of questionable patriotism" etc. I'm sure Kurtz knows the difference between radio and TV, where his mannerisms might have made it clear. I took the printed words, even after listening to the audio, at face value until LawrenceWilliams' post.
That said, there's reasonable doubt, so it'd be prudent to investigate more and get his take. If Kurtz says he meant it sarcastically, then that disclaimer should be put into the story.
It's more than obvious that Kurtz is attacking Bush's strawmen arguments when he says "liberal media", and "journalists of questionable patriotism".......the quotes in context make perfect sense and need no "sarcasm" disclaimer.
"More than obvious"? I disagree. Most people aren't going to listen to it more than once, as many of those who are reading these posts are, and many will take it at face value. Does that mean they should? Perhaps not, but what I'm saying is Kurtz has more experience and should be more precise in his language.
Perhaps, but just because this website and many of it's readers dislike Kurtz, that is no reason to take his words out of context as this thread topic clearly has done.
Kurtz is owed an apology, he has every right to claim he has been taken out of context, for no reason, except perhaps MMFA has some axe to grind against him?
Well, it's Howie's own fault for being such a shill all these years. I'll make no excuses for him, nor will I give him the benefit of the doubt. He's an overpaid, underworked hack, and anything that will weaken his hold further is good for freedom. Besides, nobody here knows what he did mean, now, do we?
Tommy, I don't know if someone at MM has it in for Kurtz, but I would follow up with him. That's only fair. And until that's done, I wouldn't be featuring his comments as one of the three top stories on the MM webpage. I know the blogsphere is fast, but it's better to take one's time and get it right.
I agree completely. I have not always agreed with some of the items posted here, they are just gratuituous and silly sometimes.....but I admire the contextual accuracy of most items and appreciate the completeness in which threads are detailed.
Tommy, of course MediaMatters has an axe to grind with Kurtz. Given his treatment of them in particular, and liberals in general, it would be stupid of MM not have an axe to grind with him. I listened to the clip, and the "context" (that's y'all's new favorite word, isn't it?) is not at all clear. Where are all you guys with your retraction requests when MM is defamed as a "far left" operation?
Yeah, I don't get the "out of context" argument here. Short of playing the entire program, what other context is there? His comments were played in full. MMFA may or may not be misreading Kurtz's tone, but Kurtz said what he said and MMFA quoted him accurately.
it's there to read for everyone. consider his history and make your own judgement.
Right. Kurtz's history of voicing similar sentiments in an unmistakeably sincere manner is definitely one bit of context that should be taken into account.
In full context - the context being that this shill and liar has espoused the Repugnant / Corporate Media line on every issue, to the point of inventing lies himself should those provided prove insufficient in number or quality - Kurtz is still a lying shill; this feint of comprehending the difference between "is" and "is" "is" almost amusing, since he concedes only that ground upon which the enemy (liberal/Dem) flag has aready been planted, and in so doing, sets Tenet up for the "debunking" that inevitably follows.
I'm not a huge Kurtz fan but I don't agree with MMFA's assessment of his statement. I think it's clear he's making that statement as something Bush would say. I think in this case a retraction is in order.
Am I the only one who's sick of these OLD WHITE GUYS on TV, all of whom have been around since the day CNN launched in 1980? My god, you still see that jurassic Bob Novak on Fox. I hate people like Kurtz with a purple passion because you get the sense that if you walked up and game him $20, he'd say anything you wrote on a teleprompter — anything.They all remind me of those "Jackass" guys anymore. The whole act is so goddamn tired.
I UNDERSTOOD WHAT KURTZ WAS SAYING ON FIRST HEARING AND WONDERED tHAT MEDIA MATTERS DIDN'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND A SIMPLE ENLISH SENTENCE. WHAT HAPPENED? --to you guys???
*****CAPS NOT INTENTIONAL
THANKS FOR THE VIDEO.
REMemBER that WORDS DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY COMMUNICATE; YOU MUST CONSIDER THE SPEAKER AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF HIS backgraound CONTENT, etc,, etc, etc.. I have cataracs and more. and therefore could not edit this. Forgive? THANKS, OLIVIA CRALLE SPARREVOHN, UC 1952 ocralle@mac.com
I suspect a retraction will be forthcoming from MMFA. This is really embarassing for MMFA, as seen by the fact that even the most fervently supporting bloggers of MMFA are distancing themselves from this one.
Retract, MM. I am on your side with the work that you do, but you have clearly misunderstood the context of this statement.
Yes, MM. Retract. Retract so that Watershed can then gloat that you had to retract and how it proves your corruption.
??
If you look up my posts on this site, which unfortunately you cannot, you'd see that I am absolutely commited to MM's cause as a conservative misinformation buster. I believe wholeheartedly in this mission. However, they are wrong on this one. And to not own up and retract an obvious mistake puts the credibility of the site at risk.
Also, watch your tone, guy. No need to be a wiseass.
Actually, you are able to look up all your posts using Google and a site specific search, like this: "site:mediamatters.org media matters watershed"
Go for it, plantsman.
I think it is true that Kurtz is ironic here. Smart people will get it. Yet those kind of statements can be taken out of the context that shows the irony and then simply appear to be assertions of fact or opinion that he subscribes to.
All he had to do was to preface his characterization by inserting before the word journalists the following "using words that conservatives might use...".
Unfortunately one has to be careful to not give anything away.
Actually, this is not a big deal, and not worthy of all the brouhaha. It is amusing, though. The burden is not on MM to give Kurtz the benefit of a doubt. It's on Kurtz to explain exactly what he meant. It'll be interesting to see how he does that. If he really was being sarcastic, and says so, he might have to forfeit a few cocktail party invites. I'm guessing it's a bit of a dilema for him. I like that.
Actually, the burden is on MMFA to quote in context and not mislead or give a false impression of an item they choose to highlight as "conservative misinformation". Kurtz's words stand on their own and he is under no obligation to clarify anything.
The update provided by MMFA changes nothing......any reasonable person can clearly see what Kurtz means and the context in which his words were spoken speak for themselves. He is obviously setting up Bush's straw arguments and then emphatically knocking them down before they are allowed to be spun by Bush and his minions.
This item should be retracted and removed.
They did quote in context, and provided audio.
From Kurtz's history, we're supposed to believe that he doesn't believe in a "liberal media"? The "patriotism" remark is new from him as far as I can tell, but in that case he goes from serious to strawman to serious again. What's obvious about it, without just assuming the best?
If his words stand on their own, it's impossible to say if he meant it or not. That's why he needs to clarify it.
It has nothing to do with what Kurtz believes about the liberal media anymore than questioning one's patriotism. Where did you get that?
He is saying that Bush and his supporters have attacked, subtly, his opponents who have questioned the Iraq war........"Oh, it's just the liberal media again, or well, perhaps they just hate America and are rooting for us to lose in Iraq" - (thereby questioning their patriotism).
Kurtz is saying they won't be able to sink to that level or use those straw arguments against Tenet, whose credentials and inside information cannot be so easily categorized and dismissed.
Don't put the onus back on Kurtz - he needn't respond to anything so blantantly taken out of context and misleading as this piece is.....the responsibility lies with this website who is perverting this man's words for political reasons. Shameful.
From Kurtz's history, it seems he himself believes in a left-leaning media. So when he talks about the "liberal media" it's hard to believe he's talking about someone else's "strawman". The more I look at this phrase the more I think the article is justified;
"he has validated the press accounts that we've seen about the way that this war unfolded."
Why did they need validating? The strawmen of the administration were the only attacks against those accounts in the first place. So if he really thinks of those sentiments as being unworthy, as strawmen, then the press accounts he's talking about always had credibility.
And why do you keep talking about this "out of context"? How has it been taken out of context, or been "perverted"? Did you notice the audio clip provided?
Your bold quotes only reinforce my point - Kurtz is saying that Tenet's book validates the press accounts of the way this war is being waged.....making him a far less easy target to go after than the "liberal media" or "questionable patriots".
And you keep going back to whether or not Kurtz believes the media is biased left, who cares? You seem to think that because Kurtz may believe that, his views are somehow invalidated as a result. That is irrelevant to the point he is making anyway about what Bush and Co. usually do to discredit their opponents - and how it won't work with Tenet. That is his point, do you not agree that Bush has taken that tactic against the war's opponents?
Audio or not, the point of view this website is taking by the headline alone is misleading and by continuing to keep it here and then posters demanding that Kurtz explain it, is ridiculous.
Apparently, we disagree.
The point about the "liberal media" is that the defense of Kurtz is that he's describing the Administration's positions. But from his history, it's pretty clear he himself thinks there's a liberal media. So if that much is his actual position, that leads one to wonder if the "patriotic" quote is his actual position as well. It undermines the "strawman" defense.
I'm not bolstering your point in the least. After talking about administration portrayals of critics in a way that he himself doesn't believe, he says that Tenet validates the views of those critics? That seems odd. It's certainly understandable to read that as him thinking those views needed validating, and therefore he was using one or both of those characterizations to question the critics himself.
I see what you're saying, and it's possible. But at the same time, the alternate reading is just as understandable. If he meant it the way you say, he did a sloppy job expressing it.
So there are two possible ways of interpreting his comments, both understandable, and one of them fairly outrageous.
And when I ask you "what's obvious" about your interpretation as opposed to the other, you got nothing.
And when I ask you how he was taken out of context, you got nothing.
And yet, it's ridiculous that Kurtz should have to explain himself a little?
So, if Kurtz somehow feels compelled to clarify his comments and address this out of context piece, would that satisfy you? Of course it wouldn't. Because you already have a preconceived bias against Kurtz because he has the audacity to intimate that the media leans left......and for that, any explanation he would offer up would be suspect to you.
That's the truth.
As for you're "you got nothing" accusations, they are baseless........read my posts on this subject, you just don't agree with my opinions and that is fine, but to dismiss them as "nothing" goes directly to your bias.
Actually, I specifically said that if Kurtz clarifies himself that the item should be removed, because there's no history of his "questionable patriotism" sentiment in his past as far as I see.
As for "you got nothing", bias has nothing to do with it. I asked, you dodged, on both counts. If you had a genuine response, then you should have provided it.
Ask all the other fair minded liberal posters who also "got nothing" and came to the same conclusions that I did. Your dodging accusations are typical, however.......and ridiculous.
We disagree.
Then you can point to your answers to "what's so obvious" and "how is it out of context", because I'm not seeing them. I see a lot of the same assertions over and over in your posts, but no explanation. I think the word for that is..."baseless".
I don't care that we disagree. I don't care who else sees it your way, because there's nothing obvious about that view over the other, there's nothing "out of context", and so Kurtz should explain himself further. Why this is a "ridiculous" notion is inexplicable.
Paul O'Neill wasn't part of the "liberal media" when he wrote the following:
FROM THE PRICE OF LOYALTY by Ron SuskindPage 70On the afternoon of January 30, ten days after his inauguration as the forty-third president, George W. Bush met with the principals of his National Security Council for the first time.Bush offered a few introductory remarks about "the structure of things in my NSC." "Condi will run these meetings. I'll be seeing all of you regularly, but I want you to debate things out here and then Condi will report to me. She's my national security advisor."Page 72He turned to Rice. "So, Condi, what are we going to talk about today? What's on the agenda?" "How Iraq is destabilizing the region, Mr. President," Rice said, in what several observers understood was a scripted exchange. She noted that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region.
I'm not as sure as others that Kurtz was being sarcastic (he was not being "ironic") but I'm prepared to accept he may have been; it is in any event a reasonable reading, or I should say hearing, of his intent.
Even so, I have to endorse MMFA's update that by expressing it as he did, he still implied that these were reasonable descriptions. It may not have been misinformation in a narrow sense but it was at the very least extremely sloppy and was misinforming, even if unintentionally.
And it would have taken so little to have done it differently: Just saying something like "the so-called liberal media" and "journalists of supposedly questionable patriotism," which serve to separate you from the charges you're quoting and so avoid implying support, could have done it.
One other thought: If MMFA did "retract" the item as so many are demanding in a classic pile-on, how long do you think it would be before we started getting the old "false in one, false in all" argument: "Well, you know they had to retract that Kurtz item - how can you trust anything they say?"
No, I don't buy that part. Critics will point to an item whether it's retracted or not, so sticking by it doesn't by itself validate the article. It's easy to say "everyone makes mistakes at least they owned up to it", and such a ridiculous "false in one false in all" argument isn't worth losing credibility to counter it. Wasn't it Ailes or Murdock who bragged that FOX never retracted an article? That certainly didn't help their image.
You are right. Admitting a mistake and correcting it is worthy of respect and admiration. Refusing to do so impunes one's integrity and raises questions about the validity of other items.
I've seen it happen too many times to so hastily dismiss it, too many times where even a retraction that could be obviously ascribed to a simple, easy-to-understand error was repeatedly referenced in later times in the attempt to discredit or at least muddy subsequent criticisms. That's especially so in a case like this where I'm not convinced that, especially in light of the update, the error is as real - it certainly is not as obvious - as some among us are claiming in comments you can just see them grinning "Gotcha!" as they type.
I agree for this item that pulling it is questionable. It depends on the merit of the article, not the expected reactions of critics. The critics will play it one way or another, either "MMfA refuses to retract their debunked items" or "they were wrong and they admitted it". So they might as well do whatever they think is right, not just keep it because of what critics might say.
Specifically for this article, they might want to stick with it, because it may have merit. As a general principle, the response of critics should not be a factor.
C'mon, MM. Pull this one. You're wrong. Admitting it will help your credibility, not hurt it. Tommy is right on this one.
Wow. Am I the only one that agrees with MMFA on this one? I think that the addendum MMFA posted clearly shows that Kurtz believe that there is a disingenuous "liberal media" only out to get Bush and Republicans.
To be sarcasm, there must be a sense of ridicule toward people who may use the phrase. The ridicule was not there. After watching the supporting article MMFA linked to in the addendum, It makes no sense that he would be ridiculing himself.
Furthermore, "a bunch of journalists of questionable patriotism saying the Bush administration rushed to war; wanted to invade Iraq all along; didn't have a serious debate" is ALL ONE SINGLE ITEM. He is making the arguement that people that were making those assertions were only the unpatriotic people and that now even patriotic people are joining them.
Certainly not the only one!
I, for one, note the attempt by Kurtz to embed the Repugnant talking points as conventional wisdom, and to play the role of prototypical "Dem strategist" to those talking points. In other words, by rebutting ineffectually, to leave intact the perceptions, even if one acute enough were to note the rebuttal at all; and to reinforce perception of the inevitable destruction of Tenet due to his own untruths, as the Hannity hammer coming down on Colmes' weakness.
MMFA simply quoted EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID, and took it at face value. Its not MMFA's job to read his mind (who can do that) or tone to see what he "meant" to say. Its a damned if you do damned if you don't situation, MMFA documented his comments in their original context and people said retract the article. If MMFA tried to actually interperet what he said, then they would be accused of taking him out of context and all the same people would be saying to retract the article. If he was trying to put forth the administrations viewpoint, its not like he failed in that endeavor. Clearly he thinks that there is a liberal media bias and there are journalists with questionable patriotism. And MMFA merely documented it, with the proper headline exactly as he SAID IT.
DTrain - The way something is said is more important than what is actually said. If it's 20 below outside and I sarcastically say "I love this weather" in a condescending tone, it would be clear to anyone that heard the statement live that I really didn't "love this weather". But if you just read what I said without hearing context and tone you might really think I love this weather. So does the printed word prove anything to you?
I think that's what Kurtz was doing here. He used the term "liberal media" sarcastically, ,meaning he didn't really believe that, in fact probably believes the opposite.
Kurtz believes in the opposite of liberal media bias?
I'm not sure this is sarcasm here. The tone is certainly not definitive. But If Kurtz hasn't made this sort of comment before, then it's entirely possible that he disagrees with those who believe that those who question the administration are of "questionable patriotism".
I'm not hearing a dramatic change of tone between the "liberal media" and "questionable patriotism" sections here, so it sounds like he has the same view of both sections, either sarcastic or genuine. His history suggests he believes the media leans left, but he may be claiming otherwise.
The weather analogy simply doesn't seem to hold;there are contextual factors there that suggest the sarcasm, but I'm not sure there are any here. If I were to say I want Dick Cheney to be the next president, you can safely assume it's sarcasm from my history of comments. From Kurtz, there's nothing that makes this so obvious.
It's possible Kurtz just screwed up. He should have clarified with "as some have said" or "as the administration suggests" or some such. If he clarifies it following this post, it should be retracted. If there's a past incident of him making a statement similar to the "questionable patriotism" comment, then it's hard to believe he didn't mean it here.
As you say I can't be sure what Kurtz really meant. I was trying to point out that just posting someones words sometimes doesn't provide enough context to make a judgment on the meaning of those words. A lot of supporters of this site will claim that MMFA just reprints what people say, as if that is 100% infallible as to the intent or meaning of the statement.
That's true, and I appreciate all the audio and video clips they provide to establish any tones.
"If it's 20 below outside and I sarcastically say 'I love this weather' in a condescending tone, it would be clear to anyone that heard the statement live that I really didn't 'love this weather'."
-----
But if you had made previous statements along the lines of "I miss it when I lived in Alaska because the temperatures were so low that I really loved being there," then your "sarcasm" this time wouldn't be justified, and those who knew your history would have a better idea what you were saying.
Kurtz has a previous history where he says the exact thing he is saying here without sarcasm. That makes this time completely disingenuous.
Isn't it funny, now that we have this story and even with the additional info MMFA posted (re-read the story, they added some info), we now seem to have all these new people.
Where did you all come from? And isn't it strange that all of them seem to support MMFA taking this post away? Kurtz, did you learn to blogg?
(Also whats up with the guy posting in caps, and saying "understanding enlish" (before you attack some one, regarding their ability to understand English, perhaps make sure you spell the name of the language correctly it makes you sound less than credible.)
(Also whats up with the guy posting in caps, and saying "understanding enlish" (before you attack some one, regarding their ability to understand English, perhaps make sure you spell the name of the language correctly it makes you sound less than credible.)
McCain,
Above you are referring to a post here by ocralle...if you go back & re-read it you'll also see that they mentioned they have cataracts & apologize for not editing [read spell-check?]
"I have cataracs and more. and therefore could not edit this. Forgive?"...by ocralle
Ok, that out of the way, I commend MMFA for adding a Note To Readers regarding this thread.
I wasn't around yesterday to offer an opinion on this topic [and I'll be out of the office most of today as well]...I don't think that you, I, any of the posters here, or MMFA, know for certain what Kurtz was getting at exactly here.
I read it to be that he believes -- the Liberal media [yes it's not ALL Conservative], and the fringe he[Kurtz] labels as possessing "questionable patriotism" questioned Bush's rush to war, and that they have been proven correct by Tenet validating their suspicions.
Jeter - I think you're pretty much on the nose on this one, but I also think it needs to be taken a step further, now that MMfA has added it's "note to readers".
MMfA seems to be suggesting that if Kurtz WAS being sarcastic, he owed his listeners a deeper exploration of the "liberal media" meme. The main subject was not the "liberal media". It was Tenet, and how his revelations validated critics of the war. How deep into the issue should Kurtz need to go to satisfy everyone? Should he have spent the next hour presenting evidence to contradict the claim of "liberal media"? I don't think so. One could claim that - given the apparent ambiguity of his statement - maybe he shouldn't have addressed the issue at all. But I think the irony of the partisan-labeled "liberal media" being exculpated by the tales of someone intimate with the facts was likely too attractive for Kurtz to ignore. I see no problem with being charitable and giving him the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, I find it encouraging that he ridiculed the label.
I wouldn't presume to tell MMfA which nits to pick, but this one seems insignificant.
Didn't see or hear Kurtz saying it. But just reading the text gives the distinct impression that Kurtz was, in fact, repeating the administration's slander of anyone who doesn't support the war, as having "questionable patriotism." I don't buy that he was mocking or questioning or skeptical of the Bush administration's talking point in the least. Did Kurtz add the figurative "quotation marks" as he said it? Kurtz was just repeating the specious propaganda of the Bush administration against the "liberal" media in this case as he routinely and consistently done in print and television. Howie Kurtz is the "David Broder" of out-of-touch elitist sycophants. Ha.
I'm no Kurtz fan, but this is a reach. I do think he is paraphrasing the Bushies. Weak entries will be pounced upon by MM critics, so I would simply scrub this column.
(I know, concern troll and all that).
Yeah,there seems to be a whole lot of "concern" from new posters on this subject. Hmmmmm.
i am one of the "new" posters but a long time reader. i signed up specifically so i could respond here as i thought this was one of the weaker entries posted on MM, i'm just not going to bother to blog saying "you know, you're right". there would be no point. and even after the clarification by MM, i still think this is a weak entry.
You signed up specifically to log in and say that this was a weak post?
After all the piling on had already happened?
After Media Matters had already clarified their position on his statement?
And you wouldn't post on this site to ever correct a right wing misstatement in the comments, or to mention your disagreement any other time, and certainly not to state your agreement and your perspective on any issue Media Matters raised, but you would register and post to complain about this post?
You have to be kidding, right?
i made my original post before most of the "piling on" started and before the clarification was made. when i listen to the clip i think it's a questionable post. and to highlight it by making it one of the top three stories, again, which it was when i made my original post, was again, WAY overstating the case here.
so, no, i wasn't kidding.
He's not paraphrasing anyone and if he was it was a dismally poor attempt. I read the transcript and watched the clip over and over and there is no indication in his tone that he meant it any other way than literally. The supposed sarcasm is not OBVIOUS or even somewhat apparant. Period. What he meant to say cannot be deduced reasonably unless we take his comments "out of context" and spin it in multiple ways. The mmfa article should stand as it is, in complete context with the statements documented concisely to the T.
Kurtz makes it very clear and with no sarcasm, that "a bunch of journalists of questionable patriotism" and those "saying the Bush administration rushed to war; wanted to invade Iraq all along; didn't have a serious debate" are one and the same. There is no reason to use a sarcastic phrase and then elaborate on that phrase with accurate descriptions of critics' assertions.
this is a total non-story. He obviously was not saying it as his opinion. Imagine him saying it, but with air quotes when he says liberal media and questionable media. I love MM but this is one they are wrong on.
Well, yes, if you imagine him saying it with "air quotes" then obviously it will come off as sarcasm. The problem is that he doesn't make it obvious that he is intending "air quotes".
If you listen to the audio VERY carefully, you can hear the *whoosh* of his fingers through the air as he makes the air quotes sign. Plus, just prior to that, you can hear his shirt rustle as he raises his arms. Also, I went back with an audio analyzer and broke down the signal, separating it into components of the audio spectrum. I was surprised to find that there was an aurally imperceptible sonic component not dissimilar from the "grinding" sound that normally accompanies the kind of carpal tunnel syndrome typical with those who use typewriters often. Knowing that Kurtz has long been a journalist, it is not out of the realm of probability that he does have CTS, and one would therefore expect to find this kind of sound accompanying the physical gestures associated with air quotes.
Due to the evidence presented above, it is my opinion that Mr. Kurtz did indeed make the air quotes sign, indicating an element of sarcasm in his statement.
Case closed.
Wrong how? They quoted him directly...
Isn't it amazing that every one of these new posters displays prodigious mind reading powers?
Kurtz is supposed to be a professional communicator. He works for one of the more prominent newspapers on Earth. He's not supposed to have a problem getting the meaning of his words across to people. Again, it's up to him, if he cares, to explain himself. Strange, isn't it? Kurtz insults people like the ones who run this website, yet they are the ones who are called upon to apologize. That's not right.