Martha Raddatz on McClellan: 'He seemed like a robot with a new software program on this one.'
By John Amato Saturday May 31, 2008 6:35pm
Since Scotty McClellan came out with his new book called "What Happened," in which he was very harsh on President Bush over a host of issues including partisianship, the Iraq war and the Valerie Plame leak---there has been a very interesting response to it. It's expected that the White House and the rest of the 28%ers would attach him as not qualified for the job, incompetent, a traitor, a phony and a kook, but I think the media has offered up some of the most informative opinions on him and in essence about themselves because he attacked on their war coverage. Martha Raddatz, ABC chief White House correspondent not surprisingly defends her coverage and then tells us something that I would have expected to come from the lips of from David Frum.
Download | play 
Download | play
RADDATZ: Yet, he seemed like a robot with a new software program on this one. I mean he was on message. It was just a very different message that he was -- he was delivering.
Is he a Cylon or part of the Borg!
He's not even human now. But she was never pressured to change her coverage.
RADDATZ: First of all, we're not a monolithic thing here. But my own experience, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, I was never pressured at all. But in the end, and I think Scott McClellan writes this, George Bush decided to take the country to war even though most people believe there were weapons of mass destruction. It was his decision that sent us to war. But I got absolutely no pressure
Some people needed that push and some people didn't.
transcript via CNN:
CNN,JAMES CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: He was absolutely a team player. And that probably gives what he has to say in this book some added credibility or credence.
BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: But insinuating sinister action by the president doesn't hold up even though the far left kooks love.
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: I'm fed up with these phonies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: As a great debate raged, did McClellan suffer a belated attack of congress or he is trying to peddle books? The former spokesman hit the talk show circuit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEREDITH VIEIRA, NBC NEWS: What do you say, Scott, to people who have been harsher than Dan was just now? Believe what you're trying to do is really cash in on your years in this administration?
MCCLELLAN: Well, first of all, you know, again, I'm disappointed that things didn't turn out the way we all hoped they would.
KATIE COURIC, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Why didn't you come forward with the criticisms earlier?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: The question, is it's a blunt one, are you a hypocrite?
MCCLELLAN: No. That was part of our talking points at the time.
OLBERMANN: Have you been surprised that most of the criticism is personal as opposed to, say, refuting facts that perhaps you got right and nobody wants to talk about?
MCCLELLAN: I had noticed that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Joe Lockhart, if Scott McClellan had written a book and said on balance President Bush did a pretty good job. I don't think he'd be getting 45 minutes on Keith Olbermann.
LOCKHART: He wouldn't be and I wouldn't be here this morning.
KURTZ: So that would suggest that media loves defectors, especially, you know, here's somebody turning on his president, his close friend.
RADDATZ: I don't know if it's the media loves defectors. I think it's stunning because Scott McClellan was the face of that presidency and probably part of the media outrage is because a lot of us are still there. A lot of us are still on the front row. And there is this -- why didn't you tell thus before if you thought it? I think there is a wonderful column by Peggy Noonan, however, when she says, let's look at the facts not just who delivered the facts. And she said feed history.
He gave them a super sized meal on this one.
KURTZ: If you turn on Fox News, you see O'Reilly, Hannity, Gingrich, Rove denouncing McClellan as a traitor.
FRUM: Yes. First I would say, I did write a book on balance that said President Bush did a pretty good job. And there are -- Scott McClellan this is an important story. Not for what Scott McClellan says but for what this reveals about the workings of the Bush administration. One of the things that President Bush, one of the great failures as a manager is he put loyalty ahead of competence. And Scott McClellan is proof positive. He had no business being press secretary. He was awful at the job. It was painful to watch him. He got the job because he was somebody's deputy. And one of the way the Bush administration works is they promote the deputy then the deputy of the deputy of the deputy and then the deputy of the deputy.
KURTZ: Now he sees the light ...
FRUM: When you put somebody in a position where they can't do the job.
They're going to fail. When they fail, they become bitter. When they become bitter, that eventually bubbles up. Worms turn. And this is -- this is ...
RADDATZ: Not to be harsh or anything.
FRUM: This is an example of -- this is not just -- I'm not saying that as an indictment on McClellan. McClellan should not have been on that stage. What lead to this moment is management problems that put him on the stage in the first place and put a lot of other people who should not have been on their jobs in their jobs.
RADDATZ: Yet, he seemed like a robot with a new software program on this one. I mean he was on message. It was just a very different message that he was -- he was delivering.
KURTZ: Let me ask Joe Lockhart who worked in the previous White House, is it understandable that Dana Perino and Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer would rip this guy who they thought was a friend? Clinton loyalists didn't like the book that George Stephanopoulos wrote in the middle of Clinton's administration.
LOCKHART: I mean it's become part of the White House warfare playbook.
Which is when you don't like the facts are out there, assassinate the character. And now we have derivative assassination. Really, Scott McClellan was just incompetent and shouldn't have been on the job. What is stunning about the book and what is getting lost in this character assassination is what he said. You have someone who was arguably on the inside watching. I don't think he was a participant in many of these decisions. Certainly he watched the decisions being made saying the president led us into war and deceived the country in doing it. And, in fact, he was a terrible president. That -- we're going to get past all of this was Scott McClellan a good guy or bad guy and somebody has to deal with the charges he's making. There is no defense. There is nobody saying he's wrong on this point or he is wrong on that point which means he's right.
Login or Register to post comments.
If he is a cylon you cant blame him,, he was programmed this way..
shes setting on her mccain for president douchbag
Yeah, so?
The messenger becomes the message.
So many techniques for TV. Attack the messenger. Diminish the message.
Fuck them all. I'm dropping out. Soon.
She works for ABC "news"? And she has the gall to lecture us about robots?
Go reprogram yourself, Martha.
What are they getting at?
Is Scotty a robot now? Is he brainwashed?
What is it they are trying (not) to say?
This is the talking point - I heard it on Stephie.
Bush put loyalty over competance - bad but honorable.
Then they throw the guy that was placed where he didnt belong and was doing the best job he could under the bus rather than the guy (BUSH) that made the mistake in putting him in the wrong position in the first place.
They are sanitizing Bush.
Yeah, that's it. They shit on this guy for years. They sent him out there with their lies day in and day out. They completely ruin any credibility he may have had. Then they fuck him in the ass and tell him to take a hike. And Frum says he was incompetent. Frum is a sack of shit. He even looks like a sack of shit. And Martha stinks like a sack of shit. and Scottie is a sack of shit too but for not the reasons that these assholes are saying.
Frum has a tell - he goes to his upper lip when he stresses/lies.
sorry to ramble ....
... to this day, no one has said McClellan is wrong.
I really hope Congress becomes inspired by McClellon's break from the NeoCons and follow through with supeonas and take this to the top.
However, the real blowback from this will be exactly this; within the press.
McClellon is a rat bailing from this sinking wreck of an Administration, but as that water rises, we will also see the real scum and slime surface with it. Watch carefully which journalist show integrety and admit to their faliures and which try and ooze their way out of their responisibility and play the "who me?" card.
David Gregory has proven to be the completely scuzzy hack and tool. One sound clip of a half-assed follow up and suddenly he is mister tough reporter? Bullshit. As well, the dipshit duo- C.Gibson and B.Williams, have definitively proven to have no integrity what so ever.
"RADDATZ: First of all, we’re not a monolithic thing here. But my own experience, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, I was never pressured at all."
Ahh! You were not pressured, so the only reason you were reporting what most of us knew to be bullshit was that you are a moron! Thank you for your honesty!!
Sure she never felt pressure. She's a spokesmodel hired solely for her appearance.
RichStraightWhiteAmericanMale @ 11:
She was pressured.
Jon @ 12:
Just like Bay Buchanann lol
Raddatz was not asked to say anything different by the Bushies because she already misinforms and opines regularly to the American public.
She is just another piece of shit working for the military industrial complex!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No one with half a brain thought Saddam had any significant "weapons of mass destruction". The UN inspectors were all over that place by the time we invaded. Bush and Cheney were hoping they had missed something -- but ultimately they didn't care. Martha is rewriting history here to make herself feel better.
now all these f#cking suckass journalists, Martha Raddatz and
other small brained,want to blame mcclellan for their poor decisions and
asinine decisions to kiss and lick bush/cheney ass.
This panel was proof positive what is wrong with our media: three people, two of them blithering wingnuts.
Of course Raddatz and Frum didn't receive any strong-arming. Hell, they were eagerly chomping at the bit to dispense the Bush wingnut Kool-Aid, as shown here. They did not need any "persuading" from the empty suits.
anon @ 6:
more than sanitizing bush, they are just outright
sucking bush's ass clean.
KURTZ: So that would suggest that media loves defectors, especially, you know, here’s somebody turning on his president, his close friend.
Me: It would suggest, Mr. Kurtz, that the media doesn't care much for the predictable. A book from Bush's former mouthpiece defending the Bush administration would have been predictable - just as your comment is painfully predictable.
what the fuck is frum talking about??
the current press secretary doesnt even know what the cuban missle crisis was
what credentials does one need to be a paid liar?
frum....king of the asshats
"Some people needed that push and some people didn’t."
Exactly. So many of these "journalists" seem to be incapable of understanding that point. If they were the sorts that needed to be reigned in, they never would've attained their lofty post in the first place.
The real journalists were weeded out of that corporate infotainment system a long time ago.
Yet, he seemed like a robot with a new software program on this one. I mean he was on message. It was just a very different message that he was — he was delivering.
That's what the Borg Collective want us to believe.
The present day Sycophantic Hummers of Bush's Love Torpedo, the "Right Wing Press" need to disappear with Bush and the rest of his Administration at noon Jan 20,2009, or what ever time the swearing-in happens!
Raddatz needs to remember the old saying about dumb women like herself, "Never stand with your legs apart, cause what you call your brain, might fall out!" In her case it fell out long ago!
Raddatz was, through and through, a Pentagon tool when that was her gig. Never heard a talking point she wasn't willing to pass along. Not surprising she'd be outraged by the accusation that she and the rest of her news readers were played.
Joking aside, I respect Martha Raddatz for all her trips to Iraq and reporting that not all was as booshco says, particularly about the "success" of the surge.
However, being a reporter, she should know as much as anyone that Scotty was merely trying to stay on message, otherwise he'd probably be asked why he wasn't wearing a flag pin.
I repeat the MSM is not liberal. It's EXTREME RIGHT WING MAINSTREAM MEDIA. (ERWMSM.)
FRUM: ... One of the things that President Bush, one of the great failures as a manager is he put loyalty ahead of competence. And Scott McClellan is proof positive. He had no business being press secretary. He was awful at the job. It was painful to watch him. He got the job because he was somebody’s deputy.
And D. Frum and his idiot sister got the starts to their careers because they're the spawn of a successful broadcast journalist (the late Barbara Frum, who was an anchor on network TV in Canada). If their parents were school teachers, neither would be "famous" or infamous today. Funny how Frum only started denigrating Scotty's abilities after this book.
MSM = good fascists.
Frum backs up one of the two main Repug talking points.
SM is a disgruntled ex-employee. He was put in over his head and failed and now he's pissed.
Raddatz brings up number two.
He's not the SM we knew. He's like reprogramed or something.
Right....the Manchrian Press Secretary.
Good job you two. Checks are in the mail.
Martha has been ragging on Scott at every opportunity. It is obvious why, his book indicts Martha and her peers. Her credibility among themselves, a fuzzy club, is at stake. Her "cred" with the American viewer is fleeting, as she is just another talking head. Martha surprises me. She began in Boston, no easy task, and was gone after three years and a very bad complexion, on a high level local news team.
She disappeared for a few years and reappeared as a network star. My impression is that she is most comfortable chatting among other reporters, not addressing the public. She is not that good at that.
But really; she has taken Scott McClellen's book charges personally and is parsing its every word and sentence. That should be the real focus of the story. Who is worse? Our friend from "Meet the Press". He is more agressively trying to discredit Scott.
PBS analyzed the failures in depth. Few watched. That was two years ago. It isall becoming true, as it should be, now. McClatchy was the only ones who got it right.
So it is clear: the 4th estate is clearly trash today, as if you didn't know.
Sadly, few will notice.
More sadly, we need them to be stronger than ever.
RichStraightWhiteAmericanMale @ 11:
EXACTLY!!! Thanks, RSWAM.
ABC - "FOX lite"
That Martha that razzes boosh on Iraqi successes is found on Washington Week in Review, this story from a cable station.
Question: Do pundits spin their own stories for what market they're trying to address?
That would seem to lose all objectivity.
Dear Martha, I am not one of those "most people" who believe Iraq had WMD. Want to know why? It didn't sound right from the start, but ecause I read and listened to everything I could on the subject and the more I did that and the more I heard from the Bush gang the more I came to the conclusion that they were liars and propagandists. Of course knowing about PNAC helps a bit too. Do your damn job!
Frum is the miscreant spawning of a now dead Canadian CBC-TV talking head, Barbara Frum. This is the right-wing cheerleader who gave us the jingoist catch-phrase "Axis of evil". He is dead meat north of the 49th parallel and an embarrassment to all Canucks. Punch him in the jowls if you get a chance.
Martha Raddatz claims that she was not "pressured at all." Not pressured to not challenge the administration? What none of these journalists and pundits have done is to point out the obvious, which is that almost none of them had bothered to seek out the opinions of any anti-war activists, such as Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn or Amy Goodman or Anthony Arnove or Ron Kovic or Richard Falk or Dennis Brutus or John Pilger or Tariq Ali or countless others who could have rebutted the propaganda that was given by the administration. But that would have meant presenting a more balanced view of the war, whaich apparently the corporate media was quite loath to do [Scott Ritter was one of the few voices stating that these fearsome WMD were indeed a myth].
I saw Martha interviewing Scott on Friday - World news tonight - one of her questions to Scott - Why are you spinning it now? The moment, I heard that I know, She is one of another shitty pseudo-journalists. What is wrong, if some one comes out of his/her past and try to come clean, what ever the motivies may be? Was it not in the past, people who were part of Mafia, or gangs or cult came out and tried to spill the beans? Why Scott's same behavior should be frowned upon? I am not saying Scott involvment in White house was equal to Mafia, or Gangs - Just a metaphor that people do come out from their past and try to come clean, and Scott is not the first one to do so.
Now that Frum has slammed Simple Scotty as unqualified for the job of White House spokesthingy, will he be honest enough to point out that Dana Perino isn't qualified for the job either? Or is such talk reserved strictly for those criticizing Bush policies?
I think I know the answer.
Funny how all the Presidents (Dictators) men (and women) can't deal with the honest to goodness truth. How sad.
JJ
[Deleted.-Sitemonitor]
BTW, The Rude Pundit had a great rant on Scotty a few days back that included these words: "Screw this obsequious pig-fucking son of a bitch, this grubby little man-whore, attempting to purge his soul of the taint and stench of death and sorrow while pulling in a buck or two. He's not honorable enough to have fallen on his sword, rhetorically or literally."
As much as I don't like Raddatz and (especiallY) Frum, I don't think much of Scotty either.
Look at the title CNN (a real piece of shit organization) gives to this story:
"Turning on the President".
They have spun the story into one of betrayal of the King by Brutus junior.
The soldiers and civilians dying in Iraq mean nothing to these cruel greedy slobs.
The castration and mutilation of the press in America means nothing to these egocentric bastards.
Stop watching them.
I guess her understanding of the situation is that if someone is actually still stupid enough to be watching network television news programs, and/or buying any of the major newspapers -- then they're stupid enough to believe the main stream media's spin on just about anything.
Who can blame her given the evidence that supports this?
*
well it just proves that Assholes Become Commentators at ABC.
anon @ 6:
USING THEIR TONGUES!
I was never taken in by the WMD stories either. Once the inspections by David Kaye were back in and not finding anything, I thought it suspicious to say Iraq had WMD's. It seemed like the rush to war increased, as the rationale was unraveling.
Even now, people will quote Democratic leaders who said something about Saddam and his WMD's, that even then the Democrats were talking in the past tense. Afterall, Saddam's attack on the Kurds was with gas and/or chemical weapons donald rumsfield/ronald raygun sold him. The attack was 1988...
...boosh I's term.
Now speaking of gas attacks I have to go back my beans for dinner.
Captain Bitter Elitist Husein Kangaroo @ 7:
That was beautiful!
Worms turn? oh, really!
quoting frank herbert while not clearly grasping his message is just about the most laughable thing i've heard from a talking head to date.
What the talking heads omit saying is that the President committed treason.
The outing of Valerie Plame's name came from Bush himself. Does anyone remember Bush saying 'well if anyone in my administration was involved in it, they will be fired'?
i can't believe lockhart's head didn't just explode when he was going on about character assassination while in the midst of ... assassinating mcclellan's character.
it's simply astonishing. these people have an extraordinary ability to not see themselves.
I'm so glad I don't have "This Week" on ABC programmed on my DVR anymore. It was because of that faux-debate by Georgie and Charlie that I gave up on the network. Martha is yet another reason to ignore these hacks.
Don't they get it? It's not a matter of "asking followup questions". It's a matter of DIGGING......investigating and doing homework as any GOOD investigative journalist would do to get at the TRUTH. I guarantee there's pressure from EVERY network not to do that because it's expensive and they are looking for cheaper soundbites. Investigative journalism is all but dead in the U.S.A., and Martha Raddatz is a pathetic example of it. I hope she reads C&L to know what we think of her. If she does, I hope she knows now that the answer is "not too damn much". We actually think she and her ilk all need to be deprogrammed from the ways of the corporate media because they ALL act like "talking head robots".
"RADDATZ: First of all, we’re not a monolithic thing here. But my own experience, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, I was never pressured at all."
She was just too damn stupid & incompetent to ask some hard questions. The bitch forget that there were many skeptics who knew Bush & gang were lying their asses off.
Oh come on!! This script has got to be straight out of the cartoon Modern World!!!
It occurred to me today why the MSM can't fess up about their complicity and ineptitude in the leadup to Iraq. If Tom Brokaw or Martha Raddetz or Gregory, etc. tells us honestly that they went in the tank out of fear of retaliation from the White House, or because they work for media conglomerates who are also defense contractor, i.e. General Electric/NBC.....we'll never believe them again.
So, they've got to defend their integrity, though they no longer have any with a lot of us. Tim Russert has to keep attacking McClellan about his disloyalty so that his attack on media outlets is also taken at less than face value. Pretty self-serving folks.
Years ago, a very well informed friend of mine to me that the only news she trusted was what she got from the BBC on Public Broadcasting. I thought she was a little paranoid. Now, I realize that she was right. We were being sold a bill of goods by American media.
Raddatz: They told me a lie, I repeated a lie when I knew it was a lie, but hey don't blame me--I'm a journalist! It's not my job to report facts. Blame Scotty! Yeah, he's the one who mentioned it. It's his fault for not playing the game! C'mon, you can tell me, do I still look pretty to you?
McClellan made the cardinal mistake of not only turning on the president (excusable by much of the media because of his terrible popularity ratings), but also of fingering the corrupt media for cheerleading Bush's war. A few honorable exceptions aside, that's why the master narrative has been about turncoat McClellan.
hard to refute that snotty Mcforehead wasn't competent. He's a piss-poor liar. It's obvious he is still holding out. Ratshit has irritated me for years, not like David Brooks or George Swill but, if she's so smart why is all this stuff a revelation to her. No preassure my ass.
Very few things in the world are monolithic, even the media.
That's why there's a legalistic differentation between conspiracy and collusion.
But to the average person that's just elitist parsing.
And in a Democracy isn't the view of the average person supposed to be tantamount?
Empathy, the missing gene in the Rightwing.
ysbaddaden @ 58:
OK, I'll take collusion for 1,000,000+ dead.
I @ 49:
No no no. They can't argue the obvious facts Scott has so kindly pointed out, so they attack the messenger. "he sounds like a left-wing blog" "he's a robot, only reprogrammed" etc etc.
The fact that they're making such personal attacks is just trying to shift the focus from the obvious facts to the person. Classic ad hominem abusive. yawn!
Can we get on with the hearings now?
Conyers? Wexler? Waxman? You're far more interesting than this Radishbit or whatever her name is.
no frum . McClellan didn't get the press secretary job "because he was somebody’s deputy" if you had read jay rosens excellent piece referred to as the jerk you might have figured it out, the real reason he was picked was the thorough and total disdain the administration holds for useless gasbags like you. why have someone who can actually explain things when explaining things to those you hold in contempt is a sign of weakness? never admit mistakes, never retreat.
you all lapped it up like starving dogs frum.
the blogs had it sussed out lightyears ahead of you so called "professionals"...except for that one adorably irascable 70'ish year old woman in the front row who knew it too.
Have these media talking heads forgotten that Cheney said there is "no doubt" that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program (he hadn't) & that he "now" possessed WMD (he didn't)? The invasion itself proved there had to be LOTS of doubt. The invasion also proved that if people "thought" Saddam had WMD, there wasn't sufficient proof! Do these talking heads really think an invasion is justified on the basis of hearsay?
the only pressure martha felt was howard stern's dick in her asshole.
yeah, i noticed that "not the scott we knew" meme. it's funny! they are so damn cornered they are reduced to claiming their past allies have been bodysnatched, when the number or The Deluded Faithful grows smaller by the day...
you dont have to pressure someone like raddatz- she won't step too far into the truth and will say what it takes to stay on the cocktail circuit.
What a self-serving crock of merde is being served up by the knee-pad wearing assholes who have been servicing this administration and dis-serving this nations and its military for 7 years! Raddatz and Frum will never get the brown off of their noses.
It still amazes me the shit that you lot put on television and call news ........... as I continue travel the world I tend to pass from amazement, though disgust and pity to out right laughter and ridicule that americon as a whole can even tie its proverbial shoe lace.
Sad times.
But she's right. The fact that he's decided to tell the truth does not make him any better a presenter than he was. The fact is, he is robotic and he does have a new set of talking points--that's his personality. He always was and he always will be. It is impossible for him to be extemporaneous or off the cuff--it's just not in him. I believe every word he says, although I hardly think he was the blushing ingenue he portrayed himself to be. Unless he really is as collossally dumb as he sometimes seems to be.
When these journalists like Radditz say that they were not pressured, they're speaking liking like lawyers. What they mean is "THEY were not pressured INDIVIDUALLY by the administration." But we all know what happens to people under fascism. So, yes, they all recognized the tide and momentum and made the choice that they would float with that tide to keep safe.
When they come on TV now and say these things, they are technically not 'lying' in their minds. But this is the Orwellian way that the Bush administration and the neocons have changed our government and our reality forever. There is not such thing as 'lying' anymore. There are no absolute truths.
Just like the Israeli First neocon crowd is now saying ...We never told Bush he should go to war..now the Israeli First journalist are saying the same thing....We never felt any pressure to support the war. Right! All of the networks....save Keith Olbermann...have abandonded our troops and their families. How many times have you seen a report about the families left behind and the problems they are having as the father is kept in the military to serve his third or forth year in Iraq?
They know that if they don't report it...it's very likely you won't see or know about it!
What we have in the so called MSM are droves of people that were hired not for their ability as reporters but for their ideology.
People like frum and this martha person no or care nothing about reporting honestly or fairly, they were hire for their warped views.
As long as you watch and listen to what these fools have to say you will continue to be as ignorant and stupid as every republican in the party.
These nattering nay-bobs haven't had credibility with me since the Clinton administration. When they poured gasoline on the fizzling Kenneth Starr investigations in an attempt to convince us there was a there, there. They emboldened the repigs enough to allow them impeach Clinton for lying about his fidelity to his wife. Now for the last 8 years they have been nothing but a bunch of GOP note takers. Print the crap that pours out of the reich wing war machine and completely ignore the crimes that continue to go on to this day.
Instead of starting off with the obvious fact that NOBODY has been able to refute what Scotty says, the president and v.p. are both felons, Carl and Scooter should be tried for treason, they join the turd pile and rip him to shreds.
Sick bunch of sad fucks. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.
Saw Radditz on Washington Week. "Nothing new here" she said. She was talking about the book, but really, she meant herself.
Here, Martha, brush up on your history:
Colbert roasts Bush
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A
Colbert is God and the corporate media are useless assholes.
Go Away!
seevee @ 30:
You are exactly right. I'd like to reach through the TV and bitch slap some of these people. Good thing I watch very little TV.
Kathy in St. louis @ 54:
Were? More like were, are, will be.
Dear Martha
What is your problem you can't handle the truth! Maybe you should check yourself for being a mouth piece for the Administration. You a shamefully scam for ABC and you are most likely worried that YOU will be called out for your indiscretions on the war. In other words go "Cheney" yourself.
If Radditz says she doesn't feel the pressure, then either she is a liar, or the system us just so corrupt, broken and ingrained, she didn't notice. There is no way you can look at the events from 9/11 on and how the media covered them and not come to the conclusion the MSM fucked up badly.
Somebody needs to tell Raddatz that when you willingly act as an accomplice, there's no NEED to pressure you.
well, i know i must have looked stupified watching 'shock and awe' knowing and feeling helpless that innocent people were being bombarded in the name of "operation: Iraqi freedom."
Our fabulous talking heads doing what they do best -adding to greenhouse gases.
As more journalists understand their jobs as a means to make money and, or acquire recognition, not as work requiring research and fact checking the creative writing courses they took at school begin to color their approach.
It is harder to enliven a story with facts than to follow the basic templates of plot and themes.So we get discussions of boy meets girl,boy gets girl, boy loses girl, both go home sadder - but in this case no wiser.
Martha Raddatz is a perfect example of why I don't watch ABC 'News'. If I want propaganda I'll get it direct from the White House and Pentagon.
Kinda wish the camera had been on Radatz and Frum when Lockhart made his statement at the end. I don't think it was an accident that he was up last.