Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sticky
I have no idea who Cohen is.
I have no idea whether he is right or left.
What I believe, however, is that he did not uderstand what Colbert wasy trying to say.
Colbert is a character
By playing this character (i.e. going overboard with the right wing stereotypes) he pokes fun at the right.
Colbert did not take a "shot at the news corps for purportedly being nothing more than stenographers recording what the Bush White House said" as Cohen suggests.
What Colbert did was , i character, suggest that the press SHOULD be nothing more than stenographers.
He is saying that the press should be stenographers. That they should just write down and report everything verbatim.
He is suggesting that they are doing much more than this and should just stick to typing things down.
He is not saying the press are stenographers now, he is saying they should be stenographers....
|
huh? That is what you got out of Colbert's "performance"?
If your "take" is closer to what Colbert was saying to his audience of DC working press, then Colbert uncharacteristically abandoned his "in character" persona.... that of a conservative TV commentator.
<h3>Do you really believe that Colbert was not telling the press that they are co-operative "stenos"</h3> who agree to be "kept in line", in exchange for "access" to "unidentified high ranking administration officials"?
If what you say is correct, Colbert does not embrace his own "message", and he admitted that at last year's annual white house correspondent's dinner...
...and, didn't the white house press corp, in the months preceding the march, 2003 invasion of Iraq, fail to question the turnabout from administration officials....Powell, Rice, and Tenet had all said, between Feb., 2001, and the end of July, that Saddam was no threat to his neighbors", and the press corp certainly never brought up those pre-9/11 quotes to challenge the administration's post 9/11, totally opposite accusations against Iraq:
Quote:
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_02/alia/a1020708.htm
07 February 2001
Text: CIA's Tenet on Worldwide Threat 2001
.............IRAQ
Mr. Chairman, in Iraq Saddam Hussein has grown more confident in his ability to hold on to his power. He maintains a tight handle on internal unrest, despite the erosion of his overall military capabilities. Saddam's confidence has been buoyed by his success in quieting the Shia insurgency in the south, which last year had reached a level unprecedented since the domestic uprising in 1991. Through brutal suppression, Saddam's multilayered security apparatus has continued to enforce his authority and cultivate a domestic image of invincibility.
High oil prices and Saddam's use of the oil-for-food program have helped him manage domestic pressure. The program has helped meet the basic food and medicine needs of the population. High oil prices buttressed by substantial illicit oil revenues have helped Saddam ensure the loyalty of the regime's security apparatus operating and the few thousand politically important tribal and family groups loyal.
<b>There are still constraints on Saddam's power. His economic infrastructure is in long-term decline, and his ability to project power outside Iraq's borders is severely limited, largely because of the effectiveness and enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. His military is roughly half the size it was during the Gulf War and remains under a tight arms embargo. He has trouble efficiently moving forces and supplies-a direct result of sanctions. These difficulties were demonstrated most recently by his deployment of troops to western Iraq last fall, which were hindered by a shortage of spare parts and transport capability........</b>
|
Quote:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/forme...s/2001/933.htm
Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001
(lower paragraph of second Powell quote on the page)
.............<b>but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction.</b> We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. <b>And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.................</b>
|
Quote:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../29/le.00.html
...........KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?
RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.
We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.
<b>But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that..............</b>
|
Shouldn't there have been more "journalism" like these very rare instances, (below) especially between Oct., 2002, and March, 2003, if your "take" on Colbert's meaning of "stenographer" is accurate.... I find almost none, especially disturbing in view of the 2001 opinions of Powell, Tenet, and Rice:
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...235395,00.html
May 5, 2002
............Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that <b>after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed.</b> The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack — a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic — was discredited last week..............
|
Quote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml
(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
|