View Single Post
Old 06-15-2008, 07:44 PM   #34 (permalink)
host
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
this brings a different question... if he or any interviewer was to do hard hitting questions would the people show up to be interviewed?

Would we rather have something albeit watered down (more than zero) or completely nothing at all, zero?
I showed you that it started with who was invited to "Meet the Press", and it went down hill from there. Did you read the article in my first post, by the journalist who finally realized that Russert's approach will only yield:

Quote:
http://www.portlandtribune.com/sport...61319350520000

....Over time, you realize that in spite of all your attempts to know athletes and public figures, what you usually end up writing about them is the cover story -- the half-true piece of semifiction that those people want the public to see. You begin to realize you're usually getting played. And you sold your soul to get it....
But in Russert's case, it was much worse, the public was "conned" into believing they were watching fair and balanced coverage, (not like on Fox news....) when the truth was, powerful men like Bush and Cheney took advantage of that perception, succeeding in getting some of Russert's comparatively oversized Sunday audience, along with his faux journalistic integrity, to make their message to the audience legitimate, when it wasn't and Russert's image of integrity was only an image.

Quote:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/200...nna-huffington

the reason the conventional wisdom survives no matter how many times its lies are exposed is that shows like meet the press allow their guests to go unchallenged
This guy said it much better than I've been able to:

Quote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-...b_107074.html#
plooger

This perception of Russert was the problem. Tim Russert was *perceived* as an unbiased journalistic source, and so he held much greater sway, and much greater responsibility -- which is why his echo chamber called "Meet the Press" was targeted by Cheney & Co as a key mechanism in their propaganda campaign for selling the Iraq war. There will be much sad irony over the next week(s) as media personalities grieve over the loss of their coworker and colleague, to a degree not shown for the hundreds of thousands of casualties for which they are all partly responsible.

I'd have less of an issue with the MSNBC mourning and deification of Russert if any news network had demonstrated an iota of similar remorse for the thousands of casualties for which they are partly responsible. The closest any have come, and it has been YEARS, was Ted Koppel's reading of the names of casualties on his Nightline program... before it was taken away from him.

Posted 01:36 AM on 06/14/2008
Huffington has this to say about Tim Russert, in her book, titled:
Right Is Wrong: How The Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded The Constitution, And Made Us All Less Safe
Quote:
-- Russert's July 1, 2007, Meet The Press interview with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff "was about as priapic a display as you're ever likely to see outside of a porno film or the monkey cage at the zoo, with Russert desperately trying to get Chertoff to pump up the panic meter..."
Judge for yourself:

Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19508551/
‘Meet the Press’ transcript for July 1, 2007
Michael Chertoff, Sen. Patrick Leahy, David Brody, Tavis Smiley, Chuck Todd & Judy Woodruff

updated 8:19 a.m. ET, Mon., July. 2, 2007

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: But first, on Friday, two automobiles filled with explosives found on the street in London. And this was the scene yesterday in Scotland’s Glasgow Airport after an SUV drove into the airport’s main terminal. Five men are now in custody. With us, the Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.

Mr. Secretary, good morning. Do we have any information linking these five men to an international terrorist organization?

SEC’Y MICHAEL CHERTOFF: Well, let me begin, Tim, by reminding everybody that these events are literally unfolding minute by minute, so I can only give you the information we have now. Right now I don’t think we can say definitively that there’s an international link and as far as the homeland is concerned, we do not see any specific connection to the homeland at this point in time.

MR. RUSSERT: Will we increase the number of air marshals on flights to Britain and Scotland as a precautionary measure?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: Well, we have been doing that, actually, for some period of time, dating back to last August, and we’ve continued to increase and to some extent mix up the flow of air marshals to Europe in general.....

MR. RUSSERT: Is there any chatter that you can detect regarding terrorism in the United States during this holiday period?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: Well, I want to remind everybody that over the last few months, we have seen a number of public statements by al-Qaeda readers who are reminding us, if we needed to be reminded, that they are still intent on carrying out attacks against the West.....

MR. RUSSERT: Will we be taking some precautionary security measures because of some of the large crowds gathering in parts of our country for the Fourth of July?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: We have put in place, Tim, some plans for this holiday week to have additional visible and some not visible security measures at our airports, at our mass transit, at our train stations. We’ll be working with local authorities who’ll be taking their own steps.....
MR. RUSSERT: Will we raise our threat level?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: Well, our threat level for aviation is already at orange and for the rest of the country it’s at yellow. We don’t see a reason to raise it now....

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Secretary, considering the simplicity of putting together a suicide bomb by using an automobile, are you surprised that the United States has not been hit harder by this kind of device?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: I want to remind you, Tim, we have been hit by this kind of device. In 1996--in 1993, there was the World Trade Center bombing involving a car bomb.....

MR. RUSSERT: How serious do you think this kind of threat will be in the years to come?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: Unfortunately, I believe we’re going to see more vehicle bombs and more backpack bombs, as we’ve seen in Europe, and it’s something we have to be mindful of in this country. But one of the great lessons, Tim, is, and it was borne out again a couple—in the last couple of days, vigilance by ordinary citizens and calling into the authorities when you see something suspicious is one of the best defenses we have.

MR. RUSSERT: Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, we thank you very much for joining us this morning.

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: Happy to be on the show, Tim.
Chertoff-Bush-Cheney could not have asked for a more complicit, cooperative shill.....control by fear, augmented by the help of a media stooge.

Two weeks ago, with Russert no longer seeing any usefulness, going forward, in staying on the good side of Scott McClellan, Russert showed that he could ask a challenging question, but the irony was that Russert needed to ask himself the same question and obviously never considered that he needed to, or he did, but was so cynical, with such a huge set of balls, he thought he could get away with aiming it at McClellan:

Quote:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/15123
Mr Russert - Will YOU Ante Up For War Victims Like YOU Asked Of Scott McClellan?

by Linda Milazzo | June 8, 2008 - 1:44am

Mr. Russert, last Sunday (June 1, 2008) on Meet The Press you had as your guest former George W. Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan. You asked him the following question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Russert
Some have suggested because you were part of the propaganda machine that sold the war, that many people have died and been injured because of the war, you should donate some of the profits from this book to the families of the victims of the Iraq War. Will you do that?
Here's the clip from the show: (WATCH IT)

That's an excellent question, Mr. Russert. Although YOU you haven't accepted any culpability for your own enabling during the lead up to the war as McClellan has stepped-up to do, it's still a fact that Meet The Press provided a national platform for the Bush administration to push its war with minimal challenge from YOU. Thus, Mr. Russert, I'd like to ask you that very same question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda Milazzo
Because YOU were part of the propaganda machine that sold the war, that many people have died and been injured because of the war, shouldn't you, Mr. Russert, donate some of your hefty salary from your show to the families of the victims of the Iraq War. Will YOU do that?
On last Sunday's show, you also chided Scott McClellan for not questioning his boss, George W. Bush, on whether the war on Iraq was "a war of necessity or a war of choice" - the same question you asked Bush on February 8, 2004 in your highly anticipated interview from the White House Oval Office. Here's that exchange between you and G.W. Bush:
Quote:
RUSSERT: In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?

G.W. BUSH: I think it's--that's an interesting question. Please elaborate on that a little bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? I mean, it's a war of necessity. We, we, we--my judgment, we had no choice when we look at the intelligence I looked at that says the man was a threat.
Bush wasn’t granting many interviews at the time so this was a real “get” for Meet The Press. However, as we now know, Mr. Russert, since you were such an asset to the Bush administration, this interview was more a "get" for them than for you. Here's that clip: (WATCH IT)

Mr. Russert, this is what you said to Scott McClellan ragarding that very same question of whether it was a war of necessity or a war of choice:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Russert
Why didn't you [McClellan] say to him, "Mr. President, this is the fundamental issue confronting our country." Why didn't you go to your superiors and say, "Guys, ladies and gentlemen, we have a problem here. This is the fundamental issue, choice or necessity, and the president seems unaware of it.
Mr. Russert, you are so oblivious to what journalists do that your own clip proves your inanity. You're supposed to be the “journalist.” Why didn’t YOU drill down on Bush over that very same question? You had the perfect opportunity when you asked it but YOU JUST LET IT GO! Yet you assail Scott McClellan - a man who's shown more courage in two weeks than you've shown in years! Do you really believe we're that naive?? It wasn’t McClellan’s job to grill Bush. Bush was McClellan's boss! It was yours!

I waited an entire week for that George W. Bush Meet The Press interview. It was so heavily hyped that I honestly believed you might do your job. Even today it stands as one of the most disappointing hours on television. Bush just rambled on and you let him push his agenda. It rivaled Geraldo Rivera and Capone's empty vault for hype with no substance. But its ramifications weren't silly. They were heinous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mystery_of_Al_Capone's_Vault (MTP/Bush transcript link below).

In Dick Cheney's March 16, 2003 appearance on Meet The Press (transcript link below), Cheney filibustered your every question and pushed his agenda for war. You asked all the EXPECTED questions from which Cheney made his case. Eighty hours later, Bush launched "Shock & Awe."

A former government official has already claimed, Mr. Russert - under oath I might add - that your show was useful to the administration in pushing its pre-war message. Here's what Vice President Cheney's own former Communications Director Cathie Martin said during the perjury trial of Scooter Libby:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathie Martin
"I suggested we put the Vice President on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used. It's our best format."
As Dana Milbank wrote in the Washington Post on January 26, 2007:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/...012501951.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana Milbank
Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her [Martin's] notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message."
For the record, Mr. Russert, lots of us like whistle-blowers like Scott McClellan. We need them because in the lead up to the war and throughout this Bush administration, corporate media has not done its job. Right now McClellan is doing what corporate media should have been doing all along. He's telling us the truth. We thank him for his courage and for his offer to share the proceeds of his book with those who have suffered.

And YOU, Mr. Russert. Will YOU ante up for the victims of the war that YOU helped promote? If McClellan should do it - SHOULDN'T YOU?!

Cheney's MTP transcript (March 16, 2003):
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel...etthepress.htm

Bush's MTP transcript (Feb 8, 2004):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/

_______

Last edited by host; 06-15-2008 at 07:50 PM..
host is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360