Who said what? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

2wolves · 11-03-2003, 07:34 PM

Remember how the now defunct U.S.S.R. would alter photographs to reflect the pravda?

What is the ethical difference between what is occurring here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...02.html#002160

and what the Stalinist did?

2Wolves

redravin40 · 11-03-2003, 07:49 PM

For folks that are not comfortable clicking links.

Quote:

I just noticed this post from Andrew Sullivan's site taking a shot at the BBC ...

Yep, they went in and changed the text which had said that "peace" had been declared in Iraq last April. It's not my error. The Beeb is one of the few news organizations which simply rewrites posted copy without any indication that they have done so. Sometimes with simple typos etc. this makes sense. But in factual errors, it's a form of deception, a rewriting of the record, with no accountability. It's a sign, I think, of the general level of integrity at today's BBC - i.e. frayed.
That reminded me of something.

The week before last I wrote a post questioning the wisdom of something President Bush said when he addressed the Australian parliament.

"We," said the president, "see a China that is stable and prosperous, a nation that respects the peace of its neighbors and works to secure the freedom of its own people."

The statement and its rather odd implication were reported around the world. But then a few days later I got an email from a reader who had followed the link I'd provided to the White House's transcript of the speech and asked if maybe I'd gotten it wrong.

A few days ago (10/23), you quoted Bush as speaking to the Australian Parliament and saying that he "sees" a China that is free, etc. At the time, I didn't go back to the White House press release, but if you look at it now you will see that it says he "seeks" a free China. Did you misread it, or have they been massaging the record after the fact? I don't know how to go about looking for a cached version of the page, but maybe it's worth pursuing.
Well, I'm not sure I'd know how to go about getting the cached version either. But luckily that's not necessary, since I made a PDF version of the original White House transcript as it appeared on the day in question. (Call me suspicious.) You can see it right here. If you scroll down to the big, clumsily-drawn red circle you'll see that the word was 'see' not 'seek'. Then compare it to the current version now at the White House website.

At some later point, they (i.e., someone in the White House press operation) simply changed the word and thus utterly changed the meaning.

Now, I've heard some speculate that the president had meant to say 'seek' but somehow misspoke or perhaps was supposed to say 'seek'.

Maybe.

But I find that a touch dubious because I think that on such a delicate matter the White House would check the 'transcript' against the prepared speech that the president read from. But however that may be, I'd say this performance from the White House press office turned out to be, to paraphrase Andrew, frayed as well.

-- Josh Marshall

Macheath · 11-03-2003, 09:09 PM

All I can say is wow. Rarely do you see a modification so explicit and so striking. www.talkingpointsmemo.com provided a PDF of the white house website entry as it originally appeared at www.whitehouse.gov.

For those of you disinclined to believe proof as offered by a non-official website I offer a link to http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr231003.pdf

This PDF is the Hansard entry for the Australian Parliament - the official transcript for the Australian Government. The entry is on page 10.

maximusveritas · 11-03-2003, 09:14 PM

well, its just a one letter difference. Perhaps they made a mistake the 1st time in transcribing it. Perhaps Bush just misread the speech and said "see" instead of "seek".

phredgreen · 11-04-2003, 02:51 AM

given our president's propensity for verbal flubs, i was writing this off as a simple fuckup until i saw the before and after rewrites.

it's painfully simple. history will always be written by those in power to reflect the history they want the future to see. after a war, we'll read all about the terrible things the losers did, but the winners are always painted as glorious, brave, and self-sacrificing for th egood of all, while we've been shown different looks now that scholars are turing a critical eye on the history that's in the books and finding new evidence to the contrary.

from the bible to the electronic media our great great grandchildren will read, everything has and will been written to make sure that the parties in power are favourably looked upon, and that their ideologies are supported. independent media is a rarity, and most times they are discounted immediately by the "established" (and therefore "correct") media who will continue to rewrite history in the favour of those who control.

seretogis · 11-04-2003, 03:50 PM

How is this anything more than a typo and subsequent mis-speaking? I doubt that anyone in their right mind "sees" China as a country which plows ahead for the freedom of its people.

eple · 11-05-2003, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
How is this anything more than a typo and subsequent mis-speaking? I doubt that anyone in their right mind "sees" China as a country which plows ahead for the freedom of its people.

Yeah, but you have to ask yourself: Is our children learning?

Conclamo Ludus · 11-05-2003, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
Yeah, but you have to ask yourself: Is our children learning?

Depends on what you mean by the defenition of "is". I know I is learning.

eple · 11-05-2003, 01:30 PM

I sees that we is both learning.

losthellhound · 11-07-2003, 01:32 AM

Its funny.. Smacks of 1984's statement that the truth is mutable.. Thirty years from now our children might be reading how the United States singlehandedly defended the entire Middle East from the iron grips of the Iraqi Superpower.. (A nice video of Bush wrestling a remote detonator from Saddam's hands will be a big hit with the kids)

(duckspeak)Did you hear chocolate rations have been increased?(/duckspeak)

2wolves · 11-09-2003, 10:55 AM

"The defense chief quickly cut him off.
"Never said that," he said. "Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said.""

This continues to get more blatant or just plain insane.

http://www.starbanner.com/apps/pbcs....211090375/1003

Time to go down the rabbit hole.

2Wolves

11-03-2003, 07:34 PM	#1 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	Who said what? Remember how the now defunct U.S.S.R. would alter photographs to reflect the pravda? What is the ethical difference between what is occurring here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...02.html#002160 and what the Stalinist did? 2Wolves

11-04-2003, 02:51 AM	#5 (permalink)
phredgreen who? Location: the phoenix metro	given our president's propensity for verbal flubs, i was writing this off as a simple fuckup until i saw the before and after rewrites. it's painfully simple. history will always be written by those in power to reflect the history they want the future to see. after a war, we'll read all about the terrible things the losers did, but the winners are always painted as glorious, brave, and self-sacrificing for th egood of all, while we've been shown different looks now that scholars are turing a critical eye on the history that's in the books and finding new evidence to the contrary. from the bible to the electronic media our great great grandchildren will read, everything has and will been written to make sure that the parties in power are favourably looked upon, and that their ideologies are supported. independent media is a rarity, and most times they are discounted immediately by the "established" (and therefore "correct") media who will continue to rewrite history in the favour of those who control. __________________ My country is the world, and my religion is to do good. - Thomas Paine

11-04-2003, 03:50 PM	#6 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	How is this anything more than a typo and subsequent mis-speaking? I doubt that anyone in their right mind "sees" China as a country which plows ahead for the freedom of its people. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

11-07-2003, 01:32 AM	#10 (permalink)
losthellhound Thats MR. Muffin Face now Location: Everywhere work sends me	Its funny.. Smacks of 1984's statement that the truth is mutable.. Thirty years from now our children might be reading how the United States singlehandedly defended the entire Middle East from the iron grips of the Iraqi Superpower.. (A nice video of Bush wrestling a remote detonator from Saddam's hands will be a big hit with the kids) (duckspeak)Did you hear chocolate rations have been increased?(/duckspeak) __________________ "Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?" -- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

11-09-2003, 10:55 AM	#11 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	"The defense chief quickly cut him off. "Never said that," he said. "Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said."" This continues to get more blatant or just plain insane. http://www.starbanner.com/apps/pbcs....211090375/1003 Time to go down the rabbit hole. 2Wolves __________________ Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet. Last edited by 2wolves; 11-09-2003 at 07:32 PM..

11-03-2003, 09:09 PM	#3 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	All I can say is wow. Rarely do you see a modification so explicit and so striking. www.talkingpointsmemo.com provided a PDF of the white house website entry as it originally appeared at www.whitehouse.gov. For those of you disinclined to believe proof as offered by a non-official website I offer a link to http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr231003.pdf This PDF is the Hansard entry for the Australian Parliament - the official transcript for the Australian Government. The entry is on page 10.

11-03-2003, 09:14 PM	#4 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	well, its just a one letter difference. Perhaps they made a mistake the 1st time in transcribing it. Perhaps Bush just misread the speech and said "see" instead of "seek".

11-05-2003, 01:30 PM	#9 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	I sees that we is both learning.