Today on Blogcritics
Home » Bush Administration Should Learn Lesson From Corporate World

Bush Administration Should Learn Lesson From Corporate World

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

President Bush is clearly a fan of the corporate world. He has said he wanted to run the government like a business, and his budgets have been laden with tax breaks and de-regulation favors for his corporate friends and supporters.

So maybe Bush saw the headline in today’s newspapers that Sony Pictures Entertainment must pay $1.5 million to settle a lawsuit accusing the studio of citing a fake movie critic in ads for several films.

The company created “David Manning of the Ridgefield Press” and manufactured quotes that ran in advertisements for the films Vertical Limit, A Knight’s Tale, The Animal, Hollow Man and The Patriot.

Officially, Sony Pictures did not admit any liability. But the fact that they are paying the money and offering a $5-a-ticket reimbursement to consumers speaks volumes.

***

Meanwhile, the president continues to stubbornly suggest that there’s nothing wrong with its version of using a fake critic in an advertisement — the use of government contractors posing as reporters and/or “man-on-the-street” interviewees in undocumented video news releases.

JABBS continues to hammer this point home because, although Congress has been working to put an end to the practice, the Bush administration doesn’t see anything wrong with the practice. In his most recent statement on the subject, in April, Bush acted very presidential, passing the buck on responsibility, and saying that it was up to individual television station producers to realize the VNRs were government-produced, and inform viewers. And if the producers didn’t know any better? Too bad. Let viewers be fooled.

JABBS hammers the Bush administration on this point because the government shouldn’t have to deceive the American people in order to win public favor for its policies. That holds true for Democratic or Republican politicians.

Whether the deception comes in the form of a misleading speech, a fake “Town Hall” meeting, a payment to a conservative journalist or pundit, fixing government reports to match administration policy, manufactured quotes in press releases, or an undocumented video news release doesn’t matter. They all serve the same purpose, and that purpose is alarmingly, unquestionably wrong. It shouldn’t matter whether you are a liberal or a conservative — you should not want your government to rely on propaganda that you would not accept from totalitarian regimes.

***

Rather than act proactively, the Bush administration is, in effect, waiting for Congress and the FCC to clamp down on undocumented VNRs.

The Senate already has passed the so-called Byrd Amendment, sponsored by Robert Byrd (D-WV) that says federal money cannot be used to prepare video news releases “unless the story includes a clear notification within the text or audio … that the prepackaged news story was prepared or funded” by the federal agency. That amendment is in effect until September, although Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) has said he will try to push to make the amendment permanent.

Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and John Kerry (D-MA) offered the Truth in Broadcasting Act, would require agencies and the White House to include a disclaimer that is visible throughout the VNR and contains the words “PRODUCED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.” Broadcasters would be penalized for removing the disclaimer.

That piece of legislation has stalled, as senators await for the Federal Communications Commission to render an opinion on the matter.

The FCC took nine comments on undocumented VNRs on June 22, and took replies to those comments on July 22, but has not yet rendered its opinion on the matter. FCC spokesperson Rebecca Fisher told JABBS that no timeline has been set for such an opinion, although others expect the FCC to act by the fall.

***

This article first appeared at Journalists Against Bush’s B.S.

Powered by

About David R. Mark

  • Nancy

    Smirk doesn’t see anything wrong with deceptive practices like this or others, because Smirk is amoral & utterly without a sense of honesty, honor, ethics, or shame – as well as being totally deficient as a business leader, as he’s amply demonstrated.

  • gonzo marx

    nice Post…the VNR’s are something i have been railing about for quite a while..

    you forgot good old Jeff Gannon/Guckert…notice how quickly that fell off the RADAR?

    one quibble with the Shrub treating government like business, while he is doing a fine job at exemplifying Enron style accounting he has not even come close, with his “numbers” with doing anything other than growing the Debt and Deficit…NO CEO in the private secotr could get away with going form a record surplus in his annual Budget to record Debt in 5 years (and that is not even counting the War Costs, which are NOT in the budget)

    good thing the Banks of China and Japan are holding the majority of the “stock” in the USA

    aaaAAAAarrRRRRRrgGGGGGGGhhHHHHHHh!!!!!

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    “JABBS continues to hammer this point home because…”

    …It keeps hate alive.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    no Mr Nalle..your type of broad brush hate speech against anyone not of the GOP keeps more hate alive than criticism of the Administration does..

    nice try…you certain you can’t get a guest spot on Limbaugh or O’Reilly?

    heh

    Excelsior!

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    gonzo marx — I didn’t include J.D. Guckert because I felt that, while related, it’s not quite the same as the VNR issue.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Dave — I continue to write about it because the Bush Administration continues to say there’s nothing wrong with it.

    When they change their mind — or are forced to, by the FCC or by the Senate — it won’t be an issue any more.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    It gets tedious, David. You’ve made your point. Clearly many disagree with you. Perhaps it’s time to move on to something more relevant?

    Dave

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    I think propaganda is relevant. No one asked you to read the post. You are not forced to comment.

    And, btw, clearly people do agree with me. Like the people who run the Government Accountability Office, who have spoken out against the issue, and are expected to file a follow-up report in October. Or the people at the FCC, who as I note are expected to provide a report on the subject this fall. Or how about a variety of Senators — mostly Democrats, but a few Republicans, like Ted Stevens — who are looking at various legislation to stop the practice.

    Seems this is a bipartisan issue, and you’re on the wrong side of it, Dave.

  • gonzo marx

    Mr Nalle sez…
    *Perhaps it’s time to move on to something more relevant?*

    ummm..it IS relevant…much as the GOP would like it to be forgotten

    we constantly see this type of thing, a criticism with factual evidence to lend it credence…and we are told things like “it’s insignificant”…or “it’s old news, move along”…or “it’s irrelevant”

    sorry..YOU don’t get to decide what’s relevant…

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/ The Bulldog Manifesto

    “Time to move on…” ‘nothing to see here’….LOL.

    Yeah, ok. It will be time to move on when the media is no longer being directly manipulated by politco-propogandists. Sorry, but the issue is very, very, very far from being irrelevant. It is quite important, and I thank JABBS and others (a la Media Matters) for making light of the infectious state of our media.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    It’s not that there’s nothing here, it’s that he keeps making the same post in different words over and over and over again.

    As for JABBS and MediaMatters, they are basically propaganda attack organs in their own right. Why are they any better? I give JABBS credit for at least being independent, but MediaMatters is backed and funded by political organizations and has a specific anti-administration agenda. They’re in the business of manufacturing controversy.

    Dave

  • http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/ The Bulldog Manifesto

    Dave,

    Lets break down what you just said….

    “MediaMatters is backed and funded by political organizations and has a specific anti-administration agenda”

    Do you have a problem with all groups that are backed and dunded by political organizations? I’m curious.

    Or is the second half of your statement really what you take issue with, namely that they have an “anti-administration agenda”.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Actually, neither of those. My problem with MediaMatters is that they claim to be exposing media bias and factual errors, but in actuality they exclusively concentrate on errors and bias which lean towards the right and absolutely and totally ignore any bias which cuts the other way. Visit their website. Every single article focuses on Republicans or conservative groups receiving favorable or supportive media coverage. You won’t find a single article pointing out press coverage which is unbalanced or sympathetic to the left.

    I would respect them if they were out to expose all media bias. But they aren’t. They’re solely interested in proving that media bias favors the right, and that’s just not true. Bias goes both ways, but they conveniently ignore the biased reporting they approve of. They also have a marked tendancy of taking what is just sloppy reporting, laziness and incompetence and misrepresenting it as bias when it serves their needs.

    They are even worse than the people they critique, because they are dishonest in a way which is more deliberate and calculated than any bias in the press.

    Dave

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “My problem with MediaMatters is that they claim to be exposing media bias and factual errors,”

    No they don’t. If you visited their website, you would see they make no such claim, Dave. This is straight from their website:

    Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media [the bold is mine].

    Where is the dishonesty? Would it be better if they tackled both sides? Absolutely, but who would pay for that?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Good point, Bicho. I’ve been to their site, but never encountered the quote you brought up. I’ve just marvelled at the brilliant spin of their articles.

    I guess I have to respect their honesty and just class them as a worthless propaganda mill rather than a worhtless, lying propaganda mill. Well, much of their version of bias is still based on lies and misrepresentations, so never mind – they’re still evil bastards.

    Dave

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Dave, you assume that quotes are being taken out of context (you made that charge against me), yet you’ve not once provided proof to back up that claim.

    Mediamatters looks for examples of conservative spin (read: misinformation). They mostly go after right-wing radio and Fox News, although they also target the likes of Chris Matthews and even the NY Times and Washington Post, on occasion.

    They print out the full quotes, and then they show how the quote differs from the facts as we know them. They cite the original facts, and attribute them.

    Where is the crime?

    Would you prefer to have no watchdog out there?

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    The problem, of course, is whether conservatives and liberals can accept the same basic facts.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The problem is that so often ‘facts’ are not facts at all, but interpretations of fact. I’ve seen again and again how two people of opposing political perspectives can look at the same basic event and interpret it in two completely different ways. This is mostly what Mediamatters and other self-appointed watchdogs deal in. They take the fact and say it means X while the people they are critiquing have said it means Y. The truth is usually somewhere inbetween. The Rove/Plame business is a classic example of this, where the criminality of the leaking depend entirely on which interpretation of her ‘undercover status’ you choose to accept. The facts are the same, but their perceived meaning is different depending on who you ask.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    as for Plame..the CIA determined that status when they asked for Prosecution…that sums that up, spin all you like…but that’s the fucking Fact

    lots of fun facts the neocons forget about, and apologists try and defend

    howabout WMD’s?

    the real fun new parlor game..”where’s Osama”

    fiscally responsible folks running up the greatest Debt and Defecit ever seen, without even counting the war costs, cuz they never made it into the budget

    can we all say yhello to Jeff Gannon…errr…Guckert…oh hell, just order a few hours of his “services” from his website…

    “the oil revenues will pay for the war”

    ad nauseum

    not that the demlicans are any better…but they ain’t running the show , and don’t scream about “values” every second…

    Excelsior!

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    That’s the problem. You have 70% of the country accepting a fact (i.e. Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state, certainly proven by the autopsy if not by the doctors who treated her for years). And then you have 30% who say they trust Dr. Hammesfahr, who multiple courts said lacked credibility when he couldn’t defend his arguments. You have 30% who say they trust Bill Frist, who tried to give an opinion on Schiavo based on watching a one-hour, three-year-old video tape.

    That’s two sides to a story, right? But one is based on medical fact, and the other is not.

    I took my son to the Museum of Natural History to look at the dinosaur exhibit. It’s an amazing thing. They have determined histories going back several hundred million years, from before dinosaurs, through the dinosaur era, and onto what evolved after the dinosaurs. It’s very hard to look at all of this and say, “Well, it’s just an opinion.” They have fossils and chemicals they’ve analyzed for decades now.

    But if you believe in creationism, as a minority of Americans do, you almost have to believe that all that stuff at the Museum of Natural History is an “opinion,” because the two theories cannot work side by side.

    Again, it’s two sides to a story. But one seems to be based on scientific fact, and the other is based on opinion.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Getting back to mediamatters (or my site, or dailyhowler, or any number of other sites that base a lot of their analysis on actual transcripts, rather than opinions of other people’s opinions), I don’t necessarily agree with everything the various sites say.

    But I have to tell you, when I see a transcript quoting a member of the Bush Administration, or a conservative pundit or politician, and the given web site highlights a few sentences, and then shows you the actual fact (an economic statistic, or a time line, or what the original person referenced said), and those two don’t agree, it gives the given site a lot of credibility.

    Now, of course, this sort of Internet “gotcha” makes conservatives upset. It’s discouraging to see that one of your leaders has mis-stated facts, mislead an audience, etc. But what other conclusion can you draw?

    This doesn’t describe every instance on Mediamatters, or course, but it describes a lot of them.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>But I have to tell you, when I see a transcript quoting a member of the Bush Administration, or a conservative pundit or politician, and the given web site highlights a few sentences,< <

    Usually taken out of context or missing vital explanation.

    >> and then shows you the actual fact (an economic statistic, or a time line, or what the original person referenced said), and those two don’t agree, it gives the given site a lot of credibility. <<

    Which is not diminished at all by the many times that they distort the truth themselves and bend facts to fit their agenda?

    No group like MediaMatters which is actively spreading its own propaganda can be taken seriously when critiquing opposing sources of similarly manufactured ‘truth’.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    as opposed to Fox news, Drudge, Limbaugh ad nauseum…

    cuz those folks speak the Gospel Truth..

    just ask them

    puh-leeEEEEEeeeezzZZzzzzeeee

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    There’s spin everywhere from both sides. I just object to those who claim to be countering spin while actually just adding more to the big mess.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    so, how do you feel about O’Reilly’s “no spin zone”?

    or “we report, you decide” while having Newt as your chief political editor as he is fundraising for the GOP?

    spare me…

    yes, there is spin on both sides, but Fox and AM radio shows that whole industries have sprouted up around the GOP spin machine

    and yer whining about a website?

    let me break out my “LOLerskates”

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Hey, I like Newt. He’s not a Neocon, and that’s a big plus. As for O’Reilly, he’s an irritating blowhard, but he’s not a Neocon or even a doctrinaire conservative. He veers way off to the left on some issues. He’s also very critical of the administration. I disagree with him on most social issues, but he certainly isn’t a mouthpiece for the administration.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    i can see this is going to get us nowhere…

    silly me, i should know better by now…

    i’ll just leave it for the gentle Readers to decide for themselves

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Gonzo, do you ever watch O’Reilly? Have you ever heard him rip on Bush? He’s as anti-Bush as any moderate Democrat would be. Probably moreso. He actually sounds a lot like you on some issues.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    sounds like me??

    go and wash yer mouth out with drain-o

    yes, i’ve watched him, and i can go the entire hour without puking..if it’s on an empty stomache

    no personal patience for ideological whores

    did i say that out loud?

    Excelsior!

  • Shark

    DaveNulle: “…It’s not that there’s nothing here, it’s that he keeps making the same post in different words over and over and over again.”

    Davey, if that were a crime, you’d be strapped to a gurney in Huntsville by now.

    ======

    DaveNulle re. GOVERNMENT TAX MONEY paying for PARTISAN PROPAGANDA: “…Perhaps it’s time to move on to something more relevant?”

    And perhaps it’s time for you to voluntarily excommunicate yerself from the Libertarian Faith.

    =====

    PS: Gonzo, have I told you lately: I LOVE YOU, MAAAAAAN!

    xxoo, <—platonic, of course)
    Shark

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>sounds like me??< <

    In his criticisms of the administration very much like you, yes.

    >>yes, i’ve watched him, and i can go the entire hour without puking..if it’s on an empty stomache

    no personal patience for ideological whores<<

    But you have to admit that his ideology is not that of the Neocons or Bush or Rove.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    i admit nothing…

    good to have ya back with us shark, my fine, finny, friend..ya were missed..

    /smoochies

    now i gotta get the whole o’reilly bit outta my poijnty lilo brain, or i’ll have worse nightmares than that time with the peyote and “mushroom” pizza and the bottle of mezcal with an absinthe chaser…

    but i digress…

    Excelsior!

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Again, Dave, you suggest that Mediamatters or other similar sites “take things out of context,” but have yet to prodcue any examples to back it up.

    It’s just empty spin on your part. Easy to throw out there into the blogosphere, signifying nothing.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I can trot out examples, but you’re never going to agree that they are what I can obviously see them to be. You’re too blinded by your partisanship to sift the truth from the spin.

    But here are some quickies. Their ‘headline’ issues for today:

    “Remember Valerie Plame? Karl Rove? The media doesn’t”

    Really? According to Google news there have been hundreds of articles on this topic published in mainstream media outlets in the last 24 hours, including obscure outlets like TIME magazine, The St. Petersburg Times, the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Sun Times, etc., etc. They claim that USA Today hasn’t had any coverage of the topic since July 19th, but if you check USA Today’s archives you find not one, but THIRTEEN articles about the case since the 19th. Clearly they’ve just forgotten all about the issue. So, that’s one headline and one lie.

    “Novak gets extra “vacation” time after storming off CNN set, ducking Plame questions”

    The statement on Novak’s departure specifically refers to it as an ‘indefinite suspension’ not a vacation as they suggest. So, there’s another lie.

    “Dobson compares Frist’s support for stem cell research to support for Nazi atrocities; White House takes Dobson’s side”

    The white house support for Dobson consists of Claude Allen appearing on Dobson’s radio show and pointedly NOT saying anything to support or deny Dobson’s comments about nazism. So another headline, another lie.

    “Limbaugh accused Marine of hiding behind uniform; accused him of serving in Iraq “to pad the resumé””

    They’ve got this one about right. Limbaugh made the comments, especially the first one over and over again. But I have to point out that Limbaugh wasn’t lying or misrepresenting anything Hackett did, he was merely presenting his interpretation of Hackett’s record, mostly in the context of the past behavior of John Kerry. IMO he had a valid criticism of Hackett, though one which was clearly motivated by partisan subjectivity. This is a good example of the kind of thing I’ve commented about before. They take what is basically Limbaugh’s opinion and make out like he’s lying about something, when all he’s really doing is telling his listeners his reaction to facts which he isn’t changing or misrepresenting.

    “Ann Coulter, liar — and plagiarist?”

    This one’s debatable. The liar part they’ve got a point on. IMO the plagiarism argument is pretty damned weak. I see clearer cases of plagiarism every day. You have to go read their link to the plagiarism argument and judge it for yourself.

    So, 5 headlines, at least 3 lies from MM. Not so good. Plus, it’s not hard to take issue with loud mouthed partisan idiots like Limbaugh and Coulter who really are spewing opinionated garbage. When it comes to dealing with actual facts MM seems to have major problems.

    Dave

  • RogerMDillion

    The statement on Novak’s departure specifically refers to it as an ‘indefinite suspension’ not a vacation as they suggest. So, there’s another lie.

    Did you not notice the word vacation in the headline is in quotes? It was obviously not meant as an actual vacation. CNN is the one who said, “We’ve asked Mr. Novak to take some time off.” They make no mention of an indefinite suspension.

    So does that count as one comment, one lie on your part?

    “Dobson compares Frist’s support for stem cell research to support for Nazi atrocities; White House takes Dobson’s side”

    Since White House domestic policy adviser Allen also echoed Dobson’s attack on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, which I noticed you “neglected” to include, does that not imply that the White House, whom Allen is representing, is on Dobson’s side?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Did you not notice the word vacation in the headline is in quotes? It was obviously not meant as an actual vacation. CNN is the one who said, “We’ve asked Mr. Novak to take some time off.” They make no mention of an indefinite suspension.< <

    The AP story and every story published refers to it as an 'indefinite suspension'. Only Novak, spinning it after the fact, has characterized it as a mutually agreed on 'vacation'.

    >>So does that count as one comment, one lie on your part?< <

    I'm sure you'll take it that way. Just like MediaMatters, if you want to call something a lie you can, even if it's not true.

    >>Since White House domestic policy adviser Allen also echoed Dobson’s attack on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, which I noticed you “neglected” to include, does that not imply that the White House, whom Allen is representing, is on Dobson’s side?<<

    I didn’t neglect to include it, I wasn’t referring to it. I never said the White House wasn’t on Dobson’s side on the issue of stem cell research. They may well be. However, in their title MM made it sound like Allen backed Dobson on his Nazi statement, which just was not true.

    Dave

  • RogerMDillion

    Only Novak, spinning it after the fact, has characterized it as a mutually agreed on ‘vacation’.

    Hence MM’s use of quotes around the word vacation. You just made it clear what they were referring to: Novak’s use of the word.

    I never said the White House wasn’t on Dobson’s side on the issue of stem cell research. They may well be.

    Give me a break. Allen joined in the attack against Frist, so they did take Dobson’s side. If you don’t know where the White House stands, then you should stop talking about the issue.

    in their title MM made it sound like Allen backed Dobson on his Nazi statement

    Maybe if you just got off a boat. It is apparent to me the headline says that Dobson made certain claims and the WH is on Dobson’s side of the arguement. You take a side in an arguement. You don’t take the side of a comparision.

    Did you notice they used a semicolon? Dictionary.com: A mark of punctuation used to connect independent clauses and indicating a closer relationship between the clauses than a period does.

    While the sentences in the headline have a relationship, notice that they are independent clauses. You not understanding it doesn’t mean that MM was deceitful.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    LOL, you prove my point more eloquently than I could. Never admit, always deny. Explain away the spin. Qualify, qualify, obfuscate and redefine. Brilliant.

    Dave

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    That seems to be the argument several people have against you, Dave.

  • Nancy

    Interesting: isn’t that Karl Rove’s mantra? How telling.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Isn’t it amazing how Dave Nalle again successfully steered a conversation away from the original point?

    Instead of discussing Bush Administration propaganda, we have now devoted much of the conversation on Mediamatters.org.

    I’m as guilty as others on here for taking the bait. Dave does this on almost all of my posts. We all should know better.

  • MCH

    Well of course, D.R., that’s because Nalle is not only a control freak, but also a master manipulator.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Isn’t it amazing how Dave Nalle again successfully steered a conversation away from the original point?

    Instead of discussing Bush Administration propaganda, we have now devoted much of the conversation on Mediamatters.org.< <

    Then we are still on the topic of Propaganda, so have we really moved from the topic you started?

    >>I’m as guilty as others on here for taking the bait. Dave does this on almost all of my posts. We all should know better.<<

    Then perhaps it’s time to start some posts which don’t hammer the same tired point over and over. Say something new and interesting. I’m eager to listen.

    Dave

  • gonzo marx

    heh..

    shall we get into the VNR’s?

    those are always a bit of fun…

    oh, wait..there’s Jeff Gannon/Guckert, existential question…was he set in the WH press room for comedic relief, cuz someone liked his “services”, or to toss out softball questions?

    Enquiring minds wanna know

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I’m still not satisfied with the resolution of the gannon/guckert business. It seems to have fallen by the wayside and we still don’t know wtf was up with him.

    The argument that he got his press pass legitimately because of minimal screening procedures is fine, but why did they keep calling on him. Truthfully, while a press spokesman may like softball questions, he doesn’t want to answer ones which are just stupid and irrelevant, and many of gannon/guckert’s questions were just dump and pointless.

    Dave

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Dave, I think it was proven that

    a) Undocumented VNRs is not a “partisan” issue.

    b) Since there was new information in my post, it’s not a “dated” issue.

    c) If you want to discuss Mediamatters, write a post on that. But it’s seriously flawed logic to compare a watchdog website with a Bush Administration action that the GAO called propagadna and the FCC suggested likely violates its statutes.

  • RogerMDillion

    Dave,

    What on earth are you talking about? It’s not MediaMatters fault you don’t understand basic punctuation. Not every organization’s headlines are dumbed down for the masses. Don’t feel too bad, though. A lot of people have trouble with quotation marks and semicolons.

    Far be it from me to get between a man and his irrational hate, and I understand your inabailty to admit when you are wrong, but at least be honest with yourself.

  • http://jabbs.blogspot.com David R. Mark

    Ouch — harsh words, Roger.