The only people who were at all surprised that the Republicans were in fact behind the callous Terri Schiavo memo seem to be Republicans. Are they that naive? It's blindingly obvious that GOP efforts on behalf of Schaivo were disingenuous and politically motivated. The fact that someone from their side of the aisle was actually foolish enough to put it in writing hardly multiplies their crime.
For the record, the memo, which was written by an aide for Senator Martinez, calls the Schiavo tragedy "a great political issue" and notes that "the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue." Well, duh! If you needed this memo to confirm what the Republicans were up to, then you're beyond hope already.
Some on the left are reveling in their chance to rub this in the faces of right-wing pundits and bloggers who were all in a lather (or should I say 'Rather'?) over what they assumed to be yet another document forged by Democrats. I don't really see the point of this exercise. The bug-eyed screamers—both on the left and on the right—are singularly incapable of learning anything from their mistakes and misstatements, so all this does is add to the din.
The partisan rancor over this memo, even after its provenance has been proven, is yet another sad reminder that the marketplace of ideas has devolved into a five-and-dime store where honesty is the last vestige of a fool.
As Martinez scrambles to cover his ass by claiming that the distribution of the memo was inadvertent, some conservative bloggers are doing damage control of their own. Witness the bitter, defensive non-apology apologies that have been posted on Powerline and Right Pundit.
Full marks to Joshua Claybourn for posting an actual retraction.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Ah, so it's not a forgery as first suspected? From what I had last heard it had no letter head on it and didn't appear to be structured as an actual memo for outside distribution and the only copy they had couldn't be traced. Kind of dumb for one of Martinez's staff to own up to it under those circumstances.
For that matter, what's a Junior Senator who just got elected doing circulating that kind of memo anyway. Isn't that the job of the party leadership?
Dave
2 - gonzo marx
we only have the junior senator's aide's word that he wrote it...
funny how the Senator himself said he had never seen it, but he took it out of his suit pocket and handed it to the democrat that broke this open...which Sen. Martinez admits...
either way..tho it is a small incident in and of itself..it DOES add to the overall pattern of behaviour..
like the revelation from 2 weeks ago about a Republican Party Intranet/VPN where they log in every nmorning and get the day's talking points etc..
not suprising..but when confirmed is very troubling..IMO..
it seems we are destined to live out the ancient chinese curse..
"may you live in Interesting times"
Excelsior!
3 - Michael Hess
The Schiavo case has had many GOP blunders, and also "right to life" misinformation as well. On April 1st, 2005 Lifenews.com quoted from a "new" Zogby poll that had not been completed yet, complete with wrong figures for the central leading (and incorrect as it talked about disabled people and not Terri Schiavo) where the question was:
"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water?"
Lifenews reported the Zogby poll said 79% yes, and 9% no.
The actual Zogby poll with the same leading question came out a few days later, and Zogby reports the poll ran through April 2nd, the final results were actually 80.3% yes and 7% no.
Zogby apparently has a leak.
The full story is here:
http://bbsnews.net/article.php/20050406225151720
4 - Dawn
Only intelligent humans are capable of admitting that they were in fact wrong about something, and only exceptional humans are capable of accepting their apology.
The blogosphere is sorely lacking both I am afraid, but at least someone else has noticed this pathetic bullshit.
Nice post.
5 - Temple Stark
You're joking right Michael?
Between reading that and typing here you reversed the results. Accident or idiocy?
Go back to your link. Also Here's the story right from Zogby.
And if the result is 80, percent NO, then there is no great surprise in the result from the Christan Defense Coalition, who partner with Judicial Watch (it says so right on their site).
Guess I'm one of those suckers, eh?
PS -- BBSNEWS - not a news site, despite your best efforts. You're the Michael that posted that article there, correct?
6 - Mark Schannon
The real tragedy--the true intellecutal dishonesty--is that Republicrats and Democans are fiddling while Rome is smoldering.
I can't get upset about Shiavo--2 million children a year die from malaria; millions of American children live in poverty and as a result will die a lot sooner than necessary. We kill each other with cars, guns, knifes, paper clips, ink bottles.
And as for real issues. Medicare/ Medicaid is going to make Social Security look like a song and dance routine by Laurel & Hardy. The U.S. has no moral authority around the world. We're whistling Dixie while a growing deficit & housing bubble & weak dollar turn economists into driveling idiots.
Our politicians are more terrified of honesty than ever before.
And, worst of all, the 3rd Star Wars movie will probably suck as much as the last 2.
Happy St. Griffin's Day.
7 - gonzo marx
is that Saint Andy or Saint Merv?
enquiring minds wanna know
Excelsior!
8 - Dave Nalle
>>like the revelation from 2 weeks ago about a Republican Party Intranet/VPN where they log in every nmorning and get the day's talking points etc..
not suprising..but when confirmed is very troubling..IMO..<<
Why is this troubling? It's not troubling, it's not even news. You think the democrats don't circulate talking points? That's the job of party leadership. They were doing it when I worked on the hill 25 years ago and they're doing it now. The only difference is that now they use websites and email instead of paper memos - well, usually.
Dave
9 - gonzo marx
Dave sez..
*Why is this troubling?*
why?..the Hive Mind bothers me..
let us compare...when was the last time you woke up and found EVERY Democrat AND a network news channel, AND multiple radio programs ALL hitting the same few topics of conversation, down to using the SAME sentences and phraseology..
now..point to me a single day since the Rove era began when you have NOT heard it from the Republocrat side
it may not bother you..after all, you have drunk of the "kool-aid" and those are the talking points you WANT to hear/repeat..
now..in your defense..you do stray from the Agenda at times...the Force is strong with you, and there are times when you break free of the "Emperor's" control...
but the jedi mind tricks of the Dark side are only a disturbance in the Force to a lil old yoda like me...
still bothers me..and adds to the Pattern...shows somebody studied Goebbel's playbook...and in this one party totalitarian regime under which we live...i pay attention to which way the wind blows...
depressing, really...but TCM is running a Marx brothers marathon today...so there may yet be Hope
but i ain't betting that way...
Excelsior!
10 - Pete Blackwell
Careful with the Goebbels references, Gonzo. ;)
11 - Dave Nalle
>>let us compare...when was the last time you woke up and found EVERY Democrat AND a network news channel, AND multiple radio programs ALL hitting the same few topics of conversation, down to using the SAME sentences and phraseology..<<
When? The last time I watched the evening news on the major networks or read an article in a newspaper. All the newspapers cover the same stories, all the national networks cover those same stories, and all of the cable news channels cover those stories too. They hire the same small group of talking heads. All the leftist ones say the same thing as each other. All the rightist ones say the same thing as each other. A few wacky ones get thrown in now and then who deviate from the script - especially on Fox News and MSNBC, interestingly.
This isn't new. This is how it has been since the end of the Hearst era in the media. The Democrats have their talking points, the Republicans have theirs - both get a full airing in the media, and while it's a boring way to get issues addressed, it's better than not addressing the issues, I guess.
Dave
12 - gonzo marx
"none are so blind as they will not see"
Dave you know as well as i do that it is one thing to use the exact same wording in a Quote...and quite another to use the same wording when even posing the Question...much less taking those questions from a single source Intranet, and raising the points fro the day there
if Carville wrote a memo, and you heard it word for word on some radio talk shows and saw it on CNN posed as a question to a senator, word for word you would see major disco outfreakage...and rightly so...
why so defensive when i just raise it as a matter of personal concern?
i guess we just can't see this the same way...but remember my linkage of th erepublican leadership and fox "news"..aka FNC's head political editor being Newt Gingrich, the man that wrote the plan for the "republican revolution" in his book in '91...go have a read...the ENTIRE thing is laid out there as a battle plan for the GOP..just as i have described it
and THAT is my concern...
Excelsior!
13 - Dave Nalle
I'm not defensive Gonzo, I just don't see a grand conspiracy here. What I see is a bunch of airheaded communications school graduates and school of journalism bubbleheads who can't do research for themselves or write their way out of a paper bag. They're too busy combing their hair implants to do any work, so they grab whatever they see that sounds good that other people are saying and put that in their article or their broadcast. The talking heads may be programmed by the talking points agendafloggers, but the 'journalists' are just lazy incompetents asking the questions which everyone else is asking - just like a bunch of media lemmings.
Dave
14 - gonzo marx
i understand Dave...now go look at the quoted cliche in the first line of my post, #12
sez it all...
i am only hoping someday the kool-aid will wear off on you and you will leave the Dark side...and at least stop shilling for the GOP's bullshit...
but i'm funny like that..i tend ta see the good stuff in most folks...
Excelsior!
15 - Pete Blackwell
Dave is right about journalists being lazy, or, to put it more charitably, set in their ways. People really underestimate the degree to which press releases and the contents of a journalist's rolodex influence coverage. This is my beef with Noam Chomsky's criticism of the media, but it applies to critics from the right as well. Having worked for a major NYC newspaper, I know enought to say with confidence that the MSM is far too disorganized to engage in conspiracy. The shoddy coverage you see is intellectual laziness, not a vast [enter ideology here]-wing plot. This doesn't mean there is not media bias; it's just not the only thing at work.
And yes, Dems have talking points, too. I heard a bit on Limbaugh where he plays clips of a bunch of diverse pundits all saying almost the exact same thing about Bush and "gravitas."
It's a poison landscape.
16 - gonzo marx
Pete sez..
*Dave is right about journalists being lazy, or, to put it more charitably, set in their ways.*
and i agree with both of you here...but a large part of it is also influenced by the switch over the last 20 from editorial integrity to "infotainment"..meaning being more concerned with the profit of the bottom line than with getting the "scoop" , being accurate and staying informative
instead most MSM outlets just read the "who, what, where, when" off AP newswire or Reuters...the rest being punditry or opinion...more investigation and analysis is being down out in the blogoshere than in the bullpen...
those are my observations, born out by statements made via various old school media insiders about current structures...your mileage may vary..
also..i NEVER talked about any kind of plot or conspiracy on the part of the "media" per se...they , for the most part, get used as dupes..
and then there are some outlets that do the duping..
my contention is that folks like Limbaugh are entertaining propagandists..no harm no foul there..
they are allowed since they function as Editorialists not news outlets
Fox News on the other hand goes beyond that..they have their share of punditry, and their agenda slants thier coverage..in the exact same way that they have always claimed "liberal media" did
neither side is right on this one...
"poison landscape"...i agree here
but to compare Limbaugh's editing clips og a single word, "gravitas" from the 2000 campaign..where it is a common phrase among pundits (he could have had clips from Novak and Hannity in there, they used it as well)...to compare that to an Intranet/VPN that the GOP used on a daily basis to get it's "message" out to their troops as well as their favored media sources
well....the dems are no where near as organized and effecient at it..give credit where it is due here
my concern stems from that very fine line that exists to keep the government/administration from spending taxpayer dollars on getting thier message/agend out
as i have said in other threads on this
try www.gao.gov and type "propaganda" into the search field
i know it freaked me out...
Excelsior!
17 - Dave Nalle
The administration is NOT a political campaign or a political party. They have an obligation to get their message out. They've got active programs that are supposed to be helping the nation, and they are specifically charged with implementing these programs. If that implementation requires popular participation, then informing the public and promoting awareness of the program IS part of their job and it's NOT propaganda.
The GAO definition specifically says that propaganda benefits an individual or a political party. These publicity pieces released to the media don't serve that function.
Dave
18 - gonzo marx
Dave sez..
*They have an obligation to get their message out.*
on this i can easily agree and have no problem..
Dave sez...
*If that implementation requires popular participation, then informing the public and promoting awareness of the program IS part of their job and it's NOT propaganda.*
also agreed...but if such is the case than should it not be CLEARLY MARKED and delineated as coming from a GOVERNMENT SOURCE???
part of my difficulty, and the GAO's , with these VNR's is the DECEPTIVE elements, where a paid PR person ends it with "so and so reporting"..giving the illusion that it is a news report and NOT A GOVERNMENTAL info piece..
THAT is the difference between spreading needed information and Propaganda campaigns ...DECEPTION
can we agree that said practices are deceptive and thus wrong?
Dave sez..
*The GAO definition specifically says that propaganda benefits an individual or a political party. These publicity pieces released to the media don't serve that function.*
nice try..but you fail to account for the fact that the pieces DO serve such a purpose when utilized in a deceptive manner...even setting the question of serving the GOP agenda without any form of checks and balances because ALL federal agencies , as well as HOuse and Senate are controlled by one party so NO inquiry into these matters can take place as it is supposed to
it has been hown by the GAO time and again that there is a clear violation of implementation by NOT making it clear as to wherwe the "message" is coming from
add to it that in this time of budgetary crisis, do we REALLY want to be spending millions on outside the government PR firms to put out the governments message?
Excelsior!
19 - Dave Nalle
Yes, I agree that the misrepresentation of the promotional information as a new story is quesitonable. But I also find it completely understandable. Doing this has been proven in private industry to increase the chance of the information actually getting disseminated. The lazy TV station producers are more likely to use the story if they don't have to do any actual work. They are presumably doing this because just putting out a press release got them no play in the media.
Dave
20 - gonzo marx
Dave sez..
*Yes, I agree that the misrepresentation of the promotional information as a new story is quesitonable.*
ok..we can agree then that it IS being done in such a manner..you may call it "questionable" i call it WRONG and against the anti-propaganda statutes...show where it is coming from and i will remove my Objections..
Dave sez..
* Doing this has been proven in private industry to increase the chance of the information actually getting disseminated.*
sorry..but i don't believe you can equate private industry's practices with the federal governments...the Governemnt is NOT supposed to decieve the People..period...never can you convince me that such is Ethical or in the Public's best interest
gotta love the Hypocrisy here..a Prsident decieves about a personal sexual matter and he gets IMpeached..and there is a good argument for rightly so..another Administration commits a continuous practice of Deception from everything between the Reasons for invading a Sovereign nation to "no child left behind" but that's ok...cuz "business" does it..
aaAAaaaAAarrRRRrrRRRgGGGggHHH!!!!
Dave sez..
*The lazy TV station producers are more likely to use the story if they don't have to do any actual work. *
i totally agree here, the media is partly to blame..but one does NOT preclude the other..they are NOT mutually exclusive...BOTH share blame here
however one (th eMSM) are private enterprises that must follow one set of Laws...our GOVERNMENT is rightly held to a higher standard..
or is DECEPTION towards the Public one of the new GOP and Administration "values" ??
Excelsior!
21 - Dave Nalle
But what is the deception? Is what these VNRs say not true? Are they full of lies about the programs described?
The perceived 'deception' is merely the format in which the information is presented. If they sent out a press release instead and it was just reported verbatim by a local news anchor wouldn't that be even more deceptive? I doubt anyone would say so, even though it just got repeated unaltered.
The problem here is whether there is intent to deceive. The government can argue that it's intent is solely to inform. The intent to deceive is just in your suspicious mind which assumes that anything coming from the administration comes with evil intent.
Dave
22 - gonzo marx
Dave..let's go over this again..
doe the VNR's CLEARLY state where they are coming from, who made them?
NO
THAT is DECEPTION
as to the veracity of each individual piece..that can be argued and must be fact checked on a case by case investigation..
i am NOT talking about the actual CONTENT here..but the DECEPTIVE manner of presentation...
again and again you refuse to see the Point here..
by NOT plainly stating WHERE the piece is coming from the Agencies are engaging in a DECEPTIVE practice, attempting to pass the VNR off as a NEWS piece rather than an Infomercial paid for and sponsered by a governmental Agency
THAT is the Issue....
simple enough?
Excelsior!
23 - Temple Stark
Anytime a viewer doesn't know the source of information when it could clearly be added in quick blurb at the bottom of the screen, the public has been decieved.
And, of course, the content is spin. Has anyone watched one of these puppies? Say it with me "Paid Political Advertising."
These pieces are neither intellectual nor honest. But isn't this the discussion for Jan's VNR thread?
24 - Dave Nalle
Yes, this proliferation ought to be combined into one thread.
Dave
25 - alienboy
The limitation of the democratic system is that it breaks politics down into a false perception of the world, based around an over-simplistic view of the world.
It doesn't take much thought to realise that the actual world is more complex, a web if you like, that the us versus them approach to politics is ultimately destructive.