Ah yes, let's keep Kerry the topic for a couple more days. In the name of working for an 'independent' publication. hehehehehehehe.
I think the thing that bothers me most is that this crap works. But only for guys like Karl Rove. It doesn't do a freakin' thing for guys like me, tho'.
Well, it does keep the death toll obfuscated for a couple more days. Please lord, just let Karl's corps win one more election, right? [sigh]
Yes, Evil Karl Rove's astounding mind-control machine not only managed to make Kerry put his foot in his mouth in the first place, but to follow that up with a preposterous rant about people disorting what he said - when they simply quoted him verbatim (which the Times failed to do). Then Evil Karl got all those wingnut democrats to distance themselves from Kerry. By the time the mind-control machine was turned off, Kerry had no choice but to abjectly apologize. But seriously, speaking as a journalist, if you are going to report a story, get the quotes right. The Times didn't. As for Kerry, the lesson to be learned from this is that he is one of the lousiest politicians on the national scene.
The Times may well have not got its quotes right -- without seeing a video of the Kerry speech or having his next few senteces quoted, readers can't tell.
I would say, though, that the anti-NY Times article does itself no favours by its ranting tone, in particular in starting out its rant with having a go at the journalist for the headline of the article. As we all know, journalism 101, right, "The journalist does not have anything to do with the headline". Headlines are written by the paper, not the writer, who is as in the dark as everyone else and only gets to see the headline when the piece appears in the paper (usually).
I didn't think the ranter was so much blaming the reporter for the headline - though God knows you're right about that, Maxine, as I, who wrote headlines for years, can attest - but rather that the headline captured so perfectly the gist of the story. I think the ranter's ire simply reflects the extent to which Kerry can raise the hackles of many people in this country. I had the misfortune two years ago, while working on a story, of having to pore through transcripts of Kerry's remarks at various times. The man sounds good, but his interminable sentences as often as not - almost always, in fact - are devoid of content. What he ends up saying almost never has any connection with he began saying. He is as empty as they come. Bush is no Demosthenes, to put it mildly, but he can actually communicate what is on his mind.
Ah yes, let's keep Kerry the topic for a couple more days. In the name of working for an 'independent' publication. hehehehehehehe.
ReplyDeleteI think the thing that bothers me most is that this crap works. But only for guys like Karl Rove. It doesn't do a freakin' thing for guys like me, tho'.
Well, it does keep the death toll obfuscated for a couple more days. Please lord, just let Karl's corps win one more election, right? [sigh]
-blue
Yes, Evil Karl Rove's astounding mind-control machine not only managed to make Kerry put his foot in his mouth in the first place, but to follow that up with a preposterous rant about people disorting what he said - when they simply quoted him verbatim (which the Times failed to do). Then Evil Karl got all those wingnut democrats to distance themselves from Kerry. By the time the mind-control machine was turned off, Kerry had no choice but to abjectly apologize.
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, speaking as a journalist, if you are going to report a story, get the quotes right. The Times didn't.
As for Kerry, the lesson to be learned from this is that he is one of the lousiest politicians on the national scene.
The Times may well have not got its quotes right -- without seeing a video of the Kerry speech or having his next few senteces quoted, readers can't tell.
ReplyDeleteI would say, though, that the anti-NY Times article does itself no favours by its ranting tone, in particular in starting out its rant with having a go at the journalist for the headline of the article. As we all know, journalism 101, right, "The journalist does not have anything to do with the headline". Headlines are written by the paper, not the writer, who is as in the dark as everyone else and only gets to see the headline when the piece appears in the paper (usually).
Maxine.
I didn't think the ranter was so much blaming the reporter for the headline - though God knows you're right about that, Maxine, as I, who wrote headlines for years, can attest - but rather that the headline captured so perfectly the gist of the story. I think the ranter's ire simply reflects the extent to which Kerry can raise the hackles of many people in this country. I had the misfortune two years ago, while working on a story, of having to pore through transcripts of Kerry's remarks at various times. The man sounds good, but his interminable sentences as often as not - almost always, in fact - are devoid of content. What he ends up saying almost never has any connection with he began saying. He is as empty as they come. Bush is no Demosthenes, to put it mildly, but he can actually communicate what is on his mind.
ReplyDelete