Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by DAxelrod (4649) on 2006.10.01 23:53 (#50641) Journal
    Interesting, Clinton did initially bring up the political bent of Fox before most of the conversation happened, right after the initial question had been posed.

    I agree that Wallace's question was not, in itself, inappropriate or unfair.

    I disagree at the source of Clinton's anger, however. I see most of it as coming after he precieves Wallace as interrupting him as he tried to give a complete answer. Several times.

    Whether or not Wallace was justified in attempting to direct the conversation as an interviewer, I don't think Clinton was unreasonable to be angry about what he percieved as being interrupted before he could completely answer.

    What generally saddens me is how poorly the news coverage of this conversation was. Everyone focused on Clinton's "anger", or occasionally Wallace's "grilling". I could find very little reporting on the actual content of the conversation, fact checking of claims, etc.

    It's disheartening to realize that the same thing happened with Chavez's speech. Nobody talked about what he said, they all focused on the name-calling.
    • s/poorly/poor/; #That's what I get for writing right before falling asleep. :)
    • Well, we'll agree to disagree on the source of his anger. Maybe it was a combination. But yes, yes, yes to the rest of what you said.
    • I don't know about the biases of the source, and haven't actually had a chance to read it yet, but I managed to find at least one article that does a point by point fact check [factcheck.org]. And it cites its sources.
      • FactCheck is usually very reliable, but not perfect (of course).

        Clinton was wrong that the miniseries was "falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report." It was, absolutely, based on that report. Not entirely ... but they never claimed it was based on the report entirely. Indeed, they specifically stated they had other sources. "Based on" does not imply "no other sources" (including the writer's or director's rear end).

        FactCheck should have simply come out and said the claim that ABC's so