I understand where you're coming from, Sam. I'm sure I could find some egregious examples of the "some say..." line regarding Clinton being a drug lord or Bush being a cokehead from NewsMax or Atrios or what have you, and I'm not one to blindly defend Dan Rather, or any news anchor for that matter. It certainly can be used as a cheap out for inflammatory or libelous/slanderous comments. And exactly at what time during the 2000 elections was the considerable presence of people disagreeing and calling the Supreme Court politically motivated a "rumor"? I suppose you've also heard the fairy tales about bipartisan opposition to Bush's plans for Social Security changes.
Anyway, my response to you was saying that the context in which Rather used it in that statement is fine. Even less appropriate than your suggested "most people...." aside would be his complete excision of any mention of dissent or disagreement with the court's findings back in 2000. I would still like your opinion on the "Massachusetts" example in my previous response. I tried to come up with a highly divisive court decision, and word it similarly to Rather's statement on the 2000 Elections, only this time having the "some say" acknowledgement encompass a right-wing, conservative opposition, instead of the largely leftist/Democrat opposition to the 2000 ruling. Do you think that example is being unfair, in the context in which it is presented, to a dissenting point of view? - Jim Sam wrote: >Come on, surely even you don't believe stating "some say" gives >journalists the liberty to spread any rumor they want? >To report SOME SAY Sen. Byrd is a racist because he was a recruiter >for the KKK is a true statement but is it a fair? No, they should then >mention he has denounced the KKK. (I think he's still a member but >what the heck) > >And I wasn't blowing a gasket, Dana said she still trusts Rather and >the quotes were all out of context. I grabbed a quote that had a link >to the video. > > > >On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:14:41 -0600, Jim Campbell wrote: > > >>"politically and ideologically motivated U.S. Supreme Court" >>- is an opinion >> >>"... some say, politically and ideologically motivated U.S. Supreme Court" >>- is a fact >> >>Don't selectively quote out of context to try and make a point. >> >>Now, he could have said what you suggest, but that sounds to me more >>like mollycoddling a perfectly valid dissent/argument to the outcome >>than some semblance of a balanced statement. By Rather saying what he >>did say, he's acknowledging that there is considerable dissent to the >>ruling without saying something considerably more inflammatory. He >>could have very well said the "politically and ideologically" bit >>without adding the "some say", which would have, I'm sure, given you an >>aneurysm at the very least :) and /definitely/ would have been an opinion. >> >>How about this (this isn't an actual quote, but I'm making up an example >>for argument's sake): >> >>"The Massachusetts Supreme Court today ruled that the state must begin >>recognizing same-sex marriages within 3 months time. The ruling comes >>after much deliberation from a sharply divided and, some say, >>politically and ideologically motivated court, but most people realize >>they were just following the law." >> >>To me, that language sounds like it's telling social conservatives to go >>piss up a rope. Not that I mind that particular sentiment :) but it's >>definitely not a fair statement to make, in my opinion. >> >>- Jim >> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Save $10 Download ZoneAlarm Security Suite http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=66 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:150140 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
