September 28, 2009

Would you do this if you were me?

Here's an email request from a major mainstream media reporter:
I’m working on a future series on Talk Radio. One or more of the pieces will focus on conservative talk shows so I’m looking for people who are avid conservative talk radio listeners and for the most part support the views of the radio hosts that they listen to. I read one of your blogs where you mentioned listening to Rush Limbaugh and I’d like to chat with you. (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/10/what-rush-limbaugh-had-to-say-about.html)
How do you picture that playing out?

75 comments:

Bart DePalma said...

:::chuckle:::

What is revealing is the fact that the reporter does not appear to know anyone who listens to conservative talk shows and almost certainly does not do so him or herself.

However, I wonder how many times the reporter has opined on such shows in the past out of complete ignorance.

Fprawl said...

What about the legal term that i learned on Perry Mason, 'Best Evidence'.

Shouldn't he listen to Rush for a week on his own?

rhhardin said...

The media are not your friend.

shoutingthomas said...

I listen to Limbaugh perhaps once or twice a year.

He's funny.

The fact that I listen to somebody doesn't mean that I necessarily subscribe to his opinions.

Anybody ever consider that?

MadisonMan said...

Bart, I don't think it's unusual that someone doesn't know the radio listening habits of his or her neighbors. At least in my neighborhood, that's not a usual topic of conversation (except for the people who actually work in radio).

Would I answer this person's query if I were althouse? It depends on how much reinforcement I wanted to give to a vortex :) I'd be curious to see how what I said got interpreted. It would be good grist for the blogging mill, that's for sure.

Florida said...

"Should I do this?"

You're kidding right?

You don't provide us with the name of the reporter, or the publication, so it's hard to demonstrate to you the many examples of their duplicity when it comes to Rush Limbaugh ... however, if you'll provide the name of the assassin, I would be able to point you to numerous hit pieces that reporter has written demonstrating their lack of bias as regards Rush Limbaugh.

No matter who's name you provide, I'll be able to show you their past hit pieces on talk radio.

Here's how you should approach all major media nowawdays: tell them in advance that you will record their interview, and that they must sign a release allowing you to distribute that recording if you decide they've misquoted you or otherwise twisted your words.

I will guarantee you that they will never, ever agree to to that.

Their intent from the get-go is to twist whatever you say to make you look like a moron because you listen to talk radio.

If you value your brand (and yes, you do have a brand) then you should proceed with the utmost caution.

Shanna said...

I think it would be interesting to tape the full interview and post it and compare it to the final product.

Salamandyr said...

Perhaps you should respond and tell him so. It's very rare for these types to actually get their assumptions challenged. Tell him you'll speak to him on the subject of Limbaugh if he promises to listen to Limbaugh himself for a period of one week. Of course, Limbaugh says you need at least 6 weeks to really get him, but that might just kill the poor soul.

Tell him he doesn't even have to listen to the whole show, just the first hour, for a whole week. And make him read your blog. He obviously didn't pay close enough attention to see that your enjoyment of Limbaugh doesn't necessarily come from agreement.

AJ Lynch said...

You should make a list of 10-15 questions you will ask him about how he will approach the story.

His answers will probably expose him as an incurious, rigid thinking, stenographer aka a topnotch, award winning journalist.

Then, you write a blog post about your encounter with the earnest but clueless MSM reporter.

wv- famonee ....monee monee monee I love you monee monee heh. Now I have this sone in my head.

Lem said...

I cant believe i'm saying this but florida is right.

Jason (the commenter) said...

How do you picture that playing out?

I picture Althouse getting some good blog posts out of this!

A liberal who listens to Rush Limbaugh should make an interesting story. I want to read the article already.

Florida said...

More background:

Reporters don't seek out sources until their story idea has been presented to their editors and they've been given the go signal to proceed to spend time on that story.

So, the natural question for the reporter is: Have you discussed your story idea with your editor? What was the story idea that your editor approved?

From the email, the reporter is being deliberately coy about what their story will say.

And believe you me, they know precisely what they are after. No editor lets a reporter just wander hither and yon in search of stories. That's just not how the business is conducted at major media outlets.

They have a story arc, and they're in search of quotes to "prove" their arc.

And if that story is about Rush Limbaugh ... then the story arc is "he morons who listen to Rush Limbaugh."

Fred4Pres said...

You probably do not fit his preconceived notion of a Rush Limbaugh listener. Definitely not a dittohead. Out of Rush's audience of millions, how many are like you? A lot more than people think. People who listen to Rush with an open mind.

A good reporter would go with that and realize that makes a great story, a poor one would ignore it.

TRO said...

I see it playing out about as well as the Obama presidency.

Stay away. Stay very far away.

Lem said...

Its like we are going to do to talk radio what was done to Acorn.

Florida said...

"I think it would be interesting to tape the full interview and post it and compare it to the final product."

That would be illegal in almost every jurisdiction without a signed release. Merely getting the subject's permission is probably not enough.

But, in any event, the reporter would never agree to such a stipulation.

They will record you. But you can never, ever record them.

Because they know how that game works and they'll never agree to being taped so that you can later prove anything.

The Drill SGT said...

I’m looking for people who are avid conservative talk radio listeners and for the most part support the views of the radio hosts that they listen to.

so the going in position is that you are an avid listener and supprer the VRWC. Good luck with objectivity in this interview.

I'd have thunkth since you do WI NPR frequently (though as the token "conservative") you'd not be a great scalp for this reporter.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Didn't Clark Hoyt's pathetic apologia mention that the NYT would be assigning an editor to don a pith helmet and try to make contact with our primitive culture? Perhaps this is him!

Ann Althouse said...

"Here's how you should approach all major media nowawdays: tell them in advance that you will record their interview, and that they must sign a release allowing you to distribute that recording if you decide they've misquoted you or otherwise twisted your words."

You know what I do? I record my own voice, so I don't need permission. I just can check the accuracy and the context of any quotes.

I'm very used to the way reporters talk and talk to you until they get you to say the one thing they are hoping to get a quote for and put your name on. They can wear you down. Once you know this is what they do and you take care not to say the thing you can see they want you to say, you find that you put a lot of time into talking to them and then they don't use you at all.

But a weird thing here is that the blog post of mine that the reporter links to is one that is especially critical of Rush... probably my most anti-Rush post ever.

The Crack Emcee said...

I'm with everyone else:

Proceed with caution.

Hell, when I was playing music, I'd been interviewed by countless reporters on my life story - which, for obvious reasons, never changed - but not one of them ever got it right. And, without knowing anything about this reporter, it's a crap shoot if this guy's/gal's work will be any different. I doubt it. Especially when the subject is Rush.

The Macho Response

Jason (the commenter) said...

When I hear the words "mainstream media" I cringe, but I think a lot of commenters here are overreacting.

Look, Palin sucks at giving interviews, that's just how it is. She gives a good speech but can't handle interviews. This is why she can never be President. Althouse, on the other hand, can handle herself I'm sure.

Big Mike said...

How do you picture that playing out?

I can see no upside for you. If you bother any further with this -- and I don't think you should -- then absolutely you must do what Florida suggests just the way he suggests it.

rastajenk said...

"One or more of the pieces will focus on conservative talk shows..."

That seems to suggest to me that one or more of the pieces will focus on liberal talk shows.

Good luck with that, Mr or Mrs Reporter!

traditionalguy said...

My experience with interviews with reporters is that they only want your name to falsely quote that you false statement you never made to them. Since Truman Capote lead the way, all news analysis articles of "True Events" are 75%to 100% fictional works of art. That is why the Blogosphere found a niche for truth tellers, and even that is subject to fictional art like Andrew Sullivan has become.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I’m looking for people who are avid conservative talk radio listeners and for the most part support the views of the radio hosts that they listen to.

Since the reporter (ha ha) already has the preconceived notion that you are an "avid" listener, (whatever that means) and that you agree with Rush, I would say no don't do it.

Unless, like others have suggested you record the interview in its entirety. That means including the reporter's questions so we can see just how biased and twisted those are. The media is well known for asking gotcha questions so that when you do answer you fall into their trap, look stupid and they can come out with the sound bite that they wanted you to say. Something that fits his/her already preconceived ideas.

Record it or refuse to do it.

Florida said...

Ann,

I assume you've forwarded this post to Rush!

I'm sure he'd be glad to invite you on his show to give you advice on how the major media works as regards his show. (I know for a fact that he reads your blog.)

That would be great publicity for your brand (and you'd never have to do the interview with the MSM.)

t-man said...

If Wisconsin is a one-party consent jurisdiction (which I think it is), why do you need to get the permission of the reporter to tape the conversation?

Florida said...

"Since the reporter already has the preconceived notion that you are an "avid" listener, (whatever that means) ... "

Here is what it means: "avid" is a code word in the mainstream media world.

"avid" = "crazy lunatic"

Paul Zrimsek said...

I'd do it-- on deep background only.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Look, Palin sucks at giving interviews, that's just how it is. She gives a good speech but can't handle interviews.

Jason, you realize that you just proved Florida's point about recording the interview?

Palin's televised interviews were cut and pasted to make her look bad. The parts of questions where she answered in full, especially about the economics of energy, pipeline, negotiations with Canada were left on the cutting room floor. In addition the camera angles and staging were all purposely done to get the intended results...that they could show Palin poorly.

I'm disappointed in you that you don't realize this is the standard tactic of the media for those they don't like. Also that you seem to have bought their line of BS hook line and sinker.

vw: andsword. Mightier than the pen.

Meade said...

Jason (the commenter) said...
"[...]Althouse, on the other hand, can handle herself I'm sure."

My dear do you know,
How a long time ago,
[One] poor little [major mainstream media reporter],
Whose name I don't know,
Was stolen away
On a fine summers day,
And left in a [blogosphere],
As I've heard people say,

Poor [major mainstream media reporter] in the [blogosphere]! poor [major mainstream media reporter] in the [blogosphere]!
Oh! don't you remember the [major mainstream media reporter] in the [blogosphere]?

And when it was night,
So sad was his plight,
The sun it went down,
And the moon gave no light!
He sobbed and he sighed,
And he bitterly cried,
And the poor little thing,
He lay down and died.

Poor [major mainstream media reporter] in the [blogosphere]! poor [major mainstream media reporter] in the [blogosphere]!
Oh! don't you remember the [major mainstream media reporter] in the [blogosphere]?

And when he was dead,
The robins so red,
Brought strawberry leaves,
And over him spread;
And all the day long,
The branches among,
They mournfully whistled,
And this was their song;

Poor [major mainstream media reporter] in the [blogosphere]! poor [major mainstream media reporter] in the [blogosphere]!
Oh! don't you remember the [major mainstream media reporter] in the [blogosphere]?

paul a'barge said...

Why would you even consider feeding the beast?

paul a'barge said...

Florida is right:
Here's how you should approach all major media nowawdays: tell them in advance that you will record their interview, and that they must sign a release allowing you to distribute that recording if you decide they've misquoted you or otherwise twisted your words.

This is the Hugh Hewitt approach. Check him out on this.

Once you throw down this prerequisite, the deal will disappear into the vapor.d

Henry said...

Can you channel Andy Kaufman? Run with the surrealism.

* * *

DBQ, Your comment implies that Palin's interviews could have been cut and pasted to make her look good. I've seen nothing that suggests that is remotely possible. Personally I think that a big part of her failure was that she wasn't aggressive enough in leapfrogging from stupid questions to her own talking points. But she didn't do that, and the sad results had nothing to do with cut and paste editing.

Leland said...

avid conservative talk radio listeners and for the most part support the views of the radio hosts

I don't know you, Professor. I've posted here, and I think read you a bit more than your emailer, but I don't know you. However, "avid conservative talk radio listener" is not how I would describe you. Avid political listener/reader is probably closer.

I think this is were some people have difficulty in the left/right concepts. I'm more right than you, but I bet you listen to Rush Limbaugh far more than I do. I simply don't have the time or care to listen to him, and you post enough about him that you seem to follow him a bit closer than I do recently. Still, where I think you find agreement with him is not so much on conservative issues, but rather in understanding the basic motivations of others.

With that in mind, I don't see an interview of you, with you as the role of a "dittohead", to be quite what this emailer may be thinking. On the other hand, it might be good for some reporters to realize there are more level headed people listening to Rush Limbaugh than the far right or left would like to acknowledge.

wv: salsgo The failed venture to create the hot sauce version of Starbucks.

Bender said...

But a weird thing here is that the blog post of mine that the reporter links to is one that is especially critical of Rush... probably my most anti-Rush post ever.

Not so weird, actually.

(1) The MSM's favorite "conservative" is the one that trashes other conservatives. McCain was on the MSM every day when he was trashing Bush, and that nobody Chuck Hagel was a staple of Sunday talk shows.

(2) One of the left's favorite tactic is the "seminar caller," as Rush calls them. Someone who says they absolutely love Rush and have listened for years, but they simply have to really disagree with X and they are really disappointed at how extreme he has become and they are going to stop listening, etc.
The seminar caller's claim to be a fan of Rush is a complete fiction in the first place, but the left's desire for so-called fans who dissent is very real.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Dust Bunny Queen: Palin's televised interviews were cut and pasted to make her look bad.

Watching them for the first time, I had better answers for the questions than she did. She sucks at interviews, you can blame editing all you want, but she still failed at those questions and there is no excuse for it.

I'm disappointed in you that you don't realize this is the standard tactic of the media for those they don't like.

Then you should be disappointed in Palin even more. She should have known this. If she were President it would be her job to deal with the press.

Also that you seem to have bought their line of BS hook line and sinker.

Just because they showed someone I admire in a poor light does not mean I have to ignore the faults they showed me. Unpleasant truths are still truths.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

DBQ, Your comment implies that Palin's interviews could have been cut and pasted to make her look good. I've seen nothing that suggests that is remotely possible.

My comment implies no such thing about Palin. I distinctly stated that her interviews on television were altered to make her look bad on purpose by the media. On purpose, to further their own biases.

What my statement does does imply is that the media will also cut an paste to make their favored politicians, read Obama, to make them look good. If you look at YouTube versions of Obama's speeches you see all kinds of embarrassing stupidity that is never ever shown on the MSM. Edited to make him look good.

former law student said...

Yes, but: your failure to fit his preconceived ideas means you're going to have be extra-clear when speaking to him: Simple direct sentences, limited vocabulary, etc.

But personally I cannot see how any liberal could listen to Limbaugh for more than five minutes without wanting to throw the radio across the room.

"But he's funny!" Yeah, like angina.

Henry said...

My comment implies no such thing about Palin. I distinctly stated that her interviews on television were altered to make her look bad on purpose by the media. On purpose, to further their own biases.

If the interview had aired unedited, would it have looked good? I don't think so. Palin's MSM interviews were like The Phantom Menace. Bad was what the editors had to start with.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

If it is legal for you to record the conversation without permission, then do so without permission. If not, then agree to the interview, and when they call, ask for permission then. If they don't agree, then politely decline to continue the interview. If they agree to the recording, then start recording, and have them acknowledge their agreement on tape. That way you don't need to get it in writing.

If you must do the interview without being able to tape it, then record your side, and hire a professional stenographer to make a written record of the entire thing.

I also agree that the reporter should be required to listen to 5 first hours of the show. And they must do so for the purpose of comprehension, not just to try to pick out quotes to use against Rush and his listeners.

Oh, and make them agree that any online version of the story include not just your URL, but an active, working link to your blog.

WV: prembl - We the people, in order to form a more perfect union...

Awesome said...

"How do you picture that playing out?"

Ha! I busted out laughing when I got to that line. That's rich!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If the interview had aired unedited, would it have looked good?

We'll never know, will we?

Since the media is famous for taking remarks out of context to fulfill the story that they WANT to present and not the story that IS, there is no way to trust anything that we see on television, written in the paper or anywhere else that is contaminated by the MSM.

This is why people don't trust or buy newspapers. Just look at Althouse's post about the NYT lack of coverage about ACORN. They are covering up the ACORN shit more industriously than my cat in her litter box.

This is why if she does decide to do an interview it should be recorded to avoid the "cut and paste" hack job that will enevitably occur.

Chip Ahoy said...

Oh Jeeze, I'd like to help you out but I'm kind of busy right now listening to Glenn Beck and Mark Levin.

Joan said...

Re Palin giving a good interview: I've seen nothing that suggests that is remotely possible.

I suggest you watch her interview with Maria Bartiromo. I saw it before Palin was announced as McCain's VP and I had a favorable impression. Is she the most articulate person ever? No, but the interview makes it clear that she is not an idiot. Given a fair shot, Palin did well. Bartiromo had no agenda.

I think it would be awesome if we could be flies on the wall to watch this reporter interview Ann. The entertainment value would be extraordinary, but that's as far as it goes -- he's not likely to get what he wants from her, and will use none of the material from the interview since it's not likely to support the case he's trying to make.

peter hoh said...

If it's James Fallows, do the interview.

AllenS said...

Here's what I could find:

Wis. Stat Ann. §§968.31(c) &885.365(1) It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. But, another section of the Wisconsin code states that evidence obtained by recording telephone conversations shall be totally inadmissible in civil actions in the courts of Wisconsin.

Sounds like you could record the conversation, but not use it in court. You certainly would be able to use the information in your blog. Right? Help me out here, you the law professor.

garage mahal said...

We'll never know, will we? .

Who baby Trig really belongs to?

*ducks*

Henry said...

Joan, to be clear, I only refer to the Gibson and Couric interviews.

Gibson and Couric came across looking like weaselly incompetents as well. No one did well.

Jason (the commenter) above answers the question with more sympathy for Palin than myself, but I agree with his assessment.

peter hoh said...

Garage, are you hinting at some sort of Leda and the Swan theory?

bagoh20 said...

Sounds like no one here believes the reporter will do his job fairly. Sad, but true. Sad because an honest interview would be the most interesting.

Richard Dolan said...

This string presents an interesting picture of journalism, 2009 edition.

The view is almost unanimous that the reporter has a preconceived agenda, and is just looking for a way to write it up without engaging in the outright fakery of a full Jason Blair. Anne's oomment in particular hits that note -- the reporter is just looking for the quote to support that agenda, along with a name he can attach it to. It's all cat-and-mouse, with the fun being who succeeds in playing the cat. The scandal is not the Jayson Blair stuff; it's what passes (perhaps always passed) as the accepted norm.

The string is also intersting for what's missing: the old idea about not caring what the article says so long as it spells your name right. That was the power that used to get folks, even prominent ones, willing to play the game, even to the point of being the mouse.

Both suggest that journalism as praticed today at places like the NYT has lost a lot of its clout. But not so much that it can't still frame what we end up talking about. Like now.

traditionalguy said...

Why not allow the reporter to do a bloggingheads session and run his interview technique before he can Create a Monster of Misquotes and dare you to enter a public swearing contest about his word parsing.

Roger J. said...

FLS: one person's angina is someone else's guffaw--you do understand that people have different perceptions?

Robert Cook said...

"Look, Palin sucks at giving interviews, that's just how it is. She gives a good speech but can't handle interviews."

Contra Florida's paranoid and justifying explanation for this Palin phenomenon, we can find a simpler reason for Palin's problems with interviews:

She's not well informed about the topics on which she's expected to expound.

While reasonable people can disagree as to whether she gives a good speech, one recognizes that, unlike her answers in interviews, her speeches have at least the appearance of coherence because speeches are prepared in advance, typically by a staff of speechwriters and rarely by the speaker's own hand. (Palin's resignation speech was bizarre enough that I have to assume she did have a hand in drafting that one.)

Robert Cook said...

My apologies to Florida; it was Dust Bunny Queen who offered the paranoid and justifying explanation for Palin's inadequacies in interviews.

miller said...

I listen to NPR on the way in and on the way home -- but I am far from a liberal. The NPR station is just about the only station I can get on my car radio that has any semblance of news/information. (If I could get a moderate news station, I'd switch to that.)

When people ask what station I listen to & I say "NPR," they can make their own misjudgments.

Althouse listening to Rush says only that she isn't a close-minded person, not that she's liberal or conservative.

Hint to the mouth-frothers: you don't make your case when you screech "FAUX NEWS" and "LUSH RIMBAUGH!!! HALLIBURTON! BLACKWATER!!!"

rcocean said...

Funny how Palin isn't in charge or running for anything but the Liberals just can't stop attacking her.

Libs need to relax - the Republicans are already gearing up to nominate Flip-flop Romney in 2012. Their inner loser can't be denied.

And Althouse is an extremely atypical Rush listener. But reporters are lazy and she's been in the NYT's.

Jeremy said...

I picture you doing what you always do: SUCK UP to anybody (especially the wing nut sycophants here every day of the week) who thinks you're some kind of intellectual giant or take really good pictures.

I'll lay odds you've already agreed to take part.

Jeremy said...

Robert Cook said...(About Princess Sarah) - "She's not well informed about the topics on which she's expected to expound."

She's not just "not well informed," she's uneducated, misinformed, and indicative of the GOP's plight.

When a major party has their registered voters selecting Rush Limbaugh as the number one person to lead...they've got real problems.

The "Princess" is just another spoke in the backwards spinning wheel.

Theo Boehm said...

Looks like he or she will spell your name right.

But c'mon, minor wars have been planned with less verbiage than this.

Think of the electricity for Google's servers and your carbon footprint, people.

David said...

Ann, go ahead. You will probably be be unfairly edited and misrepresented, but you have the means to strike back.

nrn312 said...

If you value your brand (and yes, you do have a brand) then you should proceed with the utmost caution.

If Althouse cared about her "brand," she'd discourage crackpots from ranting and raving on her comment sections. Just compare this site to Volokh Conspiracy or Becker/Posner. She apparently doesn't care because she's got tenure.

daubiere said...

"
And Althouse is an extremely atypical Rush listener. But reporters are lazy and she's been in the NYT's."

exactly! they called ann althouse because she is a "known limbaugh listener" but shes not "too scary". shes been published in the nytimes after all so thats verification enough that the reporter wont have to deign to speak to any scary unvetted common rush listener. i mean, where would he or she find any of them anyway? its not like the reporters ever gonna leave DC/manhattan/LA and hang around potential scary palin voters. ann althouse, even though she commits the unpardonable sin of listening to oxycontinbaugh voted for obama after all. shes the medias favorite kind of "conservative": a non-conservative with conservative attributes.

daubiere said...

"Just compare this site to Volokh Conspiracy"

lol are you kidding?? have you ever read a comment thread over there? not all of the conspirators police their threads. true, the left wing jabberers over there are, generally, a lot less stupid than most of the left wing jabberers here, but come on, theres just as much trash in those comments.

josephtetreault said...

I'd second traditionalguy's suggestion that the interview be conducted a la blogginheads style and that the video be embargoed until after the story runs.

Robert Cook said...

Jeremy said:

"Robert Cook said...(About Princess Sarah) - "She's not well informed about the topics on which she's expected to expound."

She's not just 'not well informed,' she's uneducated, misinformed, and indicative of the GOP's plight."


Well...yes, of course. One could say even more, but I didn't feel a need to pile on.

Robert Cook said...

"If Althouse cared about her 'brand,' she'd discourage crackpots from ranting and raving on her comment sections."

Well, this would make for a less scarily entertaining (albeit dismaying) comments section, but more seriously, would remove virtually all of the regulars here.

rcocean said...

Anyway, I hope Althouse does it. Bloggable material just falling into your lap.

MeJerry said...

...and for the most part support the views of the radio hosts that they listen to...

Guess it would depend a little bit on whether or not this was true.

Synova said...

"Joan, to be clear, I only refer to the Gibson and Couric interviews."

So it's deliberate ignorance? Joan linked an interview with Palin. You can watch it now if you like. There are other interviews out there as well. Much is repeats since she's promoting Alaska as a source of oil and natural gas, which was her job at the time. Some are shorter clips. After the Couric and Gibson debacles she was interviewed by local reporters in a variety of cities during the campaign. She has an accent and she tends to speak more quickly than she ought to but she obviously is well informed and, yes, articulate. Unlike those politicians who are "good" at giving content free interviews.

If you want an example of what Althouse describes, how the "interviewer" has something she wants you to say and will continue to try to get you to say it... watch Couric.

It's one thing to say that Couric and Gibson came across badly, and another to insist on judging Palin's interview skills on the basis of those two interviews only. Couric was appalling whereas Gibson at least wasn't obvious about it. (He's seeming to be even worse now... admitting to ignoring the news around him.)

If the two of them came off poorly before, will they have any credibility left at all after a few years of Obama rule and a few years of Palin unconstrained by someone elses campaign handlers?

shana said...

I'm tired of the meme that ABC and NBC didn't edit Palin's interview to make her look stupid. ABC certainly did. If you look at the unedited transcriptof the ABC interview, the editors excised large portions of what she said to make her look less intelligent and more bellicose. In addition, in the teaser material ABC sent out regarding the interview, the main headline was "Palin ready to declare war against Russia!" and showed her answering Gibson, when he asked if we should do so, "Perhaps so," taking the quote totally out of context.

You can say, ah, but that comes from a right wing website, but ABC has never denied just how much it edited that interview.

By the way, you might say that Palin says some pretty incoherent stuff, but her speeches are always transcribed without any punctuation at all, which would make anybody look dumb.

Seven Machos said...

Jesus Christ, this is hilarious. We all know that when Palace Guard Media types think of Rush Limbaugh's listener base, they think of toothless, mouth-breathing, uneducated breeders who drive pickup trucks to mega churches and live in chintzy split levels with dead animals on the living room wall.

And yet...when they want to do a piece on Limbaugh's listeners, they call a law professor in Madison, Wisconsin.

Words otherwise fail me. I can only quote P.J. O'Rourke: what the fuck? I mean, what the fucking fuck?

shana said...

I meant to say CBS, not NBC. I can't be bothered to remember what network Katie Couric works for. Sorta like not being bothered to remember who was POTUS during the stock crash of 1929.

I actually feel for this reporter. He's probably never done
a story where he wasn't spoonfed by some flak and
now he has to go out and talk to people he doesn't know and who might think differently than him-like, report and stuff. Poor bastard's probably having nightmares.

Robert Cook said...

"Sorta like not being bothered to remember who was POTUS during the stock crash of 1929."

The one thing is hardly as insignificant as the other, and should be less a matter of "being bothered" to remember than of knowing.