HarryKeogh said:
but sadly, journalists do fabricate things. Take O'Reilly (of course, it's debatable if he's actually a journalist).
To the extent that a journalist is supposed to be someone who researches facts and reports those facts as news, I would say, no he isn't; he's a polemicist - someone whose primary purpose is to argue rather than report. In any case, I never watch him or any of those shows any more; all you ever hear is a bunch of shouting - you get very little actual information.
as for your last question: some of the accuracies...It took 7 mins to get off his ass,
I knew this long before Michael Moore ever made anything of it.
Well, thank you Mr. Moore. Gee, nobody knew that. But Bush believed there were, and Powell, and Clinton, and Blair, and Hans Blix, and oh yes, John Kerry.
Even the most fervently anti-war people marching in the streets believed it. Don't you remember all the antiwar protesters warning that we mustn't go into Iraq because Saddam would use his WMDs against our soldiers? If there were no WMDs, then Saddam had everybody - and I mean
everybody - fooled.
(Minor nit to pick: Don't say there weren't any WMDs. Thousands of dead Kurds and thousands of dead Iranians would throw that falsehood in your face, if they could speak. He had them - you know it and I know it. The only issue is what did he do with them. Just pray he didn't give them to any of his al Qaeda buddies that also supposedly don't exist.)
Colin Powell and C. Rice said Hussein wasnt a threat before 9/11,
I'll see your two advisors and raise you one president - Bush also said Saddam wasn't a threat, yet. He also said we dared not wait until he became one. Again, thank you, Michael Moore.
and we seemingly extend favors to the saudis that we wouldnt give to other mideast countries due to the amount of wealth they have invested in our country.
Are you talking about the Saudis who supposedly left the country when nobody else could? I thought that issue had been exposed as another of Moore's patched-together lies.
BPSCG, pretty please, with sugar on top...see the movie. Then when you debunk the claims made in the movie
See, that's just the thing - I couldn't. Moore is very skilled at what he does. This business about the grieving mother of the dead soldier is just coming to the forefront today, as far as I know, and yet the movie's been out for a couple of months; that's how sneaky this guy can be. I could probably spend weeks fruitlessly trying to dissect the thing, because I'm no movie critic or editor.* I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who
have dissected it; maybe I'll search up something and report back.
*Just like you don't call on a scientist to examine a spoon-bender - you call a magician.
you can do it fairly instead of resorting to what is said on The Rush Limbaugh Show or Hannity and Colmes.
Again, I don't watch or listen to any of those shows.
), they don't actually fabricate things. They may choose to emphasize things that I think shouldn't be emphasized, and not emphasize things I think should be. They may select certain facts and ignore others. In short, they have a point of view. Fine.
