Bishop to Boycott Obama Commencement Speech
South Bend is heating up over the controversy surrounding Obama and the local bishop...Read the post2009 College Grads: We're the Lucky Ones
Why there is hope for the graduating Class of 2009, and how they can find work in a recession...Read the postBeer in Vending Machines -- What Drinking Age?
U.S. policies on drinking age seem restrictive when examining the rest of the world...Read the postHow The Press Can Remain Relevant
Is it any surprise that Obama has employed a strategy to cordon journalists that is similar to previous administrations?...Read the postBe Afraid, Cheney Warns. Be Very Afraid.
Just when you thought the Bush-era warnings of Armageddon around the corner were over, Cheney strikes again...Read the postObama: You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry...
Obama threw down his stick, spat on the floor and growled in the face of cameras -- metaphorically... Read the postObama to GOP: 'I Won, I'm The President'
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told GOP leaders...Read the postPalin Seeks $11M Book Deal, but Can She Read?
One can only imagine what Republican rising star Sarah Palin could possibly write about in her memoirs...Read the post
boston university
politics
BUSTED: Wall Street Journal Skips Fact-Check in Editorial
The Wall Street Journal made a false claim in an editorial Thursday that ex-President Bush held his press conferences without a prepared list of reporters to call on. The editorial board -- separate from the newsroom and reporters -- blasted Barack Obama for using a cheat sheet during his presser Monday.
"Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness," the editors wrote. "We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites."
Yet Salon's observant Glenn Greenwald noted that on Tuesday, Fox News's Bill O'Reilly asked a former Bush press secretary why Obama could get away with it while Bush didn't. The spokesman, Ari Fleischer, promptly corrected O'Reilly.
"Well, George Bush never did that," Fleischer said. "Writing it down gives the president more control."
Fleischer added that he "used to prepare" the list of reporters for Bush.
Greenwald then rewinds to 2003, when Bush actually joked at one of his press conferences, "This is scripted," as reporters chuckled, possibly unaware that the gag was on them.
Such errors are very rare to spot in the Journal, one of the great names in American journalism. Although it is a lightning rod for liberal criticism (its editorial pages often lean conservatively), the paper's reporters -- especially the political journalists -- are among the country's best for both news and analysis.
The editorial was likely sparked by Obama's decision not to call on the Journal's White House reporter, while he did offer to answer a question from the Huffington Post, the popular left-leaning website. Indeed, the Journal's editors asked why most news organizations did not provide coverage of Obama's selective questioning:
"Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance. We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time."
Jim Romenesko, the media news aggregator for the journalism institute Poynter, cleverly asks if the paper's editorial page editor would have spotted the error if the Journal hadn't closed its research library.
"Presidents are free to conduct press conferences however they like, but the decision to preselect questioners is an odd one, especially for a White House famously pledged to openness," the editors wrote. "We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors. Mr. Obama can more than handle his own, so our guess is that this is an attempt to discipline reporters who aren't White House favorites."
Yet Salon's observant Glenn Greenwald noted that on Tuesday, Fox News's Bill O'Reilly asked a former Bush press secretary why Obama could get away with it while Bush didn't. The spokesman, Ari Fleischer, promptly corrected O'Reilly.
"Well, George Bush never did that," Fleischer said. "Writing it down gives the president more control."
Fleischer added that he "used to prepare" the list of reporters for Bush.
Greenwald then rewinds to 2003, when Bush actually joked at one of his press conferences, "This is scripted," as reporters chuckled, possibly unaware that the gag was on them.
Such errors are very rare to spot in the Journal, one of the great names in American journalism. Although it is a lightning rod for liberal criticism (its editorial pages often lean conservatively), the paper's reporters -- especially the political journalists -- are among the country's best for both news and analysis.
The editorial was likely sparked by Obama's decision not to call on the Journal's White House reporter, while he did offer to answer a question from the Huffington Post, the popular left-leaning website. Indeed, the Journal's editors asked why most news organizations did not provide coverage of Obama's selective questioning:
"Few accounts of Monday night's event even mentioned the curious fact that the White House had picked its speakers in advance. We hope that omission wasn't out of fear of being left off the list the next time."
Jim Romenesko, the media news aggregator for the journalism institute Poynter, cleverly asks if the paper's editorial page editor would have spotted the error if the Journal hadn't closed its research library.
Join The Discussion
Categories
Recent Comments »
Page 1/1
Post Your Comments Below
giles chauvin
9:27AM 9:27AM Feb 12th 2009
what do you expect from anything owned by rupert murdock.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Angiebaby
12:35PM 12:35PM Feb 12th 2009
Good afternoon, Grasshopper. I see you spin mental wheels debating ridiculous news. Choosing reporters and allowing them to ask pre-selected questions is not new; it was not invented by most honorable former President, and it will not end with current struggling Executive Leader. Remember, Grasshopper, you are what you eat. If man swallows horse hockey fed him by others, man too becomes jackass.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
EBizGuruz
8:57AM 8:57AM Feb 14th 2009
Hmmm
Angiebaby ... how do you read the fact that Obama was not the 1st to preselect questioners as Bush invented the procedure?
Oh yeah, almost forgot. You bought the line that AlGore invented the internet too, didn't ya?
Rating :
Report!
Wish Belkin
1:05PM 1:05PM Feb 12th 2009
Rupert dicided that the Journal didn't need all those pesky fact checkers.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Wish Belkin
1:07PM 1:07PM Feb 12th 2009
Rupert decided that the Journal didn't need all those pesky fact checkers.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Doctor Bob
2:59PM 2:59PM Feb 12th 2009
WHAT? WHAT? The Media has their panties all twisted because the WSJ didn't fact-check? Any of them get upset when the New York Times spewed their left-wing Marxist "news" during George Bush's administration? How about the LA Times? Washington Post? Start with the left's outrage over "Bush lied" concerning WMD's in Iraq. ANY rational, thinking person knows that Bush was misled by Klinton's CIA idiots. But that's not how it was reported. How about "Bush spying on Americans?" No mention that the "Americans" being surveilled had possible links to Al Qaida terrorists? The concept of the MSM being concerned with "facts" is pathetic. It would be laughable if it weren't so damaging to America.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Wendy
6:00PM 6:00PM Feb 12th 2009
Let's suppose Bush did have a list of who was in the room. So what? He rarely had any reporters among them who were favorable to him. Obama, on the other hand, had a room full of shills (the HuffPo along with anyone from the msm) and he STILL had to have a list! How insecure is this man?
In addition, the article you cite is in the Opinion Journal ("opinion" being the operative). Why don't you try fact-checking the op-ed pages of the New York Times for fun someday? They have enough trouble with facts on the front page (see Jayson Blair).
Otherwise, you've done a fine job misrepresenting Bush and that alone should get you a fine job in the mainstream media.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
vic
8:43PM 8:43PM Feb 12th 2009
What about Jeff Gannon?
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
dannyd7
9:48PM 9:48PM Feb 12th 2009
"Otherwise, you've done a fine job misrepresenting Bush and that alone should get you a fine job in the mainstream media."
Matt Negrin, You are soooooo busted!!!!
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Winston Smith
2:12AM 2:12AM Feb 13th 2009
Doctor Bob: WHAT? WHAT? The Media has their panties all twisted because the WSJ didn't fact-check? Any of them get upset when the New York Times spewed their left-wing Marxist "news" during George Bush's administration?
----------------------------------------------------
Who or what makes you THINK or BELIEVE that the New York Times is a "Marxist news" ???
Show your PROOF.
Granted it's Left Wing Liberal...but, nowhere does the NYT promote "Marxism" in the United States of America.
YOU need to FACT CHECK your own little hollow head.
Good luck finding anything worth using in there.
Ps..even though I'm a "Marxist"...I'll pray for you tonight.....MAYBE.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Ken Green
1:08PM 1:08PM Feb 13th 2009
Little Neggy, enough said.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
mdirtygirl2
4:48PM 4:48PM Feb 13th 2009
The Wall Street Journal is nothing more than bird cage liner.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!