Deinonychus antirrhopus

The press has, IMHO, gone beyond bias into the realm of open incompetence.

Does this notion of the press taking things out of context really come as a revelation to *anyone*???

It never happened to Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, Ford, yada, yada, Yodah.(???)

So why are we getting our knickers in a bunch when it happens to Dumbya????

Because Slate has based an repetitive column on this dishonest practice.

Robin Roberts said....
"Because Slate has based an repetitive column on this dishonest practice."

So?

Is Slate now, or ever been, anyone's measure of journalistic integrity?

The concerns currently being raised on many blogs about the NY Times' indiscretions I understand...although even those are somewhat shrill, IMO. But Slate....who gives a fat rat's ass what they go on about?

Seriously, the Slate section is called *Bushisms*. It supposed to be satire, not news reporting. Methinks Volokh and other critics are perhaps a bit too sensitive.

Its still dishonest, Kismet. It claims to be reporting what George Bush says.

But the whole point of Bushism's are that they are 'amusing' one-line statements that sound funny when taken in isolation, or generally misrepresent what he is trying to say. I mean look at the previous one -

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the—the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."

Obviously he didn't mean that we would hunt down the vast majority of Iraqis.

If people can't recognize satire for what it is, then they have bigger problems.

By labeling the Bushism of the Day "satire", you are admitting that they are fiction. That's not how they are represented.

These are intended to make George Bush look stupid, and they do so with dishonesty, not satire. I can recognize dishonesty, people who cannot have bigger problems.

Actually, satire doesn’t necessarily have to be fiction. (def – witty language used to convey insults or scorn)

Bushisms are represented in the context of being humor, not as serious news. (The books are listed on Amazon under Entertainment->Humor->Political.)

Technically, they are not dishonest, since they are exact quotes. (Admittedly, out of context, providing the source of humor.)

I sense your disdain is more related to the fact that they make Bush look stupid, not that you seriously think people misinterpret them.

Kismet:

Many on the Left were quite riled by the "I invented the Internet" line attributed to Gore, as well as the "Love Story was modeled after me" business.

Perhaps they, too, should lighten up, since it's merely satire?

Yes, they probably should. Those were stupid things to say, and he deserved to be mocked.

I just don't understand why people are taking this so seriously, since it is obviously done in jest within a very well known context.

And I'm not 'from the left', if you are trying to imply that I did/would see things different if the tables were turned.

I WAS thinking that, but it's also accurate to say that it's the Left that gets most riled whenever the "I invented the Internet" line is raised.

Kudoes on your consistency.

While I see a bit of a tempest-teapot aspect here, I also DO think that, if you're going to make the argument that so-and-so misspoke, then you should show he actually MISSPOKE.

Otherwise, you run the risk of creating a situation where people get pilloried for what APPEARS to be mis-speaking. Thus, you had the aid to the mayor of Washington, DC getting canned because he spoke of a "niggardly" outlay.

And, yes, that actually happened.

My whole point here is that nobody is using Bushisms as anything other than a source of humor.

Nobody is making any arguments whatsoever about his misspeaking... ie using them to pillor Bush for anything more than his lack of English speaking skills (unlike your Internet and niggardly examples, which were used for political gain by their opponents - thus not exactly morally equivalent examples).

I just think the Bush jingoists are being a wee bit too sensitive.

My own feeling is as follows:

Dubya mangles the English language enough on a regular basis. Just stick w/ reporting his actual manglings.

If he says something that appears to be mangled only through some editing, be it ellipses or taking them out of context, what's the point?

Having read enough transcripts over the years, I've no doubt that ANYONE who has his/her words taken down can be made to look like an idiot. THAT's just not hard---and not very funny.

Yes, he mangles it enough to fill a regular column and books. Hence Bushisms!

All press - left and right - take quotes out of context. Usually to suit their needs. Again, hardly a revelation.

I think, in general, the majority of the press treats Bush fairly well by avoiding or correcting the obvious Bushisms to keep him from looking like a total idiot. Bush also tends to nail the important soundbites.

Oh, come on, some of them are pretty funny. Again, it is all done in jest, with enough context around it for people to know it is satire - lighten up.

Kismet writes: "I sense your disdain is more related to the fact that they make Bush look stupid, not that you seriously think people misinterpret them."

Your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me. You are wrong. My disdain is that the Bushism of the Day is dishonest. If they "made Bush look stupid" when he was actually being stupid, I would not "disdain" them.

Secondly, the Bushism of the Day is being used for more than humor. Its propaganda.

All the Bushisms are like that - exact quotes, most taken out of context because they sound stupid in standalone form.

"I think war is a dangerous place."—Washington, D.C., May 7, 2003

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."
St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle the job is underestimating."
-U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000

Is that the issue - you are against them in principle, because they are used as propoganda? (Or just this specific quote?) It seems sort of insecure to think that such a trivial thing could be his undoing - I doubt he is that concerned about it.

And thanks for the Jedi compliment.