Email
Password
Remember meForgot password?
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Connect your Digital Journal account with Facebook or Twitter to use this feature.

article imageOp-Ed: CBS edits out Obama admission of lies in ads in interview

article:333433:46::0
By Gar Swaffar     Sep 24, 2012 in Politics
Politics is a dirty business, but do the major media outlets need to be part of that 'dirty business', and do the major media outlets need to be more honest in their own selective editing?
The admission of mistakes and just plain lies which President Obama made to 60 Minutes interviewer Steve Kroft somehow wound up on the cutting room floor during editing. That seems to indicate a functional bias of omission by CBS, as in the ongoing discussion at this DJ blog posted by sumdume. The 'sin' of omission in editing is seemingly the most difficult to deduce is happening, since the action of quantifying a null value is impossible until it's known that a value is 'missing'
The President was asked by Kroft: "Look, the fact-checkers have had problems with the ads on both sides," Kroft says to Obama in the unaired clip, "and say they've been misleading and in some cases just not true. Does that disturb you?" as reported at The Weekly Standard.
The President's reply appears to stay on task somewhat, but also fails to completely answer the real question of how much truth should the American voter expect from politicians: "Do we see sometimes us going overboard in our campaign, are there mistakes that are made, areas where there is no doubt somebody could dispute how we are presenting things? You know, that happens in politics."
Or, as I interpret the President's answer: "Yes, my campaign has lied, overstated and misrepresented the facts, but that's just the way it happens in politics."
Kroft's next question was rather directly to the point: "Aren't the American [public] entitled to the truth? Or a better version of it?"
The President on the other hand, chose to do a bit of dance, or in football parlance, an end runaround the question and simply stated: "The truth of the matter is, most of the time we're having a vigorous debate about a vision for the country," Obama says. "And, you know, there's a lot at stake in this election. So is it going to be sharp sometimes? Absolutely. But will the American people ultimately have a good sense of where I want to take the country and where Gov. Romney takes the country? I think they will."
OK, first, we're having a 'vigorous debate'; and just how does that relate to a justification of spreading disinformation, lies and half-truths?
Secondly, 'a lot at stake'; Is that supposed to justify the lies, innuendos, half-truths and quasi-truths' being spread? And if the issue is that there is a lot at stake in this election and the polls begin to go seriously bad for the President, does that justify ramping up the lies and half-truths? Would the possibility of the President losing the election on November 6th, justify a halt to the electoral process, simply because so much is at stake?
Just where does that political train ride finish up at, if the issue of 'a lot at stake' is the justification for what's happening now?
Last and hardly least: Do we really need more political ads to tell us where the current President intends to take this country? Aren't the nearly four years he's been in office enough of an explanation for his vision of the direction for the country?
Larger and more intrusive government programs i.e. Obama Care, offering obeisance to Emperor Akihito, Hu Jintao, and King Saud. And also ruling by Presidential Order, now at 138 and counting, (which is not a record by the way). Unemployment running at dangerous levels, when the real number of Americans unemployed or under employed are kept in the total, instead of dropping those too depressed about their prospects of finding a job to keep looking for one. The most recent numbers being given are 14.7% as of August of this year, not a meager U-3 number of 8.1%.
I suggest that the vision this President has for this nation is all to clear and, but for the willing accomplices of the Major Media Outlets, the poll numbers would have suggested another candidate, such as Hillary Clinton, might be a better choice for the Democrats.
The aspect most troubling of CBS simply failing to air what seems such a damning admission by the President, that the discussion will 'be sharp', which is really just political speak for "We're tossing out lies left and right as fast as we can and that's just politics", is the lack of any credible suggestion that CBS cares that they've given up all pretense of straight forward reporting of the news, and are so actively engaged in manipulating the 'news' that CBS doesn't recognize there might be some who will find that lack of objectivity appalling.
Let this DJ writer not follow that lead, this report is biased, I dislike dishonest politicians, which is to say I dislike nearly every politician ever birthed.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com
article:333433:46::0
More about CBS, Obama, 60 minutes, steve kroft, Political ads
More news from

Corporate

Help & Support

News Links

copyright © 2014 digitaljournal.com   |   powered by dell servers