Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree kevinm. Where do we find reporting these days? I'm sick of reading other people's perceptions and never getting the facts so I can come to my own conclusion. Apparently some people prefer to be TOLD how to think or these practices wouldn't exist. Politico lost a lot of credibility.
Speculation belongs in a novel or on the editorial page of a newspaper. Reporters are supposed to tell what happened not what they THINK happened.
The writers of the piece were giving us their impression of what was going on during the tour. Is is their job to interpret what they see- they are journalists- not reporters. What would you like them to do, follow Palin around with a microphone, and dutifully write whatever she says? Provide us with Palin's version of Palin???
I missed when this became true. Gallup still has him at 46% approval, 44% disapproval. Palin couldn't get elected dog-catcher.
You need to look again today. He is underwater again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie
The writers of the piece were giving us their impression of what was going on during the tour. Is is their job to interpret what they see- they are journalists- not reporters. What would you like them to do, follow Palin around with a microphone, and dutifully write whatever she says? Provide us with Palin's version of Palin???
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...
Excuse me, but putting quotation marks around a comment attribute that comment to that person. Tell me you knew this?
You need to look again today. He is underwater again.
Excuse me, but putting quotation marks around a comment attribute that comment to that person. Tell me you knew this?
No, Sanrene it doesn't. Here is an example:
I bet if I told you , "Sanrene, you are a closet leftie", you'd say something like "I am not, you lying commie @#$%^^!!!"
There, see? Quotation marks all over the place. But no one who can read could possibly confuse what I wrote with anything YOU actually said or didn't say.
If you read the Politico article carefully, the authors did something similar to what I just did. Someone in Palin's PR unit apparently failed Eng 100, and complained. The Politico editors took a look, and conceded the sentence was ambiguous. So, rather than go through all the gyrations I just did to explain, they issued a correction.
I bet if I told you , "Sanrene, you are a closet leftie", you'd say something like "I am not, you lying commie @#$%^^!!!"
There, see? Quotation marks all over the place. But no one who can read could possibly confuse what I wrote with anything YOU actually said or didn't say.
In the context of what they wrote, it certainly does.
Let's see - the editors of Politico DISAGREE with you. Who to believe? Actual journalists/editors or....an anonymous internet poster?
Quote:
If you read the Politico article carefully, the authors did something similar to what I just did. Someone in Palin's PR unit apparently failed Eng 100, and complained. The Politico editors took a look, and conceded the sentence was ambiguous. So, rather than go through all the gyrations I just did to explain, they issued a correction.
They didn't "concede" anything. They admitted it was a FALSE ATTRIBUTION to Palin.
Politico's editors are wrong.
Let's try this again. Here's the offending segment from the article:
Palin’s bus tour had some of the hallmarks of a primal scream: “I built this constituency, not Bachmann, not anyone else.” Looking at it through her eyes, she has a point.
Get it? THE BUS TOUR HAD SOME OF THE HALLMARKS OF A PRIMAL SCREAM. Then, the words in quotes are what the authors IMAGINE Palin's primal scream to be: "I built this constituancy..." etc. They follow up by saying, "Looking at it through her eyes, she has a point"
Admitedly this is clummsy writing. It is understandable that someone reading it quickly (or someone reading it slowly, with poor reading skills)might miss the fact that A) It is not a quote attributed to Palin, and B) The authors never intended it to be attributed to her.
Look, let's apply Occam's Razor-what is the simplist explanation? Do you really think two writers would deliberately put false words in Palin's mouth? In an article that appears in Politico? Palin??? Do you think they were just hoping she wouldn't notice? (fat chance)
Or, is it more likely that, the authors wrote a couple of poorly thought out sentences? (That they'll probably regret for the rest of their lives)
The Politico's correction goes too far. It confesses to something that didn't happen. Maybe whoever issued it didn't even read the article. Maybe it's just a pro-forma they use to cover accusations of misquoting. Maybe they don't feel like a long explanation (like mine) is worth the effort. But like I said, anyone with adequate reading skills can see what happened here.
This is a case of crummy writing/editing- not a left-wing conspiracy to smear Saint Sarah the Perpetually Butt-hurt.
I know how the Political editors feel. But, unlike them, I refuse to give up on you guys! No, don't thank me...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
