Depressingly stupid goddamn journalism
Dear Dr. Atrios. I have a good Wanker of the Day nominee for you. His name is Jake Tapper and he’s (tragically) a senior national correspondent at ABC. He’s also apparently illiterate. Check it:
Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.
In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.” At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? “Slow down our economy”? I don’t really think there’s much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?
He went on to say that his the U.S. — and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases — could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan. So there was something of a contradiction there. Or perhaps he mis-spoke. Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn’t a worldwide effort…I’m noquite certain.
Or perhaps you should actually read the entire goddamn statement that you posted on your own freaking blog (my emphasis):
“Everybody knows that global warming is real,” Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, “but we cannot solve it alone.”
“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, ‘OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.’ We could do that.
“But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.
How much clearer could this be? Clinton actually said that it would be unwise to slow down our economy as a method of combating global warming, if for no other reason than developing countries would be unlikely to follow our lead. He said that the better way to go about it would be in creating alternative fuels that could create a more sustainable economy.
Are major political reporters in this country honestly this stupid? Aren’t they embarrassed to be publishing this crap? When even the very dim bulbs at the Corner call you out on stuff like this, you know you’ve really stepped in it.
UPDATE: Oh for God’s sake:
Wow, I hardly know how to take this. This morning, trying to understand what former President Bill Clinton was driving at when he made a statement about effort to combat global warming, I posted a quote of his, put it in context, provided video links, and asked what he meant.
It was perfectly clear what he meant, doofus: he said it wouldn’t be smart to slow down our economy to stop global warming. Even the insane folks at the National Review understand this.
The Clinton campaign did not provide for me, as requested, an explanation of what he meant.
Because they mistakenly assumed you had reading comprehension skills beyond the third-grade level, they probably didn’t see why they had to.
Instead, the response from the Clinton campaign is to post an item on its “fact” hub and accuse me of “parsing.”
I will plead guilty to “parsing” — the dictionary definition of the word — “To examine closely or subject to detailed analysis, especially by breaking up into components” or “To make sense of; comprehend.”
But I suspect the Clinton campaign thinks of the word “parsing” in its more colloquial sense — as in “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
I guess I should defer to their expertise. Apologies for taking a confusing public comment from a former president about a major world issue and trying to make sense of it.
No, you should apologize for taking what was an absurdly clear statement and intentionally mucking it up just to draw the oh-so-coveted Drudge Report traffic to your page. You should also apologize for giving the Republicans yet another set of bogus “Al-Gore-said-he-invented-the-Internet!!!11!!1!” talking points to use against Democratic candidates, which you dutifully reprinted on your blog shortly after they were posted.
Wowsers. Just say sorry and stop embarrassing yourself, buddy.
Brad, I don’t know how we can take you seriously after you claimed you invented the internet. Serial liar.
Ask and you shall receive
Geez, Dunk was on this thing before the second commenter. He clearly smelled fresh wank in the waterIntertubes.
Well since he’s being attacked from the left and the right, he’ll just assume he’s doing a bang up job!!!!
You have confused us with all these words and stuff, I don’t know, maybe you were trying to make a point there or something, but, jeesh.
BASTARDS! The preview thing showed a strike-through on “water” so I thought I did it right….I feel so betrayed. How do I get it to actually strike through after it’s posted, as opposed to just amusing myself in my own little comment preview?
it goes to show you that the creative phrasing Bill Clinton used is open to misinterpretation -whether intended or boneheaded.
that don’t seem too smart.
Tapper now has an “I believe this only strengthens my point” follow-up post.
He posted an update. Rather than apologizing for his lack of reading skills, he actually defends what he did and posts some quotes from other people who agree with him. See it here.
Honestly, it’s as if he’s deliberately trying to mislead his readers. Man.
You should read Tappers response to the wanker charge.
“I will plead guilty to “parsing” — the dictionary definition of the word — “To examine closely or subject to detailed analysis, especially by breaking up into components” or “To make sense of; comprehend.”
But I suspect the Clinton campaign thinks of the word “parsing” in its more colloquial sense — as in “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
I guess I should defer to their expertise.
Apologies for taking a confusing public comment from a former president about a major world issue and trying to make sense of it.
– jpt”
Interestingly, Mussolini also wanted to slow down the economy. He said so in “The Doctrine of Fascism.” It’s been about three years since I’ve read it, but I’m pretty sure that’s what it says.
I really hope this is a rhetorical question.
How do I get it to actually strike through after it’s posted, as opposed to just amusing myself in my own little comment preview?
I’ll take this one, since I love these exchanges about codes and related complaints. They give the comments pavilion here character. Put the term “strike” between your hungry alligator symbols and it will work.
Journalistic competence is for wimps. Real men become hacks.
Indeed, it is central to his point.
Are major political reporters in this country honestly this stupid?
Stupid like Fox.
The statement “I don’t really think there’s much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy” is blatantly false….So was this a moment of candor?
You went on to point out that Clinton cleary would like to debate your statement when he says that the U.S. — and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases — could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan. So there was something of a contradiction there. Or perhaps you mis-spoke. Or perhaps this characterization was a blatant effort to make a perfectly sound argument sound contradictory…I’m not quite certain.
Classic Jonah Goldberg was the one who introduced this subject to the Corner posse today, linking just to a snippet of video from Clinton’s speech and not to Tapper’s post. Iain Murray wrote in response to him. Goldberg’s most recent blabber on the matter is great:
Jonah Goldberg, rigorous review of right-wing rhetoric.
How come these guys don’t ever parse speeches like this from Bush or anyone in his administration? These guys parse better than anyone, to cover their ass in a court (classic case: “we have learned….”). Yet they always just write down what they say, blindly, and pass it along.
I encourage everyone to march over to his lame-ass blog and explain to him why what he did was stupid, because he really doesn’t seem to get it. And he has commenters lauding him like it was somehow a heroic act. “Keep parsing!” Fuck your mothers, you fucking braindead idiots.
To translate Jake’s reply:
“I wank therefore I am.”
Somebody drove a nail into Jake Tapper’s skull when he took a job at ABC.
Are major political reporters in this country honestly this stupid?
Yes (or at least, they think we are). This has been another edition of “Simple Answers to Simple Questions”….
Thanks, J.
He has an update on his original post:
UPDATE: Not so difficult to predict — the RNC just issued a statement in response to the former President’s comment.
“Senator Clinton’s campaign now says we must ‘slow down the economy’ to stop global warming,” said Alex Conant, RNC Spokesman. “Clinton needs to come back to Earth. Her ‘tax-it, spend-it, regulate-it’ attitude would really bring the economy crashing down. No amount of special effects will hide Clinton’s liberal record.”
There’s a shock. Media whore tosses a softball over the fat part of the plate, RNC knocks it out of the park. Not so difficult to predict.
“I will plead guilty to “parsing” — the dictionary definition of the word — “To examine closely or subject to detailed analysis, especially by breaking up into components” or “To make sense of; comprehend.”
Holy Jesus, stiv, that’s wankeriffic! He examined and analyzed it so closely he missed whole sentences, and comprehended it so well he contradicted its clear meaning.
Well, Tappper’s been a real tool before.
It’s not “parsing,” anyway. It’s taking something out of context to suggest that Bill Clinton advocates something he cleary opposes.
Tapper:
Clinton said warming, so i parsed it that he was lookin for a lady to keep him warm.
Back in the late nineties I used to read a column Tapper wrote. Was it on Salon when it first started? I can’t remember, but it seemed to me that it was half-way decent. What the fuck happens to these people? Soul, Devil, Money?
I don’t really think there’s much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy
Because it would cost a lot of money. And when you spend a lot of money in an economy, it has a negative impact on that economy. Or something.
Hey, it gets even better. In his next update, Tapper says that any attempt to address global warming would slow down the economy, and what does Clinton say to that?
Gee, I dunno, Jake. Maybe you should READ YOUR OWN BLOG POST and find out.
Almost as bad as his misunderstanding of Clinton’s writing, is his difficulties with his own prose.
It’s like he’s allergic to straight, simple sentences. Why didn’t an editor carve red lines all over this sucker before it even hit the internets?
I guess the real question is, who did he blow to get this job?
“Holy Jesus, stiv, that’s wankeriffic! He examined and analyzed it so closely he missed whole sentences, and comprehended it so well he contradicted its clear meaning.”
Beautiful.
Digg this story here
Do it for Jake!!
From the Clinton campaign:
Dear Mr. Tapper,
When the BIG hand is on the twelve and the LITTLE hand is on the four . . . .
Hope that clears things up for you!
God, that pissed me off so much, I left three comments, under three different aliases. And I don’t even like Clinton all that much. I just want to hit Tapper in the heade with a two by four. It’s about the only thing that will get him to think clearly. Jesus.
And what is it with the ‘Serious Journalists’?
The second you call them on bad journalism, they immediately go into attack mode like a third grader backed into a corner.
Are there any adults left in the world of ‘Journalism’?
I know, Helen, Savage, and Froomkin. Any others?
t4toby- Dana Priest is awesome. The story she had on soldier suicides today was heart-breaking.
It would kind of be funny — and by funny I mean amazing and life-changing and completely impossible to really ever hope for — if “Serious Journalists” held their intellectual output in as high a regard as would be justly required of any senior undergraduate attempting to turn in a paper for a social science class.
Here what I posted on Tapper’s blog:
Yes, Mr. Tapper is pathetic. But he is pathetic on purpose. It is best to remember, I believe, that the Corporate Owned Media (COM) puts out stories that amount to wish fulfillment for corporations, the wealthy, investors, large law firms, etc.
This is not a departure from “professionalism” – this IS what the media is designed to do, and Mr. Tapper can say “Mission Accomplished.”
Here is a quote from the 1880s that sums things up quite well, imho:
“There is no such thing as an independent Press in America, if we except that of little country towns. You know this and I know it. Not a man among you dares to utter his honest opinion. Were you to utter it, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid…so that I may keep my honest opinion out of the paper for which I write. You, too, are paid similar salaries for similar services. Were I to permit that a single edition of my newspaper contained an honest opinion, my occupation, like Othello’s, would be gone in less than twenty-four hours. The man who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinion would soon be on the streets in search for another job. It is the duty of a New York journalist to lie, to distort, to revile, to toady at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or what amounts to the same thing, his salary. We are marionettes. These men pull the strings, and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our capacities are all the property of these men; we are intellectual prostitutes.”
– John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune, in the 1880s, during an annual dinner of the New York Press Association / Source: “Unholy Alliances”, by Dr. James W. Wardner (Wardner is quoting from “Rebuilding a Lost Faith”) (also quoted in “Labor’s Untold Story”)
You suck, Potsie!
If you want some good dirt on Tapper, go read this diary and Mike Stark’s follow up on it.
Every time you try to post something that shows Tapper is pushing garbage, he deletes the comments, even going so far as to edit out the press release from the Sergeant a Arms claiming HE asked for the larger plane for Pelosi, while running the Pelosi plane non-scandal all weekend.
And it gets better.
It tells you something about our corporate media when, of all the people that have worked for Salon.com since its inception, it’s hacks like Jake Tapper and James Poniewozik that Big Media rewards with Big Paycheck and Kool Kid status, while excellent reporters like Murray Waas and Mollie Dickenson and excellent reviewer Charles Taylor are toiling for relative pittances.
PW:
Tapper used to work at Salon? He’s gonna give Salon a bad name. ;-(
Thanks, Brad, I know there are a handful.
Glenn Greenwald counts as a serious journalist, IMHO.
Jake Tapper, Professional Wanker.
Who says being a rightwing tool doesn’t pay?
Dude, Trapper, apologize and back out. You can’t snake your way out of this one.
It’s starting to look like you’re fishing for half-witted Hate-Teh-Evil-Clintons stories like back in the ’90’s.
“His name is Jake Tapper and he’s (tragically) a senior national correspondent at ABC”.
See See! The eevile librul MSM guys always twisting and spinning stories to make the true patriotic conservatives look bad…Oh wait.
nevermind
The Clinton campaign did not provide for me, as requested, an explanation of what he meant.
I guess all their sock puppets were busy explaining Khazakstani uranium mining to Miss Kerplotski’s 3rd-grade class in St. Paul?
Jumpin’ Jesus on a Jukebox, why does this dumb hole have a job?
.
This. Is. Un. Believable.
ABC news, we just make stuff up. Here’s a list of other famous quotes transcribed by Tapper.
“Give me death” Patrick Henry advocating suicide.
“I’m from the Government, I’m here to help” Ronald Reagan extolling the virtues of big government.
“We cannot hallow this ground” Abe Lincoln from his Gettysburg address, attacking the troops and saying that their sacrifice is trivial. The address was subtitled “Screw Dead Soldiers, They’re Grubby.”
Jake Tapper should be fired YESTERDAY!
“But I just assumed ABC didn’t know how to be unfair to a Clinton.”
Yeah, because it’s not as if ABC has been involved in a major controversy about fairness to Bill Clinton in the last two years.
I think we need a sub-category for wanker of the day, just for ABC news.
How ’bout “Mouseketool”?
“There is no such thing as an independent Press in America, if we except that of little country towns. You know this and I know it. Not a man among you dares to utter his honest opinion. Were you to utter it, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid…so that I may keep my honest opinion out of the paper for which I write. You, too, are paid similar salaries for similar services. Were I to permit that a single edition of my newspaper contained an honest opinion, my occupation, like Othello’s, would be gone in less than twenty-four hours. The man who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinion would soon be on the streets in search for another job. It is the duty of a New York journalist to lie, to distort, to revile, to toady at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or what amounts to the same thing, his salary. We are marionettes. These men pull the strings, and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our capacities are all the property of these men; we are intellectual prostitutes.”
– John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune, in the 1880s, during an annual dinner of the New York Press Association / Source: “Unholy Alliances”, by Dr. James W. Wardner (Wardner is quoting from “Rebuilding a Lost Faith”) (also quoted in “Labor’s Untold Story”)
Wow. The more things change, etc.
Tapper’s been wanktastic since the 1998 National Fellatio Crisis, but back then he was working for Salon.com, and the numbers exposed to his inanity were limited to the relative handful with Internet access in those benighted days.
I’m sure Somersby’s got a Tapper file….
Hi commie atheist,
It just goes to show that Santayana was right, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” It’s worth adding that our corporate and wealthy masters have spared no expense to make history unlearnable in the US. Still, it’s no excuse for a people who’s tradition includes the statement that I saw carved in stone in front of the Justice Department, iirc, “Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty.”
Just sayin’.
common dedominator, looks like they are deleting posts.
I suspect all the U ROXXOR posts are still there though…
“Somebody drove a nail into Jake Tapper’s skull when he took a job at ABC.”
Yeah, seems like he was pretty decent back at Salon, 8 years ago or so. At least that’s how I remember it.
Why didn’t an editor carve red lines all over this sucker before it even hit the internets?
Are there editors at all in the era of Internetz blogging? Judging from the content of much of the right-wing blogosphere, I think not. They just hit Submit when they’re done expectorating.
I went to college with Jake Tapper, although I didn’t know him. He wrote and drew a very funny cartoon called “Static Cling” for the college newspaper.
That said, this is blatantly unprofessional.
Here we have a major reporter crackin’ wise about a candidate. After going out of his way to create this brouhaha, he wants to cheap-snark her campaign for working to refute it.
I don’t know when he sold his soul, but I hope Satan saved the receipt.
[…] getting the point. I had to read it a few times to figure it out myself (and so did others, to lesser degrees of success). Alas for the Clintons, it isn’t better than what is being reported, but if I’m going […]
Rush just read the ABC item on the air:
“That’s what Al Gore and the liberals want to do! Destroy the economy! Slow it down! Put government in control of people’s lives!”
Mission Accomplished, Jake. You’ve given the wingnuts a fake talking point for the rest of the election.
Sounds like…
Welcome to the main stream media: making Journalistic Integrity an oxymoron, one story at a time.
Tapper was Salon’s original Washington reporter. He threw a big hissy fit and quit when they decided to run the story about Henry Hyde’s affair with a married woman.
Umm..
So while he’s not telling us to slow down our economy, he is telling us that we need to completely transform it and lash it tightly to government so it can work for a specific purpose that he’s decided is more noble than the its current purpose
The paranoia runs deep at the mention of the word “Clinton”
Apparently Tapper no likey the criticism. Seems to be universal love in the comments of his post. Funny, I even submitted something with no foul language that never got up .. hmmm again, funny that..
It’s really not that hard to figure out. “We could do that, but if we did it wouldn’t work so we should …” What’s so damn hard about figuring that out!!!
Gobsmacked. I’m gobsmacked.
I can’t believe anyone, even a 5th grader, could be that stoopid. Although, since he did, in fact, print the whole quote, he could be that stoopid.
Oh wait..he’s that Tapper, the total loon? Nevermind.
NANANANA I can’t see it NANANANA I can’t hear you NANANANNANA
Jake Tapper, purple assed baboon.
Jake’s latest assignment from the RNC: Obama’s a big, scary liberal.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/obama-was-the-m.html
I posted this on Tapper’s posts, FYI:
“Jake, ol’ buddy, you gotta learn to read.
The paragraphs *you posted* show Clinton using a better version of the same straw-man argument that GWB uses all the time, more crudely, as “some say”. (“Some say eating babies is okay. I disagree….”)
He sets up the argument for slowing down the economy unilaterally, then dismantles it. Other nations would increase production to fill the gap the U.S. would create, thus damaging both our economy and the environment.
“The only way we can do this…”, he says, referring clearly to fighting global warming, is to get other nations to join us in whatever the plan is to fight global warming.
My God, man, how could you miss what is clearly there?
The quote you pulled for your nut graf, the second graf, was not Clinton speaking as himself at all — it was Clinton posing the hypothetical, in the voice(s) of “…maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties…”. But, of course, with the hypothetical setup conveniently removed.
I’m not in politics, I’m a registered independent who’s voted for both sides and really likes neither. But I’m in small-town journalism and have been in the trade 35 years. This kind of deliberate misquoting is damaging to the profession as it gives one side ammo to use against the other, and the other side ammo to use against us. Eventually, we’ve done that to enough “sides” that they’re all shooting at us, and they’re right.
Clinton answered the question without equivocation — we can only fight global warming if we can get the developing nations of the world to work with us. Your failure to read this, though it appears *in your own piece* and *in context* can only be seen as deliberate.
You went looking for the “gotcha”. You found it, but it’s in the mirror. How’s it look?”
Since the producers for Olbermann’s show definitely read S,N! and atrios, I’d like to suggest that, instead of making Tapper a worst person in the world, you invite him on the show and fuck with him, hard.
Make him eat this plate of shit on national teevee, puuuuuuleaz.
fuck all this fatalism. this is bullshit. shit isn’t 1999 any more. it doesn’t have to be weeks while we realize that gore didn’t say whatever bullshit maureen dowd pulled out of her disused ovaries.
we can quash the living fuck out of this. it will require clinton getting on top of it–today. it will require calling jake tapper out as a liar–today. and in public. it requires pace ann coulter, shaming jake tapper until his is physically afraid.
there is no reason to just lay back and take this rape of reason.
I hate to be a internet grammar nazi, but this guy writes for a living. You’d think he could do better:
“In a long, and interesting..” Kill the comma
“’cause” I’ll give him a pass on this, but I’m really skeptical that an accomplished public speaker like Clinton would’ve said ’cause instead of because
“mis-spoke” misspoke
“noquite” jeez, spell checking would’ve caught this
“rich counties”
Plus a whole bunch of awkward phrasing. If Tapper was a better writer, he could reduce the number of commas he uses by at least half
Plus a whole bunch of awkward phrasing. If Tapper was a better writer, he could reduce the number of commas he uses by at least half
Just to prove the point, the very first sentence in this piece caught my eye:
In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way
Awkward, indeed.
Did Andrew suggest that slowing down the economy would be a good thing?
In a short, and amusing post today, ,, Andrew may have suggested that slowing down the economy, could, be a, good thing,.
But reducing comma usage would KILL the economy!!11!! Other nations aren’t going to, reduce THEIR comma, usage so, duz he can only mean the US shud when, they’re mite be a depreshun, Karl Roveshould be, commaless?!?!?!
‘In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way…’
Some free editing (real editors, feel free to step in if you’re wearing hip-waders):
“Clinton characterized how the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to fight global warming this way…”
It’s still a bit ackward, but at least no commas and no crap (assuming that whatever follows is crap-free. In this hack’s case I would bet on 98% crap content in anything he writes). Yeah, it’s a blog, and yeah, sometimes grammar and spelling go to pot when you’re writing quickly. But seriously, this guy writes for a living? I’d hate to see what he turns in as his, uh, “work”.
“perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn’t a worldwide effort”
A characterization is a description. So he’s saying “perhaps this is a description of a description of a hypothetical”? Is that like a riddle wrapped in an enigma inside an ignoramus slathered with Grey Goose and cheap cologne?
Just heard it repeated as fact, listening to “To The Point”, broadcasted on WNYC in New York. KCRW is the mother station of the show.
Here’s a link to the show page:
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp080131the_race_for_preside
I sent them an email, I wonder if they’ll correct themselves?
It is a gerbil inside an echidna wrapped in carborundum.
‘He went on to say that his the U.S. — and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases — could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan. So there was something of a contradiction there. Or perhaps he mis-spoke. Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn’t a worldwide effort…I’m noquite certain.’
My characterization of Jake Tapper:
“He went on to say nothing — and those nothings who listen to him bought it — about what Clinton actually meant. So there was something of a contradiction there. Or Jake can’t read. Or perhaps the terms of his wingnut wellfare specify that obfuscation and misdirection wrapped in nasty syntax is the way to keep the trough open…. I’m noquite certain.”
I think it was Winston Cigarettes who first said that.
“It is a gerbil inside an echidna wrapped in carborundum.”
Indeed, that is central to my point !
Yes, not only was Tapper at Salon back in the day, but he was notable for being especially in the tank for McCain in 2000, though he was a little more upfront about acknowledging it (at this late date, I can’t rightly say whether that’s a good or a bad thing). Much to my eternal embarrassment, my younger and un-radicalized self kind of bought it, in no small part due to Tapper’s reportage. I remember exchanging e-mails with him a few times back then, and he was a gracious and generous guy, so it’s especially sad for me to see what a hack he’s become (or really, always was) – yes, probably because it reminds me what a dupe I was, but still.
Journalism/Communications majors are 2nd only to education majors in their abysmal stupidity. It looks like the former might be trying to dethrone the latter; I don’t see it happening, though.
As another point in his semi-favor, Tapper is also the one whom Bob Somerby cites as the source of the story that the denizens of the press area were openly booing Gore and cheering Bradley at Dartmouth in 1999 or 2000.
Let’s be fair. It’s quite possible that he suffered a major head trauma that left him unable to read or write standard English, but simultaneously gave him a burning desire to keep posting on his blog. This man doesn’t need an editor, he needs an ambulance!
I liked how Tapper, in his follow-up, parsed the word “parse”.
How meta.
FlipYrWhig:
Giving him another half-point makes it 1 1/2 to 100, Tapper to Honest Journalism.
And knowing that he used to nail Monica Lewinski — a plus or minus? I like Monica, but not in that way, I think.
Journalism/Communications majors are not stupid. Not by any means.
It’s just, the smart and honest can’t get jobs in the traditional broadcast media, which is overwhelmingly conservative and thus has no room for the smart and honest.
You looking for TEH STUPID among college grads? Talk to some Economics students.
I invented musical Rice Krispies, but the press is calling me a cereal lyre.
Oy, strictly from hunger.
Calling Tapper a moron is sooo ridiculous. It aint stoopidity. To “achieve”
That level of ignoramousness would imply too few active neurons to sustain life. If he was that stoopid, he’d be outwitted by the doorknobs challenging him every day. Tulips would regularly browbeat him into a whimpering mass of vomit.
While it’s fun, not to mention easy, to skewer him for being a pinhead,it really does miss a salient point. To wit, it’s not “depressingly stupid goddamn journalism,” it’s maddeningly blatant goddamn manipulation.
Change the header to something more appropriate. I had my fun but I think it’s better to attack the bozos on their strengths (in this case, subterfuge and sabotage) than their rather obvious weaknesses.
Sorry to inject some seriousity; sometimes we need to get real.
So should we start calling this type of “Parsing” a Tapper now?
Like in:
“I heard Fox News just pulled a tapper!”
[…] OK, this is truly despicable. ABC is acting as if Bill Clinton said that the US should just slow down it’s economy in the fight against global warming. This while the reality is that Clinton actually said something very different. Take a look at the quotes yourself, and how the media interpreted it, and then you can conclude whether they did this on purpose or… well, or on purpose. […]
“You looking for TEH STUPID among college grads? Talk to some Economics students.”
And their slightly more grown up siblings – MBAs.
No offense to any MBAs who know more than how to recite the WSJ’s editorial page.
hehe Bill said ‘Slow down!” hehe
Get it?
Hehehehe
Journalism/Communications majors are 2nd only to education majors in their abysmal stupidity.
Hey, watch yerself there, fruitfly. If you’d ever taken a journalism/communication course you’d know, for example, to spell out the word “second” instead of using “2nd.”
My mother always used to say, “Make your words sweet, for tomorrow you may have to eat them.” Just sayin’. And don’t get me started on business majors. Holy Jeesus.
Apparently Jake Tapper is a serial offender.
I just listened to a podcast with a reporter from the Washington Post and one from the LA Times. Topic is the Iraq War, and the reporting on it over the years, etc. These two people had to be the most naive, stupid people I have ever heard talk about Iraq…excepting and of the wingnut blogs of course.
Thank goodness during the Q&A at the end, other people were as startled as I was. One guy even asked the guy from WAPO how the media could all be so naive in their little bubble hehe. The audience cheered and applauded that one. They panelists were basically saying that none of them had ever imagined that the War wouldn’t be over in 6 weeks, and that it had never occurred to them that there would be years of occupation, etc.
Clearly the media have given up all pretense of actual journalism, and now just have little mutual masturbation sessions with each other; high-five each other; and cast aspersions upon bloggers who have a problem with all of this.
Maybe some people would say that Jake Tapper is a great reporter. But if Tapper is a great reporter, you know as well as I do that the whole profession is hopelessly incompetent and the American people will be doomed to spend the 2008 campaign being bombarded by pseudoscandals while actual policy is ignored until we reach the point that the Republican candidate who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years gets more support in the primaries from antiwar Republican voters than does any other Republican, including the one who is actually antiwar.
I’m sorry I had to be so ambiguous in my opinion of Tapper; it’s a shame he won’t be able to figure out what I mean.
I just have to look good,
I don’t have to be clear.
Come in whisper in my ear,
Give me dirty laundry.
Further update from Tapper:
Best response so far to Tapper’s further “parsing”, and his new economic analysis?
[…] “But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work. (HT: Sadly No) […]
It gets better and better. Tapper now quotes Iain Murray in his defense, even though Iain points out quite clearly that he completely blew the quote. He apparently believes that the fact that a right-wing writer thinks that Hillary’s economic programs will slow the economy justifies yanking Bill’s words out of context in a way that reverses their meaning.
It’s a good thing he’s a blogger, or we’d have to worry about the decline of journalistic integrity.
When is he going to write a book? He could call it Factual Fascism: The Secret History of The Tyranny of Truth from 1 + 1 = 2 to Water is Wet.
I’m sure that only strengthens Tapper’s point, and is, in fact, central to Tapper’s point. Anyway, isn’t coherency fascist or something?
Hey back off mister, I have an MBA!
Did you know I was the first President with an MBA?
Bill Clinton:
“Clearly, there’s an obesity problem. Some people say you should lose weight by cutting off your limbs. But actually, it’s better to eat healthier and exercise.”
Tapper:
“Clinton says we should cut off our limbs. Why is he encouraging self-mutilation?”
Clinton:
“Um, that’s not really what I said.”
Tapper:
“Well, excuse me for trying to understand why you love people chopping off their own body parts so much. Maybe if you weren’t such a pro-self-mutilation liar I wouldn’t have made those mistakes. I’m just trying to be fair.”
Maybe we should also be pointing out the legion blogs who mindlessly linked to Tapper’s pile of steaming poo without some checking.
[…] It would appear that Clinton’s quote was taken out of context. Here’s the full quote: “Everybody knows that global warming is real,” Mr. Clinton said, […]
the whole incident is totally surreal.
Jake Tapper has been taking his orders from the RNC for quite awhile now.
What do you expect from someone whose big claim to fame – and the only reason he even has a paying gig now – is that he had a blind date with Monica and wrote all about how sweet she was during that whole fiasco.
He’s a hack. Always has been.
And he can’t even read.
thx for the heads up. Anyone who’d even think Bill Clinton would say “slow down the economy” is inhaling smoke from a redneck’s trash barrel fire after he put all the plastic packaging in.
Matt Taibbi
Oh, no, marketing and business majors are the dumb and dumber of higher education. I will admit that among these majors, you need a powerful stupidity measuring device to quantify the differences.
Here’s how grownups do news. Try on this McClatchy investigation of the Kenyan voting difficulties. They may or may not be correct, but it is a straightforward argument based on clearly identified research methods aimed at answering a controversial question, not simply repeating the fact that a controversial question exists.
Evidentiary methods outlined. Concrete details presented. Clear conclusions made.
Grown up journalism. Not gossip. Not avoidance of investigation. Journalism. Maybe wrong, but like scholarship, the arguments have been clearly outlined and therefore can be rationally evaluated.
Time how long it takes to have a post deleted in Tappers blog entry that says it’s not ABC policy to delete those posts, and how he would join us in rallying against it.
If you want even more fun, post this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/16/173621/05/839/398844
Jesus, this guy’s title is senior national correspondent. How did he end up with that job? Christ. It boggles the mind.
Hey liberals. I understand why us conservatives don’t like the Clintons its because of their far-left socialist policies.
But I’m curious about something and have been for several years now.
How come alot of liberals don’t like the Clintons? Are they not liberal enough? Hillary Clinton in fact has been described as the closest thing America has to a European style socialist.
So I’m very confused. If one of you liberals could explain to me why alot of liberals don’t like the Clintons I would appreciate it very much?
Hey Chris St. James. We understand that you wingnuts don’t like the Clintons because of their reality-based policies.
But we’re curious about something and have been for many years now.
How come a lot of wingnuts don’t like democracy? Is it not exclusive enough? Bush in fact has been described as the closest thing America has to a European style fascist.
So we’re very confused. If one of you fucktards could explain why a lot of conservatives don’t like Bush we would appreciate it very much?
About the whole “slow down the economy to save the environment” thing – I am brought back to 1996 and an article in the Atlantic Monthly:
“By the curious standard of the GDP, the nation’s economic hero is a terminal cancer patient who is going through a costly divorce.”
As long as the GDP is used as a measure of economic well being, then yes the economy will have to slow down to help protect the environment. And in the decade since, has there been any other measurement accepted, or even seriously proposed?
We don’t like the Clintons because they’re Trotskist.
[…] Others have noted Tapper’s lameness in this instance. Even the National Review (!) is forced to note “I can’t believe I’m writing this, but I’m not sure Jake Tapper is being entirely accurate” in his characterization of Bill Clinton’s statement and beliefs! Tapper continues to defend his indefensible position. This is apparently not new for Tapper. […]
I wrote a comment on Tapper’s post that he clearly misstated what Clinton said. My comment showed at first, but was deleted within 5 minutes. Huh?
You should check out his newest post on this subject.
I’d accuse him of being dumber than a fifth grader, but I think that show’s on another network.
Of course the U.S. has to slow down its economy. All countries do. So long as a “fast economy” and a “growing economy” means sucking up coal and oil deposits like an opium addict. There is no environment. People who use that word sound like morons. The environment is what goes into your lungs every 15 seconds. If that’s a difficult concept to understand than go to the Moon to get your oxygen supply.
Jesus, this guy’s title is senior national correspondent. How did he end up with that job? Christ. It boggles the mind.
Scientific literacy is not a national priority in the United States.
But …
Booooooooobies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ve got your carbon offsets right here …
“So I’m very confused. If one of you liberals could explain to me why alot of liberals don’t like the Clintons I would appreciate it very much?”
Because they’re not liberal enough. That’s all there is to it.
“We don’t like the Clintons because they’re Trotskist.”
I hope that’s a joke, Stanist.
Yay! I got my comment at Tapper’s post deleted. Some other critical comments have also disappeared. And we didn’t even swear…
Why is this not a firing offense? It’s either gross negligence or intentional deceit.
Chris St. James says, “So I’m very confused.” Truer words were never written.
At a glance—The Industrial Age, The Gilded Age, Teddy’s Big Stick…party-time up through the Roaring 20’s, Prohibition & Organized Crime, the Big Crash, the Depression, Pearl Harbor, we emerge from WW II holding all the cards, the Boom & the MIddle Class, Nixon un-does Bretton Woods, clearing way for Global Corporatism, the Reagan Era & the birth of the Neo-Con, the dumbing down of America, World Wide Web & the Age of Information, a new millenium & the election of George Bush, the Age of Embarrassment & the beginning of the end.
Tapper said:
‘This is the much more important issue here. Any serious effort to reduce greenhouses gases will have an impact on the economy and, initially, that impact could be negative.
There are ways to work towards having the impact in the long-term be neutral or perhaps even positive. But any serious effort will cost a lot of money and slow the economy, whether the world is in it together or the U.S. and industrialized nations go it alone. (I stand accused of saying that former President Clinton spoke honestly about that.)’
Dear Mr. Tapper,
Now I’m not a journamalist or someone who eats cocktail weenies, but I think what you’re doing here is expressing _your_ opinion and claiming that it’s Bill Clinton’s opinion. In fact, let’s look at what Bill Clinton said in his speech:
“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, ‘OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.’ We could do that.”
You, by bringing up the issue of slowing down the economy, obviously believe this is the only way to slow global warming. You spend several sentences pointing out that that’s your belief. Thankfully the man who actually was President is a fair bit more optimistic:
‘“But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.’
Now you and Bill Clinton disagree on this point; you think Global Warming can only be addressed by slowing down the economy (or that fixing it will require at least a short-term slowdown), and Bill Clinton does not. Sort of like how I can get a job closer to my house (so I can ride a bike or walk) and still get paid more money. That is better for my economy, it is better for the company I work for (because I don’t have to skip a day if I have car trouble), and is generally a much more effective and environmentally friendly way to work. See? It can be done, without negative impacts on the economy. Just because Bill Clinton pointed out your worldview in the part of his speech that you quote doesn’t mean he agrees with you — when you say “I stand accused of saying that former President Clinton spoke honestly about that” you are stating that Bill Clinton believes what you believe. He does not. Please find more suitable employment and stop littering the tubes with your ideological trash. Thanks!
Ugh, check out his post today where he deftly reveals Ann Coulter’s claim that Hillary Clinton is more conservative than John McCain to be flat out ludicrous. Imagine! Ann Coulter said something that isn’t, strictly speaking, true but which was shocking. Where would we be without this Watchdog of Truth prowling the internets looking for super obvious and absolutely inconsequential hyperbole to debunk?
I’d cleverly embed this if I knew how…
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/coulter-i-will.html?cid=99600450#comment-99600450
[…] Read the entire Clinton statement in context here. […]
Should read: “Welcome to the main stream media: making Journalistic Integrity a story, one moron at a time.
[…] may have caught Jake Tapper’s atrocious rewriting of Bill Clinton not long ago. Sadly, No! has the best write-up I’ve seen, and I’d recommend reading it first, but I’ll […]
[…] a perfect example of why it is dangerous to believe anything you hear from the mainstream media, especially if it […]
To those of you who found Tapper edited your comments off his page (for no good reason), see how many other people its happened to. Scroll to the links and leave your story.
It’s driving me nuts that someone here keeps editing away comments that dissent. Right out of the BUSH PLAYBOOK. That someone would write an article this biased, say “correct me if I’m wrong”,, and then remove all dissenting viewpoints is filthy ridiculous. Even FOX news doesn’t do this. Someone said “The sinister thing here to me is the editing or deleting of dissent from readers” and I too agree. Now ABC is right in line with FOX in my mind, congratulations Tapper. Really makes me wonder how many of the comments in support of the article are being written by the bitter author to drum up a façade of support. It’s Media Control.
Here’s the solution – from the amount of people who I’ve seen had their comments removed I have to believe theres gotta be more of us than of whoever is editing. I’m calling for a SHOELESS REVOLTION!!!! Copy these links and help me keep re-posting them up as they’re deleted here so other people see it and we can document how many have actually been censored. SAVE THE COMMENT YOU JUST WROTE TOO – if you don’t agree with him it’ll probably be gone in a few minuntes.
– a list of other peoples experiences trying to post to Mr Tappers column, who were deleted (keeps growing):
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/abc-news-editing-away-dissent.php
http://mainstreammediamurderer.blogspot.com/2008/07/abc-news-editing-away-dissent.html
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200804080001 – nice article on why Tapper is out to get Obama
[…] comments by ABC’s Jake Tapper (late of “The Note”) on Political Punch, and I’m not the only one who thinks […]
Joan@ prime-resume, that is really terrible; it should read “because they lack” rather than “they miss,” you need a period after “respectable[poor word choice] resume,” “need to resume services” needs a verb to complete the infinitive, “such customers like writer” is unclear, and “A kind of interesting knowledge about this post” is informal and clumsy. The whole comment is a mess, looking like either auto-generated or auto-translated text, with no proof-reading whatsoever. Anyone who uses your resume service is doomed.
Also, dear proprietors, it looks like the anti-spam ain’t workin’.
Anyone who uses your resume service is doomed.
Also, dear proprietors, it looks like the anti-spam ain’t workin
not really stupid i thought 😀