Comments on: More on The Weapons Story http://www.sundriesshack.com/2004/10/28/more-on-the-weapons-story/ Delivering the Best of the New Media Since 2004. Mon, 14 May 2012 14:27:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Jimmiehttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2004/10/28/more-on-the-weapons-story/comment-page-1/#comment-507 Jimmie Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:35:00 +0000 /?p=976#comment-507 Robbie - read my update. :) Robbie – read my update. :)

]]> By: Jimmiehttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2004/10/28/more-on-the-weapons-story/comment-page-1/#comment-506 Jimmie Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:17:21 +0000 /?p=976#comment-506 EricH, He has two quotes on the same subject. The first quote was that he released the story early because it was leaking on the internet. The second was that he was uncomfortable releasing it that close to the election. Which one is the real, or at least most important motivation? I'd think it would be the one which forced the issue - the one where the paperhad to act. That would be the first reason, if he's representing the situation accurately. The discomfort could have been a good secondary reason but it didn't apparently have the urgency the first reason did. He had to release the story early because if he didn't the internet would scoop him. He was uncomfortable waiting for the weekend (and I may have misread his quote on that. I'll re-evaluate it and, if that's the case, I'll correct myself) but that wasn't as great a motivator. Then again, I'm also using prior knowledge of the story taken from articles on it earlier in the week. It was CBS' intent to release the story as close to the election as possible and the account I read said it was supposed to be the day of the election. I'll look up a source on that also and if wrong, will correct it. EricH, He has two quotes on the same subject. The first quote was that he released the story early because it was leaking on the internet. The second was that he was uncomfortable releasing it that close to the election.

Which one is the real, or at least most important motivation? I'd think it would be the one which forced the issue – the one where the paperhad to act. That would be the first reason, if he's representing the situation accurately. The discomfort could have been a good secondary reason but it didn't apparently have the urgency the first reason did.

He had to release the story early because if he didn't the internet would scoop him. He was uncomfortable waiting for the weekend (and I may have misread his quote on that. I'll re-evaluate it and, if that's the case, I'll correct myself) but that wasn't as great a motivator.

Then again, I'm also using prior knowledge of the story taken from articles on it earlier in the week. It was CBS' intent to release the story as close to the election as possible and the account I read said it was supposed to be the day of the election. I'll look up a source on that also and if wrong, will correct it.

]]> By: Robbiehttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2004/10/28/more-on-the-weapons-story/comment-page-1/#comment-505 Robbie Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:58:21 +0000 /?p=976#comment-505 He's kinda got you there, bro. So they could have held the story to do more investigation and release it closer to, if not on, Election Day and the Blogosphere would have smacked them for it. Or they could have released the story early without all the facts in order to give the Bush administration time to respond and the Blogosphere would have smacked them for it. I think they picked the lesser of the two evils. It seems the NYT was in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. He's kinda got you there, bro.

So they could have held the story to do more investigation and release it closer to, if not on, Election Day and the Blogosphere would have smacked them for it. Or they could have released the story early without all the facts in order to give the Bush administration time to respond and the Blogosphere would have smacked them for it. I think they picked the lesser of the two evils.

It seems the NYT was in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation.

]]> By: EricHhttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2004/10/28/more-on-the-weapons-story/comment-page-1/#comment-504 EricH Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:30:23 +0000 /?p=976#comment-504 <i>Keller said “60 Minutes” executives asked the newspaper to hold the story until this Sunday so they could report it the same day, and “we said we weren’t comfortable doing that because it wouldn’t give the White House a fair opportunity to respond.” </i> What the hell are you smoking, Jimmie? You have a quote from Keller (you did read it, didn't you?) saying that the reason they released the story Tuesday, instead of holding it until Sunday like CBS wanted, was to be fair to the President, because one day to respond wouldn't be enough. Then you go and castigate him as though he'd said exactly the opposite. <i>And it wanted to put the story out on Sunday to give the President a fair chance at responding.</i> <b>CBS</b> wanted to put it out on Sunday, and NYT decided to release it 5 days earlier, to give the President a fair chance at responding. (Except that you said CBS wanted to wait until Election Day, but that's not really relevant at the moment.) <i>Keller apparently believes that one day is a “fair opportunity” to respond to a story they’re been holding for who knows how long. But at least he gets to announce his basic fairness.</i> And now we've gone off into the weeds. I still don't see how Keller saying one day wouldn't be a fair opportunity can be read as "Keller believes one day would be a fair opportunity." Keller said “60 Minutes” executives asked the newspaper to hold the story until this Sunday so they could report it the same day, and “we said we weren’t comfortable doing that because it wouldn’t give the White House a fair opportunity to respond.”

What the hell are you smoking, Jimmie? You have a quote from Keller (you did read it, didn't you?) saying that the reason they released the story Tuesday, instead of holding it until Sunday like CBS wanted, was to be fair to the President, because one day to respond wouldn't be enough. Then you go and castigate him as though he'd said exactly the opposite.

And it wanted to put the story out on Sunday to give the President a fair chance at responding.

CBS wanted to put it out on Sunday, and NYT decided to release it 5 days earlier, to give the President a fair chance at responding. (Except that you said CBS wanted to wait until Election Day, but that's not really relevant at the moment.)

Keller apparently believes that one day is a “fair opportunity” to respond to a story they’re been holding for who knows how long. But at least he gets to announce his basic fairness.

And now we've gone off into the weeds. I still don't see how Keller saying one day wouldn't be a fair opportunity can be read as "Keller believes one day would be a fair opportunity."

]]>