Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Tell the Truth campaign logo
NewsBusters.org logo

February 10, 2012
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • RSS
Home » Blogs » Bill Hobbs's blog
  • MRC's Bozell Scolds Media's Reluctance to Cover HHS Birth Control Mandate
  • Chris Matthews Excoriates: Rick Santorum Is a 'Theocrat' and Franklin Graham Is a 'Disgrace'
  • Time's Mark Halperin Concedes: GOP 'Would Be Creamed' by Media for Not Passing a Budget
  • CNN Reporters Call CPAC a ‘Conservative Petri Dish’
  • Chris Matthews Reacts to JFK Mistress: Kennedy a Hero Who 'Still Arouses the Country'
  • Covering Up JFK’s Roguish Behavior for 50 Years Not Long Enough for NBC’s Viewers
  • Bozell: It's 'Hilarious' CNN Suspended Roland Martin for Inoffensive Tweet; Maybe 'Lefty Loons at MSNBC' Can 'Scoop Him Up' Now
  • CNN Responds to Bozell Letter Demanding Coverage of Catholic Outrage at Obama; We Reply

Gotcha! MarketWatch Columnist Outs Own Ignorance of Bush Doctrine in Assault on Palin

By Bill Hobbs | September 15, 2008 | 23:31

Change font size:  A |  A

Jon Friedman, a "senior columnist" who writes the "Media Web" column for MarketWatch.com, says "the Sarah Palin Phenomenon is doomed" because the media, having built her up, now will begin to tear her down.

Really, he said that (readers should also review P.J. Gladnick's prior analysis of Friedman's article):

This is how the world works in the age of 24/7 news cycles. Whether the subject is Britney Spears, Michael Jordan or Sarah Palin, we inevitably raise stars to mythic levels, out of all reasonable proportions. Then we knock them down.

Never mind that, out here in the real world outside the alternate universe in which Friedman finds himself, the elite media began to try to tear Gov. Palin down just as soon as she finished her introductory speech in Dayton, Ohio, about 20 minutes after John McCain introduced her as his running mate. Never mind that, contra Friendman, the media skipped the build-her-up phase and went straight to knock-her-down (which only served to make her more popular with the American public, which really frosts folks like Friedman who still think the media ought to be the gatekeeper to public celebrity and political success).

But that's not the best thing about Friedman's piece. This is: Jon Friedman exposes his ignorance at the very moment he's mocking Palin for her supposed ignorance, on the very subject about which he mocks her supposed ignorance. It involves the now-famous interview segment on the Bush Doctrine. Friedman writes:

Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts. When Gibson put it to her and asked if she agreed with the doctrine, she answered, "In what respect, Charlie?

Some analysts have suggested that Gibson knew more about the Bush Doctrine than the vice-presidential candidate. ... Since we're all clear on the nuances of the Bush Doctrine, we can move on to the Fickle Media Doctrine. Now that we've built you up, it's about time for us to knock you down.

Did you catch Friedman's blunder?

Here it is:

Specifically, Palin seemed to have little idea about the Bush Doctrine, in which the U.S must spread democracy around the world to halt terrorist acts.

That's not the Bush Doctrine as cited by ABC's Gibson in the Palin interview, the same Gibson whom Friedman praises in the article for his handling of the Palin interview. Let's check the ABC transcript:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you - what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

As columnist Charles Krauthammer explained, there is not one Bush Doctrine, rather there have been four since Bush became president:

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration - and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

In fact, Gibson cited only the third of the four "Bush Doctrines," which are, in order:

1. A "New American unilateralism" - pre-9/11 (withdrawal from the ABM treaty, Kyoto, etc...)

2. "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists" - in the immediate post-9/11 period.

3. Anticipatory self-defense, or pre-emptive war - in the run-up to the Iraq war

4. American foreign policy's goal is to spread democracy throughout the world, to make America safer - the current "Bush Doctrine."

If Gibson had asked Friedman the question he asked Palin - "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" - we've have had the spectacle of watching two supposedly intelligent, educated, up-to-speed elite-media news folks who would each have been thinking about an entirely different "Bush Doctrine," and both of them would have been inaccurate and incomplete, while thinking themselves as more informed than the other .

Poor Friedman. Even with access to the transcript, he couldn't get the facts right about one brief segment of the Palin interview. And in trying to get in front of the media parade that's been working 24/7 for more than two weeks now to knock Palin down, he knocked himself down.

P.S. Mr. Friedman, your build-'em-up-and-tear-'em-down media has been building Barack Obama up for the past four years. Sure, they dinged him a bit over his race-baiting pastor and a few other things, but tell me, when does the knock-Obama-down phase begin in earnest? My money's on November 5.

Share this
  • Bill Hobbs's blog
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Donate to NewsBusters

Donate to NewsBusters Today!

This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead

User Shortcuts

Log in

  • My account
  • My buddylist
  • Log in to check messages
  • RSS feed
  • About NB
  • Contact us
  • Jobs
  • Advertise on NB

 

 


  • Video: Protesters at CPAC admit they're being paid to protest (Daily Caller)
  • Does the drug 'ella' cause abortions? (Weekly Standard)
  • Does income inequality cause global warming? (Power Line)
  • Jay Carney gets snippy about Super PACs (Verum Serum)
  • Where are the blacks for Roland Martin? (NRO/Media Blog)
  • Turkish Islamists turn church into mosque (Commentary)

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Recent comments

  • Before Barack Obama took the
    18 sec ago
  • Brookes Party Affiliation reads Republican
    1 min 53 sec ago
  • And where were these Liberals
    5 min 13 sec ago
  • I just love him, but,
    10 min 31 sec ago
  • Only 40%?
    10 min 33 sec ago
More >

Try a Sweater Vest, Mitt
more cartoons
  • Newt Gingrich: If President I'll Repudiate 40% of Obama's Government on Inauguration Day
  • Ann Coulter's Full Address to CPAC
  • NYTimes Reporters Packing in 'Conservative' Labels at CPAC
  • Full Video of Rick Santorum at CPAC
  • Gov. Perry Tells NewsBusters He's Just 'Fighting on a Different Front'
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Lachlan Markay
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Editorial Associate
Aubrey Vaughan

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2012 NewsBusters. Terms of Use.