Suskind: Same People Attacking Me For Writing About Obama Praised My Bush Books
One of the finest recent examples of liberal media bias has been the press's hostile treatment of author Ron Suskind for having the nerve to write a book critical of the Obama administration.
As Suskind told CNN's Howard Kurtz Sunday, these are "[m]any of the folks who were praising me mightily during the Bush era" for books criticizing the previous president (video follows with transcript and commentary):
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Hasn't the Obama team succeeded in this respect: when your book first came out, the headlines were about dysfunctional administration, president, inexperienced president not ready to govern, and women in the White House felt that they were being given short shrift. Now all of the stories and interviews - and I guess we're doing it here to some extent - are about the credibility of Ron Suskind. So was this a tactic to make you the issue?
RON SUSKIND: I think that as people read the book, they're often surprised to see this is not sensational. This is very well sourced. It's complete. It's credible, and in the book, there are long passages of responses from the key actors to all of the major disclosures. That was part of the idea of making the book complete as a text in and of itself. I think much of the attacks, they came prior to the book being in people's hands. Now that it is in people's hands, already that is turning.
KURTZ: But does it disappoint you that some of the criticism from people in this administration has been so personal toward you?
SUSKIND: You know, Howie, you know as well as anybody it's a tough town. Many of the folks who were praising me mightily during the Bush era - these are the most definitive works on George Bush, this is the historical record - now are doing their best to struggle really to discredit those books and discredit this book.
KURTZ: Are you suggesting it's ideological, that some people who are liberals are perfectly happy to have you go after President Bush and not so happy to have you go after Barack Obama?
SUSKIND: Well, certainly many commentators have pointed that out. That’s not just me. I think that's part of the way this works.
Yes, but wouldn't it be wonderful if it didn't work that way?
If Suskind was considered a credible journalist in the previous decade while he was severely criticizing one president, how does he become persona non grata for criticizing the next?
Is the bias in the media so pervasive and acknowledged that it's just accepted as a fact of life? Is impartiality in journalism really dead, and expecting otherwise just a fantasy?
How can our great nation survive if not only isn't there any objectivity in the news media, there's also no burning desire outside of the small circle of conservative analysts and commentators for there to be any?
What this episode demonstrates is that unless you toe the Democratic Party line as a journalist, you will be hounded by your colleagues even if what you report is factual.
Pretty darned scary when you think about it.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Well Ronnie boy welcome to
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 2:20pm.
Well Ronnie boy welcome to the real world. Get on your knees and worship "Barrack the Great" overloard of all things. Obey or be destroyed!
These people aren't having you TV on to push your book, you are on as a last chance to repent.
Howard was quick to credit
Submitted by d1carter on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 2:23pm.
Howard was quick to credit the administration with the change in narrative. He failed to properly credit his fellow "journolisters" with actually doing the job for the White House....as you know, this is the way it works...
Yes indeed
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 3:27pm.
.......and it is funny how all of those Journ-o-listers lurk around the halls and in the studios of MSNBC, huh?
jeez................that's a
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 2:49pm.
jeez................that's a no-brainer!! I'm surprised the guy said that - as if he didn't know why!!! He got praised for trashing Bush, but he's getting a lot of flak for telling the truth about Obama - and he can't see the difference between the two???
Are these guys that dumb, or do they just play dumb???
He wants to sell books.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 3:05pm.
The only think that liberals love more than other people's money is getting more of their own!
Suskind realizes that most liberal voters don't, or can't, read, but that most conservatives do.
He's playing to his audience, and he'll apologize to Da One later in private.
Of course, Howie . .
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 3:21pm.
. . this is about you too.
One of the best, NS.
(;~> Gary
Yes it is and it is even more
Submitted by buddyc on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 3:35pm.
Yes it is and it is even more so because Kurtz didn't condemn it. He sets himself as a judge or critic of the media but he isn't. He is just one more tool used to get out democrat talking points. He is merely the final step in their spin on a particular issue. He did that by saying to Suskind that he had become the issue.
On my list of criminals who I would go after Kurtz would top the list. Just behind him are the media people who claim to be impartial but are not.
Here's the two lines that
Submitted by Pewah on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 3:40pm.
Here's the two lines that perfectly display their ignorance of how replete the MSM is with liberal ideals:
KURTZ: Are you suggesting it's ideological, that some people who are liberals are perfectly happy to have you go after President Bush and not so happy to have you go after Barack Obama?
SUSKIND: Well, certainly many commentators have pointed that out. That’s not just me. I think that's part of the way this works.
"I think that's part of the way this works"....LMAO
Amazing. One the one hand,
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 3:40pm.
Amazing. One the one hand, you guys complain about a double standard, and then on the other, engage in that very same standard with seemingly no self-awareness. It wasn't all that long ago that NB was actively going after Suskind and how his work needs to be discredited...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/08/24/cia-tenet-refute-s...
~Hello, Captain Obvious speaking
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 3:57pm.
Perhaps you might note that this piece deals, not with the substance of the book about Obama, or the one about Bush, but with the colossal disparity in how the two were received by the media.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled trolling.
This isn't about the book.
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 4:10pm.
This isn't about the book. This about Suskind complaining about those who previously praised him are now criticizing him now that he's written a book about Obama, and NB is now siding with him. However, when he wrote a book about Bush, it was the complete opposite: those that are now praising were criticizing him then, and NB was certainly one of them. If there's a supposed disparirty in the media and that's wrong, shouldn't the apparent disparity here be just as equally wrong?
well you're in luck
Submitted by kata on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 4:17pm.
www.newsbusterbusters.com is not yet taken.
~Oops, lemme grab Captain Obvious again
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 4:23pm.
He was raiding my fridge, here he is:
*ahem*
The MSM pose as "objective" reporters of the news; Newsbusters is a partisan organization with a clear mission statement. "Exposing and combating liberal media bias". Scroll to the top of any page and read carefully.
Well, at least you're honest
Submitted by cathartic1 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 4:34pm.
Well, at least you're honest about the unreliability of a supposed research organization. Hats off...
lol
Submitted by kata on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 6:17pm.
cathartic champions the non sequitur.
Well at least we're honest in general unlike liberals
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 9:38pm.
like yourself. We can play this stupid game all you like, especially since most on here are parents and used to dealing with children. My 10 year old could surmise a better response to this article than you, seriously.
Cathartic1, Can you point
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 12:57am.
Cathartic1,
Can you point out where in the article above NB is taking Suskind side? The article is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Liberals who praised Suskind when he attacked Bush, but now attack him for doing the same to Obama.
But feel free to point to everyone here how NB in the article above is agreeing with Suskind's views on Obama.
thanks.
HAHAHHA
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 12:37am.
how his work needs to be discredited...
From your own link
As NewsBusters has been reporting since early August, mainstream media members predictably gushed over author Ron Suskind's allegations that the Bush administration ordered the CIA to forge a letter showing a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
On Friday, both the CIA and its former director George Tenet refuted this and other claims Suskind made in his book "The Way of the World."
Given their fervor to report Suskind's views, it should be interesting to see how much attention these high-profile rebuttals get.
Nope, not a call for him to be discredited. Noel specifically was pointing out how the media was only showing the side that they agree with. Noel never stated that Suskind was even wrong, he did point out the rebuttals coming from the other side.
Compare that to this story.
Noel is once more pointing out "that unless you toe the Democratic Party line as a journalist, you will be hounded by your colleagues"
We seriously need a better class of troll around here. (H/T J)
We Are The 53%
What's really "amazing"
Submitted by HockeyKid on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 11:34am.
is your capacity to COMPLETELY miss the point of every article on which you comment.
It's really astonishing. My congratulations on your consistency. You truly are a master of the liberal tactic of "change the subject and attack". One of these times you really should try to get the point.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Shoot it doesn't amaze at all when a liberal misses
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 11:47am.
any point and/or focus of a discussion, hence why they're liberal. If they were trying to have an open and honest debate they would stay on point but they can't. Their ideology and whole state of being is a farce... they know it but are too childish to admit it. So here we are with liberal dolts like catheter;)
gman---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 10:39pm.
"catheter".
LMAO.
Thanks.
MD
Thanks matt!
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 9:33am.
It's the best I could do on such short notice;)
~I love how liberals are fine with being treated
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 3:53pm.
like sh!t, as long as it's by other liberals. Remember the guy stuffed in a closet at a Biden fundraiser? He would have had an apopletic fit if a Repub had imprisoned him in a closet for hours, but since liberals did it, it was funny.
"While I was in the closet, getting impatient and annoyed, I snapped a picture with my cell phone and e-mailed it to my editor, Bob Shaw, explaining that this is where I was at, and this is why I wouldn’t be filing anything about the party before the speeches. He wrote up an item and posted it, with the picture, on this blog. His post was a bit snarky. He likes snarky. So do I. I thought it was funny. The post and picture also ran in the Orlando Sentinel newspaper the next morning, along with my write-up of Biden’s speech. People told me they thought it was funny."
He downplayed the hell out of it, pretending that reporters get treated like that all the time. In China, maybe. Idiot.
Apostasy
Submitted by Tjexcite on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 6:10pm.
Liberals treat apostates to their side only a little better than Muslim apostates to Islam. Loyalty to ones side is more mportant than the truth.
It isn't unethical...
Submitted by sherlock1 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 11:32pm.
to be partisan, just like NewsBusters is, and like many organizations on the other side of the partisan divide are too. What is unethical is to be partisan, but hide behind a false front of non-partisanship, like much of the national media does. The existance of open partisanship on the right does not justify the pervasive false non-partisanship on the left. I know liberalism and logic don't mix well, but really this is pretty simple.
This is the reason why I
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 12:47am.
This is the reason why I don't get quite as upset over what is said by Tingles the Clown and his fellow circus folk with their opinion shows on MSNBC - beyond the stupidity and insanity of them all. They are, after all, as infuriating or hilarious as they are - opinion shows. I reserve my real concern and anger over the political opinion and liberal support that masquerades as "news" by "journalists" on their "news" shows. That's where the real damage is done to the truth. How can a nation survive when the electorate is fed false and tainted information?
It only takes a quarter of a brain...
Submitted by Bill Brasky on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 11:40pm.
To see through the overwhelming media bias in this country. These dip shit a-hole liberals in the media convinced most of the stupid people in this country to vote for Obama. And for that, they should be held accountable. In the most painful way possible.
Have you ever tried posting
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 12:41am.
without swearing?
It only takes a quarter of a brain to post without sounding like an ignorant fool.
We Are The 53%
Go ahead...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 12:39am.
David
and
connect
the
dots...