To show the feeding frenzy that is the MSM -- as well as the constant inaccuracy -- reports abounded yesterday with rebukes to Rudy Giuliani from Democratic candidates for the 2008 Presidential election over something they all merely assumed he said at a campaign appearance.
Every single paper out there quoted the stern rebukes of each of the front running Dem. candidates and nearly every source of MSM news, from TV to the internet, repeated what it was that Rudy "said" to force the rebukes.
Unfortunately for all concerned, it appears that Rudy never said the phrase attributed to him.
Yet, not a soul in the MSM (except Fox's Brit Hume) took the time to do the research necessary to fact check and assure the story was correct.
The original phrase came from a single source; Roger Simon at The Politico. Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win
Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.
Notice that the sentence above does not contain quotes? Notice that this is the distilled interpretation of the writer, and NOT a quote from Rudy?
After the Politico story the MSM took the claims up with a relish, seeking comment from all the Dem candidates that they then rushed to report. The Boston Globe, ABC News, CBS News, The Washington Post and more rushed their stories to publication. The New York Times even massaged the quotes down to single words to try and make it appear that Rudy was saying what they wanted him to say.
But, Brit Hume got to the hub of the matter, showing that the press and the Dems are attacking Rudy for something he didn't quite say.
Democrats Jump on Rudy Giuliani for Something He Didn't Say
Washington woke up to morning headlines that Rudy Giuliani predicted a "new 9-11" if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008. Barack Obama responded that Giuliani has "taken the politics of fear to a new low." John Edwards said Giuliani's comments were "divisive and plain wrong." And Hillary Clinton called it "political rhetoric" that would not lessen the threat of terrorism.
The problem is Giuliani never said what the headlines claimed. It all started with a story in The Politico newspaper, which contained not a single quote to support its lead and headline. But it got picked up elsewhere nonetheless.
What Giuliani actually did say is what he has been saying for weeks, that Democrats would play defense instead of offense in the War on Terror, the same approach tried back before 9/11.
Rudy is a smarter candidate than to come right out and say that the USA would suffer another 9/11 if a Democrat was elected. He does say enough that would lead the listener to that conclusion, but it is not a conclusion Rudy says directly.
Yet, on the strength of one non-attributed claim of what Rudy "said" the MSM goes off on a feeding frenzy of Rudy rebukes, never once checking if Rudy really even said what was reported.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So if Giuliani was "plai
April 26, 2007 - 07:46 ET by Hero SquadSo if Giuliani was "plain wrong," as Edwards said, based upon what Giuliani actually said that night, am I to assume that the Democratic candidates will be taking an offensive approach to the war on terror?
Why do I seriously doubt that?
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
You must have missed it.
April 26, 2007 - 09:08 ET by heldmywYou must have missed it. Harry Reid declared the war "lost", but I understand he still supports the loser troops who lost it...
Now THAT's the kind of leadership that'll keep this country safe! Go Dems!
<sarc/off>
HSThis focus starts to get
April 26, 2007 - 13:26 ET by JDWHS
This focus starts to get us there. What are the dems doing to protect America? They have all the numbers in congress.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
If you are going to whine about spelling... get a life
Rudy just told the truth whic
April 26, 2007 - 07:52 ET by Gat New YorkRudy just told the truth which was the politics of reality - not fear.
MSM
April 26, 2007 - 07:55 ET by m_zeplinThe MSM doesn't need facts. It's very obvious, they are a propaganda machine for the left. If you say something, get others to repeat your statement, people will believe it's true. They may not do news right but they spew their view very well.
Rudy never actually said it
April 26, 2007 - 08:22 ET by motherbeltRudy never actually said it???? Details, details. <sarc> You know he meant that.<sarc off>
Liberals drive me nuts (Hey, now there's a good tag line!) When one of them gets criticized, it's always "politics of personal destruction" or "politics of fear." When they get caught saying something stupid, they claim that one word was left out, so it's not an accurate quote, or that it was "taken out of context."
When someone on the other side says something, they feel free to extrapolate.
Rush makes this comment about
April 26, 2007 - 07:59 ET by msh1973Rush makes this comment about himself as well...the msm attributes a certain statement to him but they never actually check the transcript to see if in fact he said what they are accusing him of. Dirty tricks!
The perfect example of group
April 26, 2007 - 08:06 ET by USA4freedomThe perfect example of group think…
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagn- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
According to the Democrats
April 26, 2007 - 08:09 ET by jiminjerseyAccording to the Democrats there isn't a War on Terror. Didn't they just send out a memo banning the phrases "the war on terrorism" and the "global war on terrorism" from any legislation? Yes they did. So how do you go on the offensive in war you don't recognize?
The memo from the House Committee on Armed Services is here (on page 11 of 15).
Or you can use this agrument...
Didn't the democrats in the house yesterday vote to end the offensive on the Iraq front against the war on terror? If you are not on offense you are on defense, so doesn't their vote advocate their position of being on defense?
Yeah, and now let's all wait
April 26, 2007 - 08:16 ET by BeowulfYeah, and now let's all wait for the rush of retractions... Okay, maybe not...
The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers
Maybe it will be tonight duri
April 26, 2007 - 08:23 ET by Gat New YorkMaybe it will be tonight during their first debate - one could only hope that these worthless cowards diss America's Mayor on national television.
What 'd he say?
April 26, 2007 - 08:24 ET by kbworkmanWell looks like the liberal establisments propaganda wing is in full motion, and the dems are piling on the band wagon.
At least they had a QUOTE from Imus, not some liberal propagandists TAKE on what the Giuliani meant.
I wonder if all these people are going to apologize for the slander. Stating the facts is part of freedom of the press. Disseminating misinformation is a tool of propaganda.
No wonder so many people are losing confidence in the MSM. Now the Dem candidates are eating from the same trough. They are no more credible.
They should have checked the info before they jumped on the band wagon, but then as in Hillary's case, we know she hasn't done her home work in the past. She voted for the war, but now says she was mislead. If she had actually read the information provided to her instead of just being briefed on it, she might have made a different decision. Just the kind of mind we need in the oval office.
Notice
April 26, 2007 - 08:43 ET by allanfDo you notice how the Democrats feign outrage and insult? Well Hillary, Barack and li'l Johnny, if you can't handle one from Rudy how will you deal with an enemy that viscerally hates you and wants to kill Americans with every fiber of its being.
The more the MSM harps on this, the better it is for Rudy
These articles violate two r
April 26, 2007 - 08:51 ET by KC MulvilleThese articles violate two rules. First, leading with the criticism is inherently biased. Second, if you allow the critic to address the speaker, but you don't allow the speaker to address the critic, that's also inherently biased.
In the Boston Globe article, it isn't until the seventh paragraph that the writer mentions what the critics are criticizing. By then, the reader has been told several times that Giuliani's comments were offensive. Also, the reporters never allow Giuliani to respond to the critics. If you have two sides to a story, but you only allow one side to directly address the other, that's like a court trial where the prosecution isn't allowed to cross-examine the defense witnesses. It's inherently unfair.
If it's a clear opinion piece, then you can understand it. When you read an opinion piece, you expect the writer to push you into agreement. But these articles presume to be straight reporting. These articles push the reader. Maybe it's time to push back.
Agreed. And that is why we ha
April 26, 2007 - 08:59 ET by Warner Todd HustonAgreed. And that is why we have Newsbusters!
So once again the MSM uses th
April 26, 2007 - 09:05 ET by dscottSo once again the MSM uses the standard lib tactic: It's the seriousness of the charge, not the substance of the facts that is at issue.
And when the MSM is exposed continually for engaging in such tactics they wonder why they are loosing market share to Fox News and the alternate media??? This only demonstrates that the MSM is not interested in a successful business model of journalistic integrity of reporting the facts, just a successful propaganda campaign. Part of journalistic integrity is competence.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
So the MSM unvails their stra
April 26, 2007 - 09:17 ET by bassndudeSo the MSM unvails their strategy for covering the candidates. This is how the republicans, (conservative or not), will be covered. It will be the things that the media wishes that they had said, not what they said. And the dems will be covered for any gaffs they may make. The MSM will see to that.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
"...with a Democratic pr
April 26, 2007 - 09:43 ET by Chidi Nwachukhu"...with a Democratic president, we will have more losses and it will go on longer.” Gee, everyone is totally misinterpreting that. He clearly isn't saying that voting for a Democrat will lead to more losses and a longer war on Radical Islam. And Rudi definitely didn't mention Sept 11 at all. Can you tell me what the definition of "is" is? That being said, I don't see a verbatim quote, but if you don't think that he is clearly implying that Democrat Prez means more 9/11 attacks, then you are blind and stupid .
Chidi...that is not the issue
April 26, 2007 - 09:47 ET by bassndudeChidi...that is not the issue here. The fact that the MSM is trying to make it look like he said the dems will create another 9-11 is what is a issue. The fact that libs misquote a presidental candidate and twist his words is what is at issue. No matter what he said. Besides, had he said it, he'd have been right.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
What do you think he meant by
April 26, 2007 - 09:54 ET by Chidi NwachukhuWhat do you think he meant by "more losses"? To me, the furor here about Rudy's commments are on par with the Left complaining about the media repeating over and ove that Obama doesn't have any real platform. I think the media is mostly right on both sides.
Chidi, the fact that you are
April 26, 2007 - 09:58 ET by Warner Todd HustonChidi, the fact that you are interpreting and NOT quoting Rudy proves this post is correct and that you are doing the same thing the MSM is doing. ASSuming.
None of the articles I have s
April 26, 2007 - 10:11 ET by Chidi NwachukhuNone of the articles I have seen claim to quote Rudy, so this whole thread is weak. That is my point. And if I couldn't read and comprehend things, I might as well be Rosie.
Welcome to NewsBusters, Rosie.
April 26, 2007 - 10:14 ET by Dave RAnd if I couldn't read and comprehend things, I might as well be Rosie.
Welcome to NewsBusters, Rosie.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
Are we really surprised tha
April 26, 2007 - 09:56 ET by charlietexasAre we really surprised that the MSM is lying?? Are we really surprised that the democrats would keep the lying going?? Some of you voted for these liberals the last election or didn't vote at all...You reap what you sew.
wake up.....we have another election coming up.
If Drudge hadn't headlined it
April 26, 2007 - 10:08 ET by NoMoreClintonsIf Drudge hadn't headlined it yesterday morning it wouldn't have stirred the pot like this.
Drudge is nothing more than e-tabloid journalism but funny how the msm gives him such credence. I was visiting an old friend recently who is an anchorman. We were in the newsroom and he must have checked Drudge about 6 times in the 10 minutes we were sitting there talking. Amazing.
The Democratic candidates did
April 26, 2007 - 10:15 ET by ding7777The Democratic candidates did not react to Roger Simon's ( The Politico) "fake" Rudy comment - they reacted to what Rudy did say:
I take it that you agree wi
April 26, 2007 - 10:24 ET by MightyMouthI take it that you agree with Rudy? I know I do.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Ding, I see nothing but truth
April 26, 2007 - 10:26 ET by bassndudeDing, I see nothing but truth in what you have quoted. And must be you dident listen to Obama respond.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Don't Tell Anybody, But
April 26, 2007 - 11:56 ET by Junk Science Skeptic"We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot
Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation ..."
Are these not the very promises that every Dem proudly makes when they're talking to a leftwing audience?
Why is it so wrong for Rudy to remind folks exactly what the Dems are promising?
Rudy might not have offered the conclusion that a Dem prez would mean more 9/11 attacks, but everybody with a brain knows that's the case, hence all of the uproar.
Whether implied or explicitly stated, the truth hurts.
Hunter/Giuliani 2008
So Krazy Keith Olberloon will
April 26, 2007 - 11:44 ET by nicksmith112So Krazy Keith Olberloon will do a 1 hour show apologizing to Rudy?
After all he spent a lot of time last night attacking Rudy over something he never said.