... and the manufacturing of news. Over at Q&O Blog, Bruce McQuain takes note of an AP reporter contorting the speech of Secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfield, in what can only be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent both content and meaning (HT: Hugh Hewitt):
In example one, it is apparent, at least to me, that Rumsfeld wasn't at all accusing anyone of anything. He was instead saying these questions need to be asked and answered by everyone, to include those who disagree with the administration. But there isn't an accusation against anyone within that portion of his speech.
Example two shows no "accusation" with the phrase "moral and intellectual confusion." In fact he's talking about our military when he uses the phrase. "Moral confusion" is also found in the speech where he discussed the history leading up to WWII. However it is never addressed to the administration's critics.
Additionally, "courage" is found one time in the speech and it is addressing something completely different ("And one day, a future speaker may reflect back on this time of historic choice — remembering the questions raised as to our country’s courage, dedication, and willingness to continue this fight until we have prevailed.". Nowhere is anyone "accused" of "lacking the courage to fight back."
And there's more. Bruce further notes how other news agencies picked up the AP report and ran it today, unedited, and uncorroborated. Might we ask, how reliable are the portions of news that are left unchecked? If AP and Reuters manufactured tires, I dare say their names would be far more notorious than Bridgestone/Firestone.