Why is Charles Black's interviewer getting a free pass?

by kingsbridge77, Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:54:44 AM EST

why is Charles Black's interviewer getting a free pass?

Why is the journalist getting a pass for asking Charlie Black who would benefit from a terrorist attack?

The LA Times reported:

Then, the longtime political pro got a bit too honest. Asked about the political impact of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied: "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him."

The issue of terrorism  is very sensitive, because human lives are involved, and this is why Charly Black has taken a beating.
But what about the journalist who thought this would be an issue worth discussing? By asking the question, he implicitly conveyed the message that it is fair game to analyze what political ramifications a terrorist attack on the United States would have on McCain and Obama.

If say, Brian Williams asked Elizabeth Dole if she would dare have sex with a horse, and she answered yes, would it be prudent to ONLY attack Dole without demanding an explanation from the interviewer as to why in the world he asked that obviously inappropriate question?

Journalists seldom attack other journalists, and the Democratic leadership doesn't want to create tension with the press either.

This is why journalists get a pass, being on the winning side of the double standard that  allows them to say things that Politicians can't.
The questionner should be held as accountable as Black has been, for playing politics with the issue of terrorism.




Tags: Charlie Black (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 38 Comments :: Post a Comment


And the press that is playing it up.. (2.00 / 2)

By that I mean. What's the big deal that black answered the question honestly. Was he hoping for the worst to happen to americans? does he control the terriorist organizations or does he have special powers to have them slip into the US and make such attacks?

Does anyone disgaree w/ his statement  " yeah an attack will he helpful to McCain ". I mean thats what the numbers have shown...

so he is answred honestly to his belief. Thats all...


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:08:00 AM EST

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

I don't agree with the CW that a terrorist attack would help the Republicans. I believe it would highlight their failure to make our country safe. Any kind of attack will only empahsize the fact that bin Laden is still running free 6 years after the attack.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:52:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (2.00 / 1)

unfortunately for you , according to numbers polled , you're in the minority.


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:54:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

I hope we never find out if I'm right or wrong. Polls before the fact mean little, because we have no way of knowing how things would play out.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:42:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (2.00 / 1)

so does that mean we would stop seeing you in dairies that speak of obama's lead in polls? or is it when it does not play in our favor only...


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

The only comments I've ever made about polls showing Obama up or down is that polls this far out are pretty meaningless. Try again.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:55:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (2.00 / 1)

like saying how the newsweek poll would be so helpful in McCain not getting donors?


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

Glad you took the time to review some of my comments. Hope they enlightened you. Unfortunately, it seems you have reading comprehension problems. Mentioning the effect a poll might have on people has nothing to do with whether the poll is valid. Of course, you were only looking for any comment I had made about a poll, whether it supported your point or not.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

I should say, the only comments I've made about the validity of polls...


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:10:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

BTW, why is it unfortunate for me to be in the minority?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:43:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (2.00 / 1)

read again, slowly ( and repeat if it helps)---

would you prefer me to say FORTUNATELY for you - you're in the minority.


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:50:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

unfortunately for you , according to numbers polled , you're in the minority.

Why is being in the minority unfortunate for me? As is so often the case, you make no sense.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:57:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (2.00 / 1)

read again , once again and slower...from the beginning of your comment history .

your position was that an attack would not be helpful to the repubs.

Unfortunately for you , your position is in the minority...  

simple , clear statement.


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:11:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

I ask you one more time, why is being in the minority unfortunate for me? If being in the minority is unfortunate, you must really be unfortunate, because you are in the minority on almost every issue in this campaign.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:14:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

I suppose Barack is unfortunate that he is in the minority among Democratic candidates. After all, he is the only one that won, all of the others are losers. Damn, how unfortunate for him.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

your position was that an attack would not be helpful to the repubs.

Unfortunately for you , your position is in the minority...  

simple , clear statement.

It is unfortunate, of course, for all Democrats, progressives, and reasonable people everywhere that such an attack would be perceived as helping the Republican candidate.  So when you say "Unfortunately for you", it is clear that you don't mean him personally, but you mean "Unfortunately for the Democrats."

And, your repeated phrasing of your simple, clear statement in that way seems a tacit admission on your part of being a Republican troll.  Otherwise, it wouldn't be "Unfortunately for you," it would be "Unfortunately for us."


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (2.00 / 1)

I waiting for some dumbass to come back and turn  it into you're a republican because you said those words...

If I believe as cited in polls it is true that it will help republicans among GE voters...

and you believe it not to be true I.e opposing view

Unfortunately for YOU view YOUR OPINION is in the minority among GE voters- per polls! Unless you like being in the minority ...

Nothing to do w/ democrats or republicans. Its about GE voters and what has been consistently polled going back to the  2004 election too.


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:30:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (2.00 / 1)

Unless you like being in the minority ... i.e your opinion being there.


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:32:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

Wading through the incoherence, I still find nothing that explains why it isn't unfortunate for you that opinion polls show an R advantage on that issue; but gosh, thanks for the dumbass comment.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (2.00 / 1)

some day we all wish we could be so coherent in subjugating every word to fit your standard one theme wonder hit -- "you're a republican."

Kinda reminds of that book from jeff foxworthy" you are a redneck if..." - comic relief


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (2.00 / 1)

Kinda along the theme:  You might be a Republican if...poll numbers that are unfortunate for Democrats are not unfortunate for you.

Hey, I like this game.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:17:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (2.00 / 1)

does this run in your family or is comic relief exclusive to you?


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:45:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

It's not just that he answered it, it's the way he seemingly did so: gleefully.  He could have easily said "I haven't thought about it," or "That's not an appropriate discussion" or "I really don't know."  Failing that, he could have at least said, "Well, I think some people might think it would help McCain, but I hope it never happens" or "You know, it might remind some people that McCain is strong on defense, but I hope it never happens."  

I haven't seen the clip, so I don't know how out of context the quote is.  But I really dislike the fact that he seems so flippant about it.  Like he was saying "Oh, of course it helps McCain if Americans are killed...duh"


by ProgressiveDL on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:08:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

How is it that you haven't seen the clip, but you know that he was gleeful about it?

If we all want to pretend that the real criticism is that Black didn't say the magic words "God forbid" or whatever, then fine.  But in actuality, the criticism is that Charlie Black supposedly brought up an offensive topic, when he was really just answering a reporter's question.

I don't like Charlie Black one bit, or John McCain either for that matter, but I'm honest enough to admit that the media totally sandbagged the guy on this one.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:29:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the press that is playing it up.. (none / 0)

For me, it's that he didn't say "god forbid" or "I hope that never happens, obviously."  I haven't seen a clip because I don't know if one exists.  If it does, I'll be happy to take a look and reconsider.

But based on his comments as printed, he looks gleeful.  The "certainly" is the part that makes me pissed.  Like, "Oh yeah, certainly it helps us, hell yeah.  Yeah, definitely."  It's a bit too gungho for my tastes.  I don't have a problem with him answering the question, I have a problem with the way he (seemingly) did.


by ProgressiveDL on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:42:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is Charles Black's interviewer getting a f (none / 0)

(Disclaimer my opinion only and have no facts to back it up)

I thought it was a fair question since I believe the Republican side has already played politics with terrorism. So asking his thoughts on whether McCain benefits from an attack I thought was fair game.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:20:05 AM EST

Re: Why is Charles Black's interviewer getting a f (none / 0)

Yes, fair question. But the reply by Black is what has caused a furor in the MSM.
Personally, I'm glad to see some address the "journalist's" question; not because I support Black's reply, but because I don't, emphatically, support sensationalist "journalism", the new standard of America's MSM.
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Honestly... (none / 0)

...I don't think it helps McCain all that much because it ties Republicans more closely with terrorism, and if we're getting attacked, it means they've failed, so it's interesting to hear Black say that it would help.

I thought it was a fair question, but the media's response was overblown.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:26:56 AM EST

Re: Why is Charles Black's interviewer (none / 0)

When someone asks a question like that, the proper response is, "I prefer not to speculate on that."  In my opinion, it was a fair question.


by rfahey22 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:28:46 AM EST

Re: Why is Charles Black's interviewer (2.00 / 1)

You mean like we answer " america is less safe ( code word for " in danger") because of the war in Iraq.

What's the difference ?


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:51:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is Charles Black's interviewer (none / 0)

The difference is that the person answering the first question sounds like an opportunist who would be willing to exploit a terrorist attack for political gain.  It's crass and self-serving.


by rfahey22 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is Charles Black's interviewer (2.00 / 1)


To exploit 1st you need have those sentiments reside.

again -- whats the difference when we say basically that we will be attacked because of Iraq. Are we also not playing the fear card..


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:11:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is Charles Black's interviewer (none / 0)

I don't think anyone has said that we will be attacked because of Iraq, they've said we have fewer resources to prevent an attack.  And, no, the Black comment was not about the fear card per se.  It was about exploiting a future tragedy for electoral gain.


by rfahey22 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is Charles Black's interviewer (2.00 / 1)

I don't get why it's a "fair question," if the only point of asking it is to test whether the respondent is tactful enough to give the "proper response."

I don't think it's fair at all to ask a question with the intention of criticizing anyone who dares to answer honestly.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:31:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is Charles Black's interviewer (none / 0)

That kind of pounce-attack questioning happens all the time against Democrats.  "So, why don't you wear a flag pin?  You must hate America."  "So, Hillary, about those tears..."  


by ProgressiveDL on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:44:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is Charles Black's interviewer (none / 0)

Another great example: ask what happens in an implausible hypothetical, like if Iran nukes Israel, and watch everyone get outraged at hearing a perfectly reasonable response.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:28:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is Charles Black's interview (none / 0)

It's a fair question.  I wonder why you are attacking a journalist who asked a question.


by Lawyerish on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:52:04 AM EST

Re: Why is Charles Black's interview (none / 0)

How can it be a fair question when there's only one possible answer that won't be interpreted as outrageous?


by kingsbridge77 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:01:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: