Comments on: Why Obama is like Sully Sullenberger

By: jjburch

jjburch — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:41:07 +0000

I’m clearly going to lose in the battle to cite facts here. I’ll bow before you on that point. Although, despite having covered Bush’s AIDS policy in Africa, I wonder where in the NYT that ended up. Surely not above the fold, if even on the front page?

I think what I took issue with — and, again, I consider myself left-of-center — was the initial assertion that somehow the left was free of blame where it comes to beating up on the opposition. I heard no end of people in my political circle — and if I’m being honest, myself included — who expressed no end of glee when Bush was on the ropes. And MSNBC’s enjoyment of the same has been well-known for awhile now.

But you’re right that I cannot cite specifics where left-leaning media has lied. However, I don’t concede that it hasn’t happened. Certainly those on the right would assert it has already, for years even. I think so much depends on one’s perspective.

I have a cousin in the government who worked under Rumsfeld and despite our disagreements, the one thing he and I came together on was that this country has become more and more partisan — in his words, “closer than he’s ever seen to another Civil War” — and how damaging it’s been.

Hopefully Obama’s greatest legacy is his ultimate ability to calmly rise above it all. And in that way, perhaps he is like Captain Sullenberger after all.

By: Paul Tullis

Paul Tullis — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:50:59 +0000

I agree that both sides love to watch the other side fail and I don’t believe I suggested otherwise. I’m not trying to be argumentative either, and I agree that I think we’ve exhausted this line of discussion, but I can’t let a factual error pass. The Bush AIDS program in Africa was covered by the NY Times 7 times during the month in which the article you cite appeared. What was less reported, if memory serves, is that much of the money Bush slated for AIDS relief in Africa came from funds that had been earmarked for malaria-eradication efforts. So the net benefit of Bush’s African aid policy is debatable. Cheers, PT

By: jjburch

jjburch — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:05:01 +0000

I will give you an example (much as I hate to defend the administration of the former president): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/georgebush.usa

This was an underreported story to say the least, most left-wing publications choosing to ignore it altogether. Was it a “lie by omission”? No. Was it conveniently ignored by the MSM. Absolutely.

Look, I’m not trying to get into a fight with you. I just think that by and large, both sides love to watch the other side fail. To suggest otherwise is to reveal one’s own true partisanship and therefore cede honesty on the issue. I’m done.

By: Paul Tullis

Paul Tullis — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:46:52 +0000

As I said, I’d like to see specific examples of liberal media lying outright or by omission, or examples of media or politicians engaging in anything close to the demonizing and dehumanizing that Republicans exercise every day.

By: jjburch

jjburch — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:32:57 +0000

I am a liberal, but I have to take issue with the statement “openness and truth-telling are central to liberalism”. I think that’s something we like to tell ourselves, but if we’re being honest, we can hold no more claim to transparency or honesty than conservatives can. Both sides either lie outright, or by omission; both sides demonize and dehumanize the other. Unfortunately, the only real truth nowadays in media is that there appear to be many truths that are accepted as such by the consumers of said media. Partisans seek out partisan media and decry the abuses of the “other side”. And it’s all so tiring, isn’t it?

By: Paul Tullis

Paul Tullis — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:45:15 +0000

I was referring to the situation Obama’s been thrown into, not his response. I agree that the White House and Congressional leadership have at times been timid, flaccid and inept. But they are trying to govern, and in the face of unremitting, uncompromising opposition that adheres only to the principle of opposition for it’s own sake, whereas Republicans when in power are expressly interested in _not_ governing (see: constant paeans to “small government”, dismantling of FEMA, inactivity of OSHA and DOJ’s Office of Civil Rights etc.). When doing nothing is a core element of your ideology it’s easy to claim success.

I do not agree that many liberals have engaged in the same rhetorical devices as conservatives. Openness and truth-telling are central to liberalism, whereas conservatism as currently practiced focusses only on acquisition of power, honesty be damned (see: Iraq’s WMD, Nigerian yellowcake, etc.) The WSJ editorial page provides an almost-daily demonstration of this. I’d challenge you to show me 10 NY Times editorials containing falsehoods (by omission or commission) or rhetorical inconsistency, like that I’ve outlined here and elsewhere on this blog, during Republicans’ control of the White House and Congress. I could give you 10 from the Journal in 2009 alone.

It’s also relevant that there is mo major daily paper that is as far left as the Journal is far right.

Thanks for reading.

By: Tweets that mention Paul Tullis - The Green of Green – Why Obama is like Sully Sullenberger - True/Slant -- Topsy.com

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:56:24 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Solar Power, John Power. John Power said: Paul Tullis – The Green of Green – Why Obama is like Sully … http://bit.ly/4FnLJY [...]

By: par4

par4 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:11:19 +0000

Sorry but that’s a terrible analogy. Sully and his crew acted instantly,decisively and successfully. Obama and the Dems not even close.

By: jjburch

jjburch — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:00:39 +0000

I agree, but then didn’t the left do the same thing when Bush was in office? It did. Truth is, the opposition party, if completely unable to block the party in charge, is reduced to what you describe. It’s always been the same.