Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » America's most trusted Newscaster (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: America's most trusted Newscaster
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A (questionable) on-line poll was taken last month that indicated that Jon Stewart was the most trusted Newscaster in America Time magazine poll .

He's a television comic, his show is on Comedy Central, but at the same time I find that he asks more meaningful questions in his interviews than for what I see on the mainstream media.

A recent article in the New Yorker documents why conservatives come on Stewart's show.

And although there were some jokes and sparring that may or may not be to your taste, he got to some essential truths with one of those leading the charge that the Obama Administration's health care plans with threaten the long term care of the elderly. McCaughey had done many interviews with the media, she was treated as a legitimate "talking head" on this issue, and yet look at what happens when a semi-prepared comedian asks her real questions based on the substance of her arguments Betsy McCaughey interview

And merely by the power of words (there was no smear job, she had an opportunity to answer his questions and - well, you can see by her responses) she suddenly was shown for what she was, and as a result loses her board seat

Until I see many people in the media asking real questions and demanding real answers, I will believe that we have a flawed media - biased not liberal or conservative so much as biased in favor of shallow surface trivia that enables the blusterers to get away with BS.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rightleft22
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for rightleft22   Email rightleft22   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We have a biased media in favor of entertainment. It's about market share not news.

Of all the fears were told to fear.
The failure of the fourth estate is number one on my list

[ August 21, 2009, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: rightleft22 ]

Posts: 935 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He swings hard and when he gets hit back he hides behind his comedian facade. He talks like he's a real commentator until he gets in trouble, and then he makes a joke in front of a sympathetic audience. It's dishonest and cowardly. He's a compelling sham.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
He swings hard and when he gets hit back he hides behind his comedian facade. He talks like he's a real commentator until he gets in trouble, and then he makes a joke in front of a sympathetic audience. It's dishonest and cowardly. He's a compelling sham.

Yes, I've heard this criticism of him before from many sources. I think it's fair to say that he dances like a butterfly and stings like a bee, moving between biting observation and comedic deflections. It's a game, and the rules are rigged in his favor. Nevertheless, he is an extremely quick wit and it's a pleasure to watch him discombobulate someone. I think he does not suffer fools, and I like him for it. I would read the above link on Why Conservatives Come On Jon Stewart's Show... it captures the idea.

[ August 21, 2009, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He's certainly clever, and that's exactly why he's a bad political commentator; he uses strong tactics to drive home weak arguments.

He's pretty much the definition of a sophist.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I assert that his questioning in this interview was better than any other reporting/questioning I had seen on the controversy over the health care plan. Does anyone believe that his questioning was unfair? Does anyone defend Betsy McCaughey? Can anyone explain why she got a free ride from all of her media interviews before she went on Jon Stewart?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
He swings hard and when he gets hit back he hides behind his comedian facade. He talks like he's a real commentator until he gets in trouble, and then he makes a joke in front of a sympathetic audience. It's dishonest and cowardly. He's a compelling sham.

Yeah. If he wants to be taken seriously he should act like a real pundit and cut the other guy's microphone whenever things get tough [Smile]
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rallan:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
He swings hard and when he gets hit back he hides behind his comedian facade. He talks like he's a real commentator until he gets in trouble, and then he makes a joke in front of a sympathetic audience. It's dishonest and cowardly. He's a compelling sham.

Yeah. If he wants to be taken seriously he should act like a real pundit and cut the other guy's microphone whenever things get tough [Smile]
<Cue audience laughter.>

This is the sort smug sarcastic nonsense Stewart says. It doesn't actually make a point, it just stupid.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, sophist or smug (and Jon can be both) his expressed views on most topics match mine pretty well. Meanwhile, it amuses me that you don't see the irony in taking a comedian to task for venturing into serious political commentary amid a string of jokes.

That is ironic not only on many levels but in many spheres of relevance.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"This is the sort smug sarcastic nonsense Stewart says. It doesn't actually make a point, it just stupid."

No, it points out how he doesn't stoop to tactics actually used by those called "serious commentators".

Until you point out what was wrong with his questions to the McCaughey creature, since that;s the example we're discussing, or how anyone else came even close to the journalistic value he provided in his interview with her (and every show on TV has had a crack at the crackpot skank by now) I don't see how you have even a semblance of a point here.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don Hewitt was one of the best editors and producers.

It is telling that Fox has spent more airtime on his relavence and importance than anyone else in the media. Same went for Cronkite on his death. Except in the Discovery Channels case of credit they did run a marathon of Cronkites early work for the Discovery Channel

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is the sort smug sarcastic nonsense Stewart says. It doesn't actually make a point, it just stupid.
No, see, it does make a point. The point it makes is that Stewart's "competition" is less principled and less dogged than he is, and he's not even technically in the same industry.

We've had this conversation before, and yet -- a full year later -- you're still as wrong as you ever were on this point. [Smile]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It is telling that Fox has spent more airtime on his relavence and importance than anyone else in the media."

How do you even know that?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because I watched the vArious channels to see what the reaction was. Last night CBS gave Hewitt a proper send off. as liberal as he was Hewitt was a fair and accurate journalist and never let it cloud his producing or editorial roles. It is very telling that Fox adheres to his standards.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, Fox doesn't. Fox is a propaganda site that routinely distorts information to make a political point. For example, their recent use of a Conservative British MP to trash the British national Health Service - they didn't note that the vast majority of the British Conservative Party strongly favor National Health. Instead, they picked an outlyer and gave him airtime. With each of the recent Republican sex scandals, they have done such rinky-dink trash as listing the accused Senator or Representative with a (D) instead of an (R) in their title. They coordinated and promoted the Tea Parties, while giving dramatically less coverage (and non-promotional coverage) to immigration rallies the year before that included a vastly larger number of American citizens.

Several years after the occupation of Iraq, 85% of the viewers of Fox News believed that Saddam Hussein had possessed weapons of mass destruction (that was even a higher percentage than of Republicans as a whole). To believe that Fox's malicious lies are truth, you need to live in a world that is almost as warped as George Orwell's 1984.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And do you dare respond to my original posting here, where another hero of Fox and the Republicans is shown to be an embarrassing fraud?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you remove labels like comedy as being something inherently *separate* from serious journalism and commentary, the entire dispute about Stewart disappears.

What he does achieves a highly effective and uncannily reliable journalistic effect. He informs people. I learn more watching 3 minutes of Jon Stewart than an hour of (insert any major TV news show).

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stating Fox is a propaganda outlet says more about your personal bias and makes answering you question pointless.

Chris Wallace would be a person more journalists should aspire to be like.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, Fox doesn't. Fox is a propaganda site that routinely distorts information to make a political point.
I'll admit to having limited experience here, since I don't get Fox News and have only seen it from time to time. But from my observations, it seemed like a typical news channel, albeit with a slight rightward tilt. This seemed remarkable only insofar as it differed from the other networks which seemed to have a corresponding leftward tilt, with MSNBC being perhaps the biggest culprit in that regard.

I have seen nothing to suggest that Fox is more biased than, say, MSNBC.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And I'll repeat, since health care reform is prominent in this thread: I have YET to hear ONE sensible or credible argument against the variety of options floating through congress regarding health care reform. (Options, people, options. None of this is cast in stone yet the reps are casting it as a done and dirty deal'. There is, to my knowledge, not yet ONE health care reform bill actually up on the block to be VOTED upon.)

Not a single one.

Also, I have heard very fer positive alternatives from the Reps, who seem determined to make that 'Party of No' slogan stick.

Meanwhile, since Hitler comparisons have been frequently used of late, enough to make breaking Godwin's Rule so popular it's almost legal, I'll note that 911 happened nine years ago. If we timeline from 1914 to 1922 in place of the 8 years from 2001 to 2009, we find ourselves only a year away from America's version of this:
Hitler's 1923 Putsch

I love extremism, don't you? Also: rallies in beer halls! RIGHT ON!!!

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have seen nothing to suggest that Fox is more biased than, say, MSNBC.
You don't think systematically labeling republicans facing scandal, or out of favor, as democrats is more biased than what shows up on MSNBC?
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MSNBC et al are by no means pure, but compared to FOX... pass me some of that driven snow!
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Chris Wallace would be a person more journalists should aspire to be like.
Let me provide clear and compelling proof that Chris Wallace is propagandist and not a journalist. What would prove that to even the conservatives among us? Well, let's start with an transcript from Fox News, so there can be no argument about his words. Let's start with fawning treatment of the anti-Administration speaker (pre-coordinated softball questions like "You're also upset about another question in the booklet..."). In contrast, look at his tone with Duckworth.

But all of this is pale in comparison to the content. The issue in question is bogus - the Veteran's Department in the Bush Administration included in the VHA Handbook a reference to a guidebook called "Your life, your choices". During the entire Obama Administration this part of the VHA Handbook has been unchanged, carrying a reference that says under review. The Obama Administration re-released the handbook with some other changes, and Chris Wallace and Fox are trying to turn that into the Obama Administration's support for euthanasia of veterans. Elsewhere, Fox said VHA practitioners must give the guidebook to each of the 24 million vets they serve, there is no such requirement. Fox also claimed that Bush had banned the guide, but it was used literally from the start of the Bush administration through to the end (see website links at the bottom of this posting).

I invite you to read this yourselves and make your own judgment. What does it say about the judgment of those who believe that Chris Wallace is the model for journalism?

quote:
The following is a rush transcript of the August 23, 2009, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace." This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: We're going to do something different here today. Usually, we discuss the news, but today we're going to tell you about something you may never have heard about, what critics are calling the "death book."

It's a 52-page pamphlet the Department of Veterans Affairs is using right now in end-of-life counseling for the nation's 24 million veterans.

We're going to talk with Jim Towey, former director of faith-based initiatives in the Bush administration, who broke this story. And then we'll turn to Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of veterans affairs. Miss Duckworth insisted on being interviewed separately.

Mr. Towey, welcome to "FOX News Sunday."

JIM TOWEY, FORMER DIRECTOR OF FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: Great to be with you.

WALLACE: Let's start with an overview. What's wrong with this material, "Your Life, Your Choices," that the V.A. is using for end-of-life counseling right now?

In the article that you wrote in the Wall Street Journal in which you disclosed this, you say the message is clear, hurry up and die.

TOWEY: Well, the message that they want to communicate, I think, is if you have a stroke or if you have a coma situation that somehow your life has lost a little value and it may not be worth living anymore.

My problem with the document, Chris, is that the author of it is a proponent of assisted suicide. He's way out there on that issue. And the V.A. has been using this. A new directive just came out in July, urging providers to refer patients to it. So in my view, there should be a balanced treatment. And this is a slippery slope that kind of makes people — when you look at the document, it makes people feel like they're a burden and that they should do the decent thing and die.

WALLACE: All right. We're going to get to the specifics in this book in a second, but I want to ask you another general question.

President Obama calls talk of a government-run "death panel" a, quote, "extraordinary lie," but I want to put up what you said in your Wall Street Journal article this week.

You said the following, "When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?" Explain.

TOWEY: Well, I think the fear that Americans have is that somehow when they are fragile and they're vulnerable, and they're facing serious illness, that a discussion they're going to have with the doctor is going to be biased or tilted in some fashion.

Here you have the government that has a financial stake in the answers that they give, and I think a lot of people are afraid that somehow they're going to be steered toward a denial of care.

And I think that whole right to die movement, which Dr. Perlman has written about — I think that whole right to die movement means that the right to die is a right the poor will get. And I think a lot of people are afraid about it.

So whether there's "death panel" written in a law or not, the real issue is why would the V.A. be promoting a document written by an assisted suicide advocate that has such a — kind of an obsession with death and with pushing people, I think, in a direction to deny care.

WALLACE: All right. You are especially critical of this worksheet on page 21 of the book.

TOWEY: Right.

WALLACE: And I'm going to first tell the audience what's in it and then I'll talk to you about it.

Let's put up this page 21. It's called "What makes your life worth living?" and it asks the veteran to check off whether a variety of situations are difficult but acceptable, worth living but just barely, or not worth living.

And here are some of the situations. "I can no longer walk but get around in a wheelchair." "I live in a nursing home." "I am a severe financial burden on my family." "I cannot seem to shake the blues."

Mr. Towey, what's wrong with that?

TOWEY: The biggest problem is that when you go beyond those questions to the boxes you check, the first option you have, "it's difficult but acceptable," a lot of people with disabilities, a lot of people who have family members with stroke, find life beautiful. There's meaning and purpose. Sure, they're suffering, but their life hasn't been diminished by that illness.

I think there — if you were trying to be biased and fair, you'd have a box that starts off that says "My life is beautiful. Yes, I suffer, but I find meaning in it."

And I think the problem with this document, and it permeates the whole thing, is there's a bias toward a depression. And so when you see the one that says, for example, "I can't shake the blues," you can actually check the box that says "My life's not worth living."

Another one said if I can't go outside on my own, so you check a box, life's not worth living.

WALLACE: I guess one of the questions I have about it is why would those even be in a document about end of life? Usually people don't even contemplate end of life until they're in an irreversible coma.

Why would being in a nursing home or having to live in a wheelchair be a not-worth-living option?

TOWEY: Good question. I think advanced care planning's important. And there are a lot of great V.A. doctors and nurses out there providing superior care. So families need to talk about these issues well in advance of a deep decline in health.

My problem is when you treat individuals like their life has less worth because they have dementia, for example, I think that that's a dangerous slippery slope.

And when government has a financial stake in it, they shouldn't be talking about quality of life and kind of pushing people toward a predetermined conclusion.

WALLACE: You're also upset about another question in the booklet, and I want to put that up. "Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug?'"

TOWEY: Yeah. I think the word vegetable's demeaning. It's used three times in the document. And it kind of communicates somebody that's not human.

This is why I think the document is so fundamentally flawed that the V.A. ought to throw it out. They've had it out there kind of as a research tool, and then a few years ago they tried to push it and promote it — two years ago tried to push it and promote it, and now they're at it again, a July directive telling health care providers to refer patients to it.

WALLACE: All right. We're — you mentioned earlier one of the primary authors of the workbook, and this is a fellow named Dr. Robert Perlman. He's a member of the V.A. Center for Ethics in Health Care, and he's the — listed as the prime author in the document. Who is Dr. Perlman?

TOWEY: Well, that's a good question. A lot of Americans have never heard of him, and yet he's influenced the course of V.A. health care. He's written this document and he's an adviser.

I think he got the initial research grant with tax dollars to write this document, and — and I — and he's been an advocate for assisted suicide both in a U.S. Supreme Court case where he filed an amicus brief but in other writings where he was a contributor to a book about physician- aided killing.

So I think — I think the problem is in America there's a lot of people that wrestle with care-giving issues and with serious illness. We should be encouraging people to have a hopeful vision.

When a veteran comes back from Iraq, they shouldn't be given a book like this. They should be encouraged to talk about their preferences on how they can maintain their dignity, because that's what I think America owes them.

WALLACE: Now, in fairness, the book also offers other ideas and statements for veterans to consider, and let's put those on the screen. "My life should be prolonged as long as it can, no matter what its quality and using any means possible."

And then there's this. "I believe that it is always wrong to withhold, not start, treatments that could keep me alive." Mr. Towey, aren't both sides presented?

TOWEY: There's — There are lines like that in the book, but if — a fair reading of the book — just looking at the cases they give as examples, where the woman that has the stroke says, "I don't want to live if I can't take care of myself," and — and then when you look in the back of the book, Chris, who do they refer you to?

The 2007 edition said go to Compassion Choices. That's the Hemlock Society. The 1997 version referred you to an organization that was the American Euthanasia Society. I think the bias of the document's clear. Why would Americans be given such a poor document, a poor planning tool, on a subject so important?

WALLACE: Now, we need to point out that those references which were in the '97 edition and the 2007 edition are not in the edition that is currently being circulated at the Veterans Administration.

TOWEY: That's right. They pulled that page after we raised concerns about it, and I think it wasn't just aging with dignity. It was a lot of individuals in America that I think when they saw that in the V.A. system, they're thinking, "Why are they referring me to the Hemlock Society?"

WALLACE: All right. You were instrumental, as you point out, back in 2007 — you had left the Bush White House by then. You'd been the head of faith-based initiative for four years.

But in 2007, the V.A. tried to put this out and make this a tool that was widely distributed to veterans. You were instrumental in getting it stopped and put up on a shelf. What happened?

TOWEY: Well, I think that President Bush was — and his administration were very surprised to hear that this document has moved so far through the V.A. chain of command and was about to be approved. The secretary there didn't even know about it.

That's the fear Americans have, of course, is these bureaucracies have a way of getting something out there like this that people don't even know about, Congress never heard of.

So when I raised it with the Bush White House, they said, "This isn't a vision of life. People have their dignity. They're endowed with that. It's not lost when they get dementia or stroke," and so they pulled it.

WALLACE: So after President Bush suspended the use of this document, why did the Obama administration last month reinstate it?

TOWEY: Good question. I don't fault President Obama on this yet, because I suspect he was like President Bush and knew nothing about it. The question is why hasn't it been pulled from their Web site now.

To put a statement up after the Wall Street Journal piece came out that says this document is currently being revised — that just tells me they're in a damage control mode. What they should be doing is pulling the document and then revise this — this order that told physicians to refer patients to it.

WALLACE: Finally, you have been involved with end-of-life issues for years. You worked in an AIDS home back in the '80s. You have written an end-of-life document yourself called "Five Wishes," which is widely used around the country.

In the course of this controversy in the last couple of days, V.A. officials are suggesting that you want the government to buy and use your book.

TOWEY: They can if they want. Millions of Americans do. But that's not what this is about. That's a not-for-profit, Aging With Dignity.

I want Americans to have access to a document that treats their life with respect, that's not pushing them to hurry up and die, that's not guilt-tripping them, that's not saying that if you can't shake the blues maybe your life's not worth living.

It's the pressure, Chris, and it's wrong for government to do it. There's so many documents out there that help families plan for and discuss end-of-life care.

People should access the one they're comfortable with, but the government should not be pushing exclusively this approach, and I think it's wrong, and I think to have an author of the assisted — that supports assisted suicide doing it is terribly wrong.

WALLACE: Mr. Towey, we want to thank you for coming in today and discussing this issue with us.

TOWEY: Thank you.

WALLACE: For the Obama administration's response, we're joined now by Tammy Duckworth, an assistant secretary at the V.A. who knows all about veterans issues. She lost both legs during a mission as a helicopter pilot in Iraq.

And, Secretary Duckworth, welcome to "FOX News Sunday."

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS: Thanks for having me on, Chris.

WALLACE: I want to ask you about the worksheet, page 21 in the V.A. booklet. You're a hero who, despite severe injuries, lives a full life, but you have to get around some of the time in a wheelchair yourself.

Do you have any problem with the V.A. asking elderly veterans whether life is worth living if they have a disability, if they live in a nursing home, if they're unable to shake the blues?

DUCKWORTH: Well, I have to say, Chris, that this is a really important discussion because when I was in Iraq and I was injured, thank goodness I had an advanced directive, that I had both a living will and a medical power of attorney that my husband was able to use to really execute my wishes.

And I don't think that anybody values life more than somebody such as myself or those of us who work at V.A. who've been in combat, who knows what it's like to be given a second choice.

I think that any worksheet that any veteran wants to use that helps him make those decisions in advance for his family members so that they know what your wishes are, that you do want your life prolonged, that you do want to be resuscitated — those are all important.

And V.A. is very happy for veterans to use any booklet that they would like. This booklet was used throughout the Bush administration under two secretaries. But if veterans want to go out and — and we provide it free of charge. There are many other free-of-charge booklets that are out there.

If they want to go and spend $5 apiece and buy Mr. Towey's book, they are welcome to do that. And that all falls under V.A.'s advanced directive policy which was...

WALLACE: But — but...

DUCKWORTH: ... put in place by President Bush.

WALLACE: ... if — if I — if I may, Ms. Duckworth, because we have limited time here...

DUCKWORTH: Sure.

WALLACE: ... why would a question — I can understand questions about if you're in an irreversible coma, do you want us to pull the plug. But why — as I asked Mr. Towey, why would you even have a question in a — in an end-of-life counseling book about if you're in a wheelchair, if you're living in a nursing home, does that make life worth living?

DUCKWORTH: Well, I know that before I was injured, I certainly let my husband know that, you know, being in a wheelchair was something that I feared and I was afraid for, but that I also wanted my life prolonged.

This is a tool. This is a simple tool that was put into place, as I said, under Secretary Nicholson. It was something that was used throughout.

And let me make a correction. We've not used it since 2007 when, under the Bush administration, we decided to go ahead and revise it.

This checklist is still under revision on a timetable according to a program that was actually decided on under the previous administration, because I know that President Bush and Secretary Nicholson and Secretary Peake all valued life. And that's what we're doing is we're revising it.

WALLACE: But — but ...

DUCKWORTH: It will be out in 2010. It's not yet out. So Mr. Towey was not correct.

WALLACE: That's a — Secretary Duckworth...

DUCKWORTH: Yeah.

WALLACE: ... that's just not true. The VHA put out a directive on July 2nd, 2009, and I want to put up two pages from that directive. The first one, page 8, "Primary care practitioners are responsible for giving patients pertinent educational materials, e.g. refer patients to the 'Your Life, Your Choices' module."

And on page 9 it says, "If they request more information, patients may be directed to the exercises in 'Your Life, Your Choices.'"

So as of July 2nd, 2009, last month, more than a month ago, V.A. health practitioners were told to refer all veterans, not just end-of-life veterans but all 24 million veterans, to this document, "Your Life, Your Choices."

DUCKWORTH: Let me make a correction there, Chris. What our practitioners were told is to refer patients to any type of a tool. They can use Mr. Towey's if they want to spend the $5 apiece.

V.A. simply was not willing to buy his booklet at $5 per veteran at the time. This is a decision that was made...

WALLACE: But — but how do you explain...

DUCKWORTH: ... by the previous administration.

WALLACE: It doesn't — it doesn't say give them — give them access to anything. I mean, in the specific V.A. booklet — it's only 15 pages long — it specifically refers to this booklet twice.

DUCKWORTH: The only directive that is out there is actually left over from — I believe it was the beginning of 2007, which our advanced planning directive put into place, and it is actually very clear in saying that we need to provide veterans with information that they can make on how they want their care.

You know, this ultimately is about the care and health care for veterans, and we're actually expanding benefits for veterans. We're actually trying to get more priority aid veterans to sign up for V.A. benefits. We estimate that there'll be another 500,000 veterans coming in for benefits.

We are expanding V.A. benefits to veterans. It is in our best interest to make sure that every veteran out there receives the care and access to the treatments and everything that he needs, because, after all, these are the men and women who fought for us and fought — and they deserve nothing less than the best care.

WALLACE: Secretary — well, we certainly agree on that. Secretary Duckworth, when you look at the workbook now on your Web site, as you point out, there's a disclaimer there. We're going to put the disclaimer that is now on the Web site if you go to the — to the "Your Life, Your Choices" link.

And it says, "The document is currently undergoing revision for release in V.A. The revised version will be available soon." But when the V.A. first reinstated the document a month ago — six weeks ago...

DUCKWORTH: No.

WALLACE: ... it sent veterans directly there, as you can see in the screen grab. I guess the question I have is why, Secretary Duckworth, did the disclaimer about the book only appear this week after Mr. Towey's article appeared in the Wall Street Journal?

DUCKWORTH: Actually, that disclaimer has been there since 2007 when we pulled...

WALLACE: Well, it wasn't — it wasn't...

DUCKWORTH: ... when we pulled...

WALLACE: ... there before August 20th of — between July 20th — July 2nd and August 20th, the disclaimer was not on the Web site, because we checked. DUCKWORTH: Chris, the disclaimer has been at the beginning of the "Your Life, Your Choice" booklet since 2007 when the Bush administration decided to pull it off and revise it on an — on an established time schedule.

WALLACE: The record doesn't show that.

DUCKWORTH: But it — you can go on the Web site now. We have many things on our Web site. They're up there because they receive federal dollars. They're public research grants. We have to keep them on our Web site.

But I will tell you that this booklet has not been in use. It was pulled off the shelves in 2007. We very clearly told all of our medical practitioners not to use it because it was under revision...

WALLACE: I don't...

DUCKWORTH: ... and this is ultimately — again, let's bring this back to...

WALLACE: Miss Duckworth, that just — Miss Duckworth, I don't want to — I don't want to argue with you, but — but the...

DUCKWORTH: Sure.

WALLACE: ... but the facts are that it wasn't in use from 2007 until July 2nd of 2009 when, in the VHA handbook, you specifically reinstated it and specifically told health care practitioners to refer veterans to it.

DUCKWORTH: Chris, it has not been reinstated. Let me make it clear. The only advanced directive that we have is dated February of 2007. And it actually encourages veterans to use any type of tool or checklist they would like to.

There are many, many good ones out there. This "Your Life, Your Choice" is widely used out there, not just within V.A. There are many others that are out there. And veterans are free to use whatever they would like to use.

WALLACE: I — and let — let me — I mean, I...

DUCKWORTH: We just urge them to use some...

WALLACE: I just — I have a problem here. And too often on these shows we say one person said, and another person said.

Secretary Duckworth, I don't know if we're able in the control room to put up the first — the full screen of the VHA directive, but I'd like you to put up the first full screen, if you can.

In the VHA directive of July 2nd, 2009, it says the following on page 8, "Primary care practitioners are responsible for giving patients pertinent educational materials, e.g. refer patients to the 'Your Life, Your Choices' module." I mean, it's just there in black and white on the VHA directive of July 2nd.

DUCKWORTH: Chris, I — I'm sorry, I can't see that on the monitor in here. I will tell you that I know for a fact that the only directive signed by Secretary Shinseki — I mean, signed by a V.A. secretary was actually signed by Secretary Nicholson, and it's dated February of 2007.

What you're looking at may not actually be a directive, so I — since I can't see it...

WALLACE: Well, we'll...

DUCKWORTH: ... I'd be happy to come back and discuss it with you, but let's talk about what V.A. is trying to do.

We have the largest increase in our budget in over 30 years. We are going to be expanding access to veterans. We are working with the new G.I. bill for the 21st century. We are fighting to end homelessness. And we are doing quite a lot for veterans.

And I don't think that there's anybody that understands better the importance and value of life than those of us who have worn the uniform and faced combat.

WALLACE: I apologize. We're running out of time.

DUCKWORTH: Oh, I'm sorry.

WALLACE: I want to ask you one last question. If you feel so strongly about the value of life, although the disclaimer is on there, this document, "Your Life, Your Choices," is still on the V.A. Web site.

Secretary Duckworth, while it's supposedly being revised, it's still up there. Can you promise us that this will be taken down today?

DUCKWORTH: It is still up there with the disclaimer that it's under revision and do not use it. It cannot...

WALLACE: It doesn't say don't use it.

DUCKWORTH: Let me, Chris...

WALLACE: But why have it up there at all? Why not just say we're going to take it down?

DUCKWORTH: Because we are bound by federal law. It was developed with federal research grant monies, and most of our — all of our programs that were results of federal research grants are online for people to use for research purposes.

But we very clearly tell all of our veterans, "Please use any type of a tool that is most suitable for you and your loved ones," and you can certainly — there are many great ones out there, including Mr. Towey's, if they want to go spend the $5 for it apiece.

V.A. makes ours available for free. The checklist that we're actually using is a completely different checklist from this one, because this one has been taken off for revision.

WALLACE: Well, it hasn't been taken off. It's being revised, but it's still on the Web site.

Secretary Duckworth, we want to thank you. We want to thank you for giving us the V.A.'s response. And we also personally want to thank you for your service to our nation.

DUCKWORTH: It was my pleasure to be here. Thank you.

WALLACE: If you want to read the V.A. book for yourself, you'll find a link at our blog, foxnewssunday.com. And we will stay on this story of end-of-life counseling for our veterans.

Content and Programming Copyright 2009 FOX News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Sampling of VA website links referencing so-called "death book" while Bush was president

1. February 2001 - http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/...

2. Spring 2001 - http://www.ethics.va.gov/...

3. March 26, 2003 - http://www.ethics.va.gov/...

4. 2005 - http://www1.va.gov/...

5. March 2005 - http://www1.va.gov/...

6. August 23, 2006 - http://www.vehu.med.va.gov/...

7. December 2006 - http://www.va.gov/...

8. February 22, 2007 - http://www.ethics.va.gov/...

9. July 18, 2007 - http://www.salisbury.va.gov/...

10. July 22, 2008 - http://www1.va.gov/...

11. December 29, 2008 - http://www1.va.gov/...

A

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Stating Fox is a propaganda outlet says more about your personal bias and makes answering you question pointless.

Chris Wallace would be a person more journalists should aspire to be like.

Your support and defense of Fox news also reflects your biases.

Imagine if CNN had put an article on the front page of its website in 2004 stating that Bush had told a group of people that he was a metrosexual and they should admire his manicure. Further the incident turned out to be entirely fabricated by the writer who just explained it was "just a little joke".

Imagine if MSNBC had referred to a discraced Democrat with an R next to his name.

Imagine if MSNBC referred to war supporters as demonstrators and war opponents as "loyal Americans"

Fox has done all these things. You want Fox to counterbalance what you see as liberal bias in the MSM, fine, but don't pretend Fox is fair and balanced or that its veiwership cares about fair treatment for liberals.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Stating Fox is a propaganda outlet says more about your personal bias and makes answering you question pointless.

Chris Wallace would be a person more journalists should aspire to be like."

pfffffffffffft

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Individual Persona
Member
Member # 6105

 - posted      Profile for Individual Persona   Email Individual Persona   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Going back to Stewart's "cowardly tactics" for a bit...

It occurs to me that it doesn't matter.
An interview, like a duel, may be dictated by etiquette or by agreement, or by desperation, or anarchy.
But I do not believe calling someone like Stewart a coward make the questions he asks any less legitimate than they would be if asked by someone like Ghandi. A question is a question, and the answer doesn't change based on the credibility or good form of the interrogatist. And I do not believe the subsequent jokes made by the interrogatist discredit the question or the answer either.

Yes, I made up the word interrogatist, because I don't like the way interrogater sounds in my head.

Posts: 340 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well if you can't trust a life long registered democrat and liberal to report on the news.... Includoong the above transcripted interview as a very clear example of his lack of bias... Then maybe we should conclude the liberals on Ornery are so biased that they are now incapable of recognizing fair reporting when it hits them in the face.

It may also explain Stewart's popularity.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I adore moments like this...
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes

When the naked bias of our liberal members is so starkly revealed.

It is indeed a moment to adore.

It is also one which makes one cry at the realization that logic and critical thinking- not to mention civics- are no longer something taught in our schools. To the point now that bias is now unbiased.

If you truly think MSNBC is unbiased, of CNN is lilly pure.. go right ahead. But if you don't watch multiple news channels, read multiple news sources, and fact check for yourself, it is indeed an easy mistake to assume Fox is Republican Propaganda, and its reporters are all neo-conservatives with an axe to grind against every Democrat out there.

Of course that isn't the reality- but many of you- including several of you on this thread suffer that delusion.

I'll reiterate- Chris Wallace is the type journalist we need many more of. Read the transcript above to validate that fact for yourself.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess we do neem more journalists that invite people like Duckworth on that make fools of them trying to lie through their teeth, instead of O'Reily's who are better about dominating the conversation and keeping their spin intact. It's pretty pathetic to see how he keeps trying to fall back on his misinformation even after she's completely shot him out of the water.

Nobody here is claiming that MSNBC, CNN, or the other media outles aren't biased. Just that they're not as poitically biased as the network that exists to sell Rupert Murdoch's agenda.

The rest are absoultely biased in favor of sensationalism and trying to sell whatever they thing will bring them more eyes and ad revenue, with only a nod to journalistic integrity here and there when it won't make them fall behind in the ratings too much.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"When the naked bias of our liberal members is so starkly revealed."

Stark revelations for the house!

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Redskull it's real easy to be biased against a network that goes out of its way daily to blame all the problems of the world on you.

Fox radio news was reporting on a protest leading up to the Iraq war. It referred to the anti-war group as protestors and a pro-war demonstration as "loyal americans". I am not spinning this at all.

You want to dislike CNN go ahead. Heck I dislike CNN. But don't come in here saying that there's something perverse in liberals disliking a network that daily in its comentary and often its reporting DOES villify us. Just because every single story on Fox isn't overtly biased doesn't change that.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am an NPR supporter as a general rule. I like them not necessarily because of an absence of bias, but because I find that they cover a greater breadth of news than a lot of the news TV channels. However, today I was listening to an interview with the chair of the RNC, and the interviewer (whose name I can't recall) was so antagonistic that I actually became a bit uncomfortable in my car. It reminded me of the Chris Wallace clip above, in that he seemed to willfully disregard the information that was given in favor of the premise that the interviewer set forth at the beginning. That is not "holding their feet to the fire." That is stubbornness. To bring the whole thing full circle, I think Jon Stewart addressed this very issue years ago on Crossfire. The issue isn't so much about bias from the left or the right, but the near absence of good journalism from any perspective.
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the sake of completeness, I'm almost positive the interviewer was Steve Inskeep. He seemed unable to move past the idea that Mr. Steele could support fixing a limited government-run health care system for a specific population (Medicare), but not be in favor of creating a much larger government-run system for the entire country. I thought Mr. Steele articulated his position very effectively, and while I disagree with him (I think, for now), I thought he sufficiently answered the question.
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was actually disappointed that Inskeep didn't go all out on calling Steele on his lies and hypocracy in that interview. While he caught "Old people vote in greater numbers and for us on average, so we pander to them" pretty well, he let the "Medicare is inefficinet" claim slide right by (Medicare has a 3% overhead, private insurance is at least an order of magnitude higher) as well as the claims that Medicare is losing money so they need to suppliment it every ten years (Medicare was "fixed" by tying benefit growth to economic growth rather than actual cost of care, so every about ten years there's now a chance to gain political points by passing a extra funding patch to Medicare rather than cutting benefits as the law would otherwise require.)

Steele did have an easy out- if he explained that Medicare was a direct entitlement/insurance program and the main health care reform wasn't actually an insurance program but the establishment of a fair market for private companies to compete in, he would have been fully in the clear. Those are clearly different things and there's no contradiction in supporting one, but not the other.

But to do that, he would have had to expose the primary lie that the Republicans are using to scare people about the reform.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by aupton15:
He seemed unable to move past the idea that Mr. Steele could support fixing a limited government-run health care system for a specific population (Medicare), but not be in favor of creating a much larger government-run system for the entire country.

The reason he didn't move past that was because he was trying to expose the straman that the second part there is. He wasn't willing to let Steele keep selling that lie.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ciasiab
Member
Member # 6390

 - posted      Profile for Ciasiab   Email Ciasiab       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was just amused that Mr. Steele apparently doesn't know the definition of the word nuanced.
Posts: 44 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ciasiab:
I was just amused that Mr. Steele apparently doesn't know the definition of the word nuanced.

It's more that he's so used to using it as a snide insult that he doesn't know how to interpret it when used normally.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Information flows from facts to reporters to newscasters. Then it goes to everyone. Then Jon Stewart presents it. Wherever the river is poisoned and the facts are distorted/fabricated, Stewart is downstream. He's entertaining, but his accuracy can never be greater than a traditional newscaster's.


Redskull said (regarding Chris Wallace):
quote:
Well if you can't trust a life long registered democrat and liberal to report on the news....
IIRC, Wallace is a Democrat but not a liberal - he registered as a Democrat because elections in D.C. are settled within the Democratic party. It's a smart practice, especially if you live in a gerrymandered district.
Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TCB:
Information flows from facts to reporters to newscasters. Then it goes to everyone. Then Jon Stewart presents it. Wherever the river is poisoned and the facts are distorted/fabricated, Stewart is downstream. He's entertaining, but his accuracy can never be greater than a traditional newscaster's.

That's a bit disingenous when his primary credits tend to come from, to extend your metaphor, from feeding that poisoned water back to the people polluting it until they break down. Like was revently referenced where he interviewed a media darling and exposed her as an empty hat.

quote:
IIRC, Wallace is a Democrat but not a liberal - he registered as a Democrat because elections in D.C. are settled within the Democratic party. It's a smart practice, especially if you live in a gerrymandered district.
It also serves as a convenient dodge for Fox to pretend that he represents a liberal point of view since people associate party with position almost instinctively.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1