More Twisting From MSM/DNC

[Annie]

I love running across example like this:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/07/defining_devian.html

Defining Deviancy Down

In their review of "Live at the State Department", the new comedy improv about John Bolton's Senate disclosure, Ms. Bumiller of the NY Times engages in a bit of irksome journalistic shorthand:

During May and June, Democrats denied Republicans the 60 votes they needed to confirm Mr. Bolton to the United Nations post.
​

Yes, but no - a better sentence would be, "During May and June, Democrats denied Republicans the 60 votes they needed to end a Democratic filibuster so that the Republican majority could then confirm Mr. Bolton to the United Nations post."

A filibuster of a Presidential nominee is not an inevitable component of the Congressional landscape, and it does not take 60 votes to confirm someone. And the Times knows it.

July 29, 2005

 

[nakedemperor]

This is really, really, really nitpicky.

The only thing that should have been changed is "denied Republicans the 60 votes" to "denied Republicans the vote".

"Deny" votes implies a filibuster; how else could you deny Republicans their votes? And its not necessary to be nitpicky about the author specifically using the word "filibuster", especially since the quote is lifted from the review of a comedy play.

Maureen Dowd would be one thing..

This reminds me of the Time that Ann Coulter shrilly accused the NYTimes of printing anti-Christian rhetoric in its Book Review. The review presented the question posed by the BOOK: "Did the Nazi crimes draw on Christian tradition, or did Nazism draw instead, as the Roman Catholic Church has argued, on pagan ideas that were distinctly anti-Christian?"

What did Coulter print: "Did the Nazi crimes draw on Christian tradition?" Obviously in context this implies that this was the OpEd opinion of the Times, not the subject of a book it was reviewing.

Context, context, context.

 

[Annie]

This is really, really, really nitpicky.

The only thing that should have been changed is "denied Republicans the 60 votes" to "denied Republicans the vote".

"Deny" votes implies a filibuster; how else could you deny Republicans their votes? And its not necessary to be nitpicky about the author specifically using the word "filibuster", especially since the quote is lifted from the review of a comedy play.

Maureen Dowd would be one thing..

This reminds me of the Time that Ann Coulter shrilly accused the NYTimes of printing anti-Christian rhetoric in its Book Review. The review presented the question posed by the BOOK: "Did the Nazi crimes draw on Christian tradition, or did Nazism draw instead, as the Roman Catholic Church has argued, on pagan ideas that were distinctly anti-Christian?"

What did Coulter print: "Did the Nazi crimes draw on Christian tradition?" Obviously in context this implies that this was the OpEd opinion of the Times, not the subject of a book it was reviewing.

Context, context, context.

Your last sentence says it all. That is the context and times that are upon us. The MSM is attempting to give the Dems powers they do NOT possess.

 

[nakedemperor]

Your last sentence says it all. That is the context and times that are upon us. The MSM is attempting to give the Dems powers they do NOT possess.

Do they have the power to deny the Republicans from voting yea? Yes.

Is that was the *theatre review article* said? Yes.

 

[Annie]

Do they have the power to deny the Republicans from voting yea? Yes.

Is that was the *theatre review article* said? Yes.

So you say it is a filabuster. Right?