TAPPER:
"In a long, and interesting speech, [Clinton] characterized what the US and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren"
At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?
--------
Compare that with what Clinton actually said, in context:
CLINTON:
"And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada -- the rich counties -- would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that.
But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work."
-------------
See the difference? Tapper obviously can't... & that's a problem.
-------------
What did Jake Tapper mean by the confession "I don't really think", which appeared in his blog yesterday?
In a short entry with a misleading headline and complete distortion of a quote of former President Bill Clinton, Tapper confessed "I don't really think."
In an update published later, Tapper said "I understand," which seemingly contradicts his earlier confession.
Or perhaps he just misspoke.
We here at Wingnuts & Moonbats cannot be certain.
For the full text of Tappers comments--full, proper, & undistorted by creative editing--please follow the link above.
-- comment on Tapper's blog by Ida Noe, on 2/1/08, at 9:22:15 AM (I rewrote it, a little, both for style & so it'd make sense here)
---------------------------------
A few comments later I wrote a comment of my own in support of "Ida's" & blasting Mr Tapper a bit more, but it was removed shortly thereafter... (There was a place to add my site url, allowing other readers to click my screen name & end up here--which I did--& now I'm wondering whether that was the problem... There are many comments blasting Tapper, but no comments at all that link to the blogs of those making the comments...)
As far as I can recall, it went something like this:
------
Ida Noe (2/1/08, 9:22:15 AM) was right on target.
I once thought you were a reliable reporter, but this blog entry makes me question whether you ever were...
As was obvious to pretty much everyone who saw or read the whole passage (except you, obviously), Clinton was expressing an example of what NOT to do to solve Global Warming, and your careful editing of the video & subsequent blog post gives a patently dishonest impression of what he actually said.
You claim not to understand Clinton's meaning, but that doesn't wash for a major network's Senior National Correspondent for their Washington bureau. Whether by ineptitude or design, your failure to comprehend simple English (& if you did understand more than you're letting on, creative license with this story) makes you a poor reporter unworthy of your position.
---------
And now:
Instead of apologizing, Tapper is now defending his egregious post by insisting that addressing global warming will in fact slow the economy, whether Clinton said it or not:
"This is the much more important issue here. Any serious effort to reduce greenhouses gases will have an impact on the economy and, initially, that impact could be negative."
- Think Progress � ABC Publishes Hit Piece Against Bill Clinton, Peddles Right-Wing Misinformation On Global Warming
Typical.
.gif)
3 comments:
howdy, repsac,
long time no see. an interesting piece but in all due respect tapper haas no need to apologize if what you said is accurate. granted he did not quote whole thing and it may appear to contradict what he said it doesn't really. he just quoted the important aspect of it. and it does show how much Bill is ignorant of economics. what Bill said is in itself self-contradictory. he is a lawyer not an economist.
reason: if the industrialized nations were to slow down their economies, china's economy would follow and slow down also. we'd end up with a global recession if not another depression but this time global.
Sorry Griper... Selective quoting of the type Tapper employed is plumb dishonest...
Clinton was giving an example of what NOT to do, and Tapper made it appear that Clinton was making a suggestion about what America SHOULD do, by removing the part of the quote that made it clear he was explaining his point by offering an example of what not to do. That's dishonest reporting. And I think you're smart enough to recognise that.
The point you make in your final paragraph is very similar to the one Clinton was making himself. He is NOT suggesting that ANYONE slow their economy to combat global warming, & is instead saying that the way to combat global warming (& the poor economic situation, as well) is by finding market solutions that will both slow the rate of climate change & employ more people. Tapper's creative editing made it appear that Clinton said something he did not say, in much the same way I creatively edited Tapper's column to make it appear he said he "doesn't really think."
howdy repsac,
i would disagree. Clinton was giving two viewpoints of how to address the issue.
and i already acknowledged that by only quoting the one part could lead to the perception you came to. the second part is but an alternative way of adressing the issue, in his mind.
what Clinton did was put the issue in such a way that he'd be right regardless of the choice the world takes on the issue.
the reason; the alternative he gave is an impossible one on a worldwide scale. it would be impossible on a national scale, especially if the nation was the U. S.
any attempt to bring about change on the scope necessary to address the issue will only come about by slowing down the economy.
the idea he gave is good theoretically but not practically. so Clinton will always have a "I told you so" situation.
in other words, while tapper quoted the first, myself, i would have just quoted the second part which by your standards is dishonest too but it isn't. and i'll grant that addressing the second part would have been a better way to address the issue but in doing that someone would come back and say that my answer was said in first part.
and remember repsac, blogs are not formats that is a good format to address the issues of anything to any great detail. we must assume some things.
and a little advice, ask before accusing. just because something may appear to be dishonest appearances are dishonest in themselves.
Post a Comment