Conservatives Blast NBC's David Gregory

[Andreus]

why else would he have constantly interrupted Snow and not let the man get a completed sentence spoken?

actually snow blasted him and he responded before snow continued on the avoidance tactic

people rail on the press for not taking up for themselves and the truth

well he did

 

[smelter]

Since Chance doesn't smear often, it would be more interesting to see how soon people like Alfie, Andreus, and Smelter, true smear-champions, will apologize.

Poem lyrics of To a Louse by Robert Burns.
On Seeing One on a Lady's Bonnet at Church

Ha! whare ye gaun' ye crowlin ferlie?
Your impudence protects you sairly;
I canna say but ye strunt rarely
Owre gauze and lace,
Tho faith! I fear ye dine but sparely
On sic a place.

Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,
Detested, shunn'd by saunt an sinner,
How daur ye set your fit upon her--
Sae fine a lady!
Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner
On some poor body.

Swith! in some beggar's hauffet squattle;
There ye may creep, and sprawl, and sprattle;
Wi' ither kindred, jumping cattle;
In shoals and nations;
Whare horn nor bane ne'er daur unsettle
Your thick plantations.

Now haud you there! ye're out o' sight,
Below the fatt'rils, snug an tight,
Na, faith ye yet! ye'll no be right,
Till ye've got on it--
The vera tapmost, tow'rin height
O' Miss's bonnet.

My sooth! right bauld ye set your nose out,
As plump an grey as onie grozet:
O for some rank, mercurial rozet,
Or fell, red smeddum,
I'd gie you sic a hearty dose o't,
Wad dress your droddum!

I wad na been surpris'd to spy
You on an auld wife's flainen toy
Or aiblins some bit duddie boy,
On's wyliecoat;
But Miss's fine Lunardi! fye!
How daur ye do't?

O Jeany, dinna toss your head,
An set your beauties a' abread!
Ye little ken what cursed speed
The blastie's makin!
Thae winks an finger-ends, I dread,
Are notice takin!

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion:
What airs in dress an gait wad lea'es us,
An ev'n devotion!

----------------------------------------
LOL, so there!

 

[Kulindahr]

Alfie and Andreus, I love the way you guys claim to have facts but when someone else relies on facts you don't like, you quickly maintain they don't have any.
Everything in my posts was based entirely on the video. Snow began to answer, but Gregory interrupted him... and interrupted him.... and interrupted him, over and over, like an unruly adolescent. He was rude, and he was unprepared.
I don't know what sorts of schools you two went to, but it appears they were the type where it was okay to skip doing your homework, because where homework is required, not having it done is called being unprepared. If I'd showed up at my graduate seminar on St. Augustine's City of God without having read the day's material in the Latin, I'd have been called unprepared and dismissed from class. If I'd shown up at work to make a presentation on a new process, wihtout having read all the manuals, I'd have been unprepared. School or work, if I came to deal on a topic and hadn't read the pertinent material, it would be called being unprepared.
Gregory, by his own words, was unprepared: he hadn't read the material.

Alfie, it amuses me that now suddenly you want everyone to believe Snow. Is he now infallible? the new fount of truth? Or, as is more likely, are you just shoving his apology on everyone because it's convenient to your position?

And Andreus, your one post is hilarious: a post without a single word about the topic, referring to one of mine which discussed it -- and you call me off-topic!

 

[latigolad78374]

Chance1

I want to apologize for the wording of my post:

I wonder how long it will be to see an apology from Chance1 to everyone he smeared here at JUB.

I am feeling in the holiday spirit, concerned about "partisan" arguments, and I feel like I should be bigger than that.

Is it plagiarism if you admit to it before it is published?

 

[chance1]

chance, just chill out and reread the thread.

its obvious that snow was wrong, that the attack machine went on overdrive to cover his ass.

he then owned up to being wrong, but the gop minions have held onto it, including you, if i read your posts after the apology correctly, and refuse to admit that the partisan charge was wqrong even though the man who originally made the charge says it was wrong and inncorrect.

the overall effect is placing yet one more story, completely untrue, in the mythology of the biased press arguement of the conservatives and the gop.

Whether you are a willing participant is irrelevant, as you, in action, did participate and are still defending your participation.

you have done precisely as they have expected you to.

simple story except for u

snow apologized for calling gregory what he is - a partisan

nice of him

you'll stick it up his ass either way

not nice of you - but consistent

you ignore facts on a consistent basis as well

you are the king of blah blah blah

and I'm still waiting for the "smearing" examples latino

this group never lets the facts get in the way of goooood story

 

[Andreus]

i am saying that the smear was as effective as it was intended precisely because of posts like yours above

snow says he was wrong, but now it is part of the GOP oreilley lingo speak that he is partisan.

the accusation was withdrawn but you and your ilk will continue to insist that it was valid

YOU are the reason that the smear was effective, not me.

look

you are going to have to accept that you are one of the most partisan members of this forum, and if you think that is bad then you need to own that judgement too.

 

[NW007]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this thread has gone on .. and on... and on......

It has to be a slow political news time, when a thread which essentially has do with David Gregory's "ego" can go on for the length of time it has.

2007 is just around the corner.

 

[Jay.Jay]

But any decent reporter should have read the whole thing before asking, if only to cover his own ass. One should also know that clipping quotes out of context is always dangerous.

You seem to be accusing that Gregory's quoting of the ISG report was out of context. That would be a violation of journalistic ethics. This is not the first time in this thread that you have implied the quote was selective:

He took a piece of a report he admitted he didn't read through and used it in a one-sided way.

This seems to me to both out of step with your assertion that:

Alfie and Andreus, I love the way you guys claim to have facts but when someone else relies on facts you don't like, you quickly maintain they don't have any.
Everything in my posts was based entirely on the video.

and with the quote itseld, which was:

"'Stay the course' is no longer viable. The current approach is not working. The situation is grave and deteriorating."

Are you suggesting that this near-verbatim quote from the ISG is substantially inaccurate? Are you suggesting that there was a context around it which is different from that provided by a plain reading of the quote? Do you stand by your previous comments?

 

[Jay.Jay]

I work in the media business - tv/entertainment/news - small world

NBC is a big player in that world

One of the bennies of the gig is you hear stuff about athletes, musicians, news people, entertainers, etc.

Gregory is not well liked

He is a poser

NBC would just as soon he cut it out - and behind the scenes they are likely telling him to do so - that he is NOT the story - and should not try to be

hope that suffices

my sources are protected by the fifth amendment - LOL - you wouldn't want me to give that up would u?

Certainly we wouldn't want you to give up your fifth amendment rights, and I'm sure that your 'sources' are glad of these protections. Just in case you're confused, the fifth amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Out of curiosity, how do you see this amendment as even remotely relevant to protecting the identity of people in the media who don't like David Gregory?

 

[latigolad78374]

Originally Posted by chance1 post #105
and I'm still waiting for the "smearing" examples latino

As much as you went on about being "prepared" at work etc, and how Snow accused Gregory of not reading all of the report. I'm surprised that you came unprepared. Your post is #105. You should read my post #104. And the name is latigolad not latino. Altho I do have some latino blood in me.

 

[chance1]

Certainly we wouldn't want you to give up your fifth amendment rights, and I'm sure that your 'sources' are glad of these protections. Just in case you're confused, the fifth amendment states:



Out of curiosity, how do you see this amendment as even remotely relevant to protecting the identity of people in the media who don't like David Gregory?

It was a joke

sorry u didn't get it

 

[Kulindahr]

You seem to be accusing that Gregory's quoting of the ISG report was out of context. That would be a violation of journalistic ethics. This is not the first time in this thread that you have implied the quote was selective:

Do you stand by your previous comments?

Yes, I stand by my comments, because:
Gregory said he had not read the report -- therefore he had no way of knowing if he was quoting out of context or not, which means he was unprepared. He grabbed at one piece of a whole picture without checking to see how it fit.

 

[Kulindahr]

I saw the joke in what Chance posted -- kinda weak, but it got a chuckle.

 

[Kulindahr]

Gregory DID NOT SAY he hadn't read the report, for Christ's sake (and for the FOURTH time), he said he had "read most of the recommendations." As I posted earlier, Snow gave the press two hours to read the entire document before holding the press conference. That was Snow's choice. Gregory, in short, read what he could in the alloted time. Same is true for all the other reporters WHO ALSO ASKED about the report and had not been given sufficient time to read it all.

Jesus, k, YOU talk about Gregory being unprepared! How about you reading the thread before posting? Just sayin, that's all.

Alfie, you always holler about facts -- then you screw them up.

Gregory, in response to the question whether he'd read the report, said "No...."
Do we need to go into the definition of "no"?

If Gregory is bright enough to be in the White House for this, he should have been bright enough to realize that Snow was up to something, by not giving them time to read the report. He could easily have deflected anything of that sort by opening with a statement to the effect that Snow hadn't given them enough time, but he was going to ask a question based on what he'd been able to cover in the time given.
In case you want to check, the full transcript is back on the first page of this thread, near the bottom.

 

[Jay.Jay]

Yes, I stand by my comments, because:
Gregory said he had not read the report -- therefore he had no way of knowing if he was quoting out of context or not, which means he was unprepared. He grabbed at one piece of a whole picture without checking to see how it fit.

Your claim was not that he didn't check whether the quote fit in context - which, as General_Alfie has already noted is not supported by the facts - your claim was the much stronger claim that they did not fit in context. That he was using them out of context to support a one-sided and partisan attack. Since you ignored this critical issue last time, I'll ask it again. The near-verbatim quote was:

'Stay the course' is no longer viable. The current approach is not working. The situation is grave and deteriorating.

and my questions were:

Are you suggesting that this near-verbatim quote from the ISG is substantially inaccurate? Are you suggesting that there was a context around it which is different from that provided by a plain reading of the quote?

If your answers are yes, then please enlighten us as to how the context makes the meaning of these statements different from their meaning in isolation.

 

[Jay.Jay]

It was a joke

sorry u didn't get it

Oh, I see. Having claimed that you work in 'media business', pretending that you don't know what your fifth amendment rights are is funny. Right.

I even believe you. Really. I do.

 

[Andreus]

yeah

you and all the rest of us " believe " him.

it was a failed slam without documentation. no facts? just make some up.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your claim was not that he didn't check whether the quote fit in context - which, as General_Alfie has already noted is not supported by the facts - your claim was the much stronger claim that they did not fit in context. That he was using them out of context to support a one-sided and partisan attack. Since you ignored this critical issue last time, I'll ask it again. The near-verbatim quote was:

What I said was:

But any decent reporter should have read the whole thing before asking, if only to cover his own ass. One should also know that clipping quotes out of context is always dangerous.

and you responded:

You seem to be accusing that Gregory's quoting of the ISG report was out of context. That would be a violation of journalistic ethics.

The point being that he should have at least red the whole thing before asking, in order to cover his own ass, because by not having read it all he could have been taking a piece out of context, which is always a dangerous thing.
You admitted that I seemed to be accusing him of taking it out of context.
So I explained that:

Gregory said he had not read the report -- therefore he had no way of knowing if he was quoting out of context or not, which means he was unprepared. He grabbed at one piece of a whole picture without checking to see how it fit.

Are you suggesting that this near-verbatim quote from the ISG is substantially inaccurate? Are you suggesting that there was a context around it which is different from that provided by a plain reading of the quote?

I'm suggesting that at the time Gregory was as ignorant of the context as I am now -- he said he hadn't read the report, so in essence he was operating on an assumption (which may have been true) and going out on a limb. The only reason I can see for doing that was at the very least trying to tear down the President (a common activity here, too), though Chance's hypothesis, that he was just trying to be in the spotlight, is possible.

 

[Kulindahr]

Alfie, you always holler about facts -- then you screw them up.

Gregory, in response to the question whether he'd read the report, said "No...."
Do we need to go into the definition of "no"?

Read.
.

Gregory said:

MR. SNOW: You've read the whole report?
MR. GREGORY: No, I've gone through a lot of the recommendations.

You're wrong so often that you might as well learn to be gracious when called on it.

Alfie, you're hilarious. I don't know whether you're just trying to be a pain, or are really that blind, but thanks for your post that demonstrates exactly what I've been saying: that Gregory stated he had not read the report. That's what "No" means when someone asks if you've read something; when you say "No", it means you haven't.

Thanks also for reminding me of a couple of other facts: Gregory "outyelled" the others to get attention (which supports Chance's hypothesis), which to me seems rude. And then he proceeded to lie, on camera -- but didn't get away with it. First he says he'd read the report, then when pressured he admits he didn't.

 

[Andreus]

kulindahr

let it go

dude

Snow said he was wrong

everyone that observed the interaction said snow was wrong except for a few right wing media hacks like rush and oreilly

everyone, except for you, rush, and chance now believes that gregory was right.

hell, he is the new fill in anchor on the today show.

so his career has moved ahead in the last few weeks.

this is about snow's screwup, not gregory's