« Fox Tonight | Main | Reids plans to cut funds for Iraq War »

Ware Doesn't Appear To Have Heckled, But Shows Bias in CNN Interview

[Scroll down for updates.]

I have been offline for most of the past 24 hours, but am now getting up to speed on developments in the story Drudge ran yesterday about CNN reporter Michael Ware. I apologize for being tardy, but I have been busy with Mommy duties today and most of the evening.

Power Line has a couple of posts with extended quotes from an interview with Ware, and other links including one from Allahpundit who links the Raw Story video and comes to this conclusion.

Raw Story's got two videos of the presser, one of the introductory remarks and another of the Q&A. Ware is visible in the right foreground, in the white shirt, in the second video when the camera cuts to a shot of the full room. Assuming RS hasn't played games with the clip, I don't see anything that looks like heckling or laughing. McCain and Graham are unperturbed and there are no interruptions. The second clip does cut out immediately after the press conference ends, with Ware still sitting in his seat and trying to ask a question, so it's possible he did something then. But in that case, Drudge's report is still wrong -- he said the heckling happened "during" the presser, while McCain and Graham were speaking.

Paul at Powerline has the following to say about what Ware said in an interview with Soledad O'Brien last night.
As Scott notes in his post below, CNN's Michael Ware has denied heckling Sen. McCain during a press conference (he doesn't say whether or not he laughed at McCain). However, Ware's appearance with Soledad O'Brien, as quoted by Scott, is enough to condemn him as unfit to cover the war. Here's what Ware had to say about McCain and other Republicans who are visiting Baghdad:
Essentially they're here to view the impact of the surge on the baghdad security plan and essentially to sell its merits to say that, yes, it is having an impact and to take that message home to an american people desperate to hear signs of progress...

Ware thus accuses John McCain -- American hero, frequent critic of the administration, and frequent critic of the administration's handling of the war -- of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty.

By any objective measure, the surge has had a positive effect on Baghdad. Civilian casualties are down sharply since January; execution style deaths are half of what they were; and other killings have declined by almost the same factor. But even in the absence of such statistics, there would be no defense for Ware's accusations of bad faith on the part of Senator McCain and others. Ware's reporting itself constitutes heckling.

When a reporter becomes this much of an advocate, he should no longer cover the story. If CNN were a credible news organization, it would reassign Ware.

It would be interesting to find out who Drudge's source was. Did someone see Ware making fun of the Senators after the press conference? If so, the report was still wrong because it said it was during the conference. Did someone make the whole thing up and think no one else would know? There were plenty of people at the press conference to refute it if there was no truth to it.

Most of all though, I wonder why Ware's previous comments, the ones reported by Hot Air and others a week ago, did not get more attention. I first saw them when searching for reaction to the Drudge story. When I posted the link to and quote from the Drudge story last night, I almost titled the post "CNN Reporter Admits to Reporting Drunk from Iraq." That was the focus in the first draft of the post because it was my first time hearing the quote and it made me angry that our soldiers and Marines seem to be able to fight the war sober, yet Ware joked that he had to get drunk to be able to stand to be in Baghdad reporting. After reading some commentary on the Drudge story I focused more on the heckling because that is what the buzz was about, but I did include one reference to Ware's "drunk" comment. Even without the heckling, I thought it was outrageous that a supposedly objective reporter would say such things about a story he was assigned to cover. Then I found out that Ware was the reporter who brought us the Iraqi sniper video. That ended any speculation about his objectivity.

I don't expect reporters to remain completely objective. They are human and have opinions and emotions and I realize they can't always check those at the door. I ask that they just be up front about their bias. What I find most objectionable are reporters that claim to be objective when they clearly aren't. Ware at least does not seem to fit that category. When a reporter crosses the line into advocacy, rather than reporting, as it appears Ware has, then it is up to the network, or the publication, to put someone else on the story who can report it in a somewhat objective manner.

From the comments that Ware has been making in interviews, and some of the activity Ware has described, it is obvious that he is far from objective. In fact, Ware admits as much. In this largely favorable, and very interesting, piece on Ware at Winds of Change last year, the strategy Ware employed of developing relationships with the terrorists is examined. This piece was written prior to CNN airing the Iraqi sniper video, which aired last October. Read it and the other items linked.

I guess my big problem with the bias is that it always swings in one direction. If I didn't read milblogs, I would just assume that was because there was only one kind of news coming out of Iraq and it was bad news. Thanks to the milblogs and new media, however, I know that is not the case.

I want to know why CNN seems to think it is okay for reporters to be biased in favor of the enemy, but not okay for them to show bias in favor of the U.S. military? I am also still waiting to find out why CNN seemed to think it was okay for them to report from their Baghdad bureau with not only a bias in favor of the Saddam regime, but failing to report abuses perpetrated by the regime of which they had first hand knowledge. I can't help but think of that case (admitted by Eason Jordan) when I see CNN reporting from Iraq. So far, I have not seen any reason to trust them any more now than then.

Update (3:57 p.m.): I join Glenn Reynolds and Scott Johnson in asking what Matt Drudge has to say. As of this update Drudge has yet to issue any type of explanation or retraction for the inaccurate story posted Sunday evening at The Drudge Report.

Update II (7:09 p.m.): As far as I can tell, Drudge has not posted anything additional on his "heckling" story, but Glenn Reynolds and Power Line link to this AFP report that says "one reporter giggled at the back" in response to one of McCain's statements. From Scott at Power Line:

I don't know if giggles equal laughter and mockery, or if Ware was the giggler. But it seems to me that the AFP story provides evidence that tends to support Drudge's account. According to the Raw Story report and accompanying screen capture, Ware was sitting "in front of the camera," i.e., "at the back."
So, maybe the "giggler" wasn't Ware, but another reporter. Or maybe Ware giggled, but it wasn't captured on camera and in his mind giggling is not the same as laughing and mocking. Unless the AFP story is wrong, there was at least one reporter in the room giggling in response to McCain's comments. Giggling during McCain's press conference, joking on Bill Maher's show about having to get drunk to report from Baghdad -- whoever the reporter was, it sounds more like a middle school kid than someone taking their job seriously.

More from Confederate Yankee.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ware Doesn't Appear To Have Heckled, But Shows Bias in CNN Interview:

» Jon Swift linked with Smearing Matt Drudge

» ReidBlog linked with Smearing Michael Ware

Comments (40)

"I want to know why CNN see... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"I want to know why CNN seems to think it is okay for reporters to be biased in favor of the enemy"

Because they are the enemy. Call it aiding and abetting , giving aid and comfort or just plain accomplices, they are light years away from being anywhere near objective.

Yes Rob! they are more dest... (Below threshold)
914:

Yes Rob! they are more destructive in their terrorist cheerleading then even the Murthas are! well almost anyways?

What a difference a generat... (Below threshold)

What a difference a generation or two makes, eh?

In WWII, Ernie Pyle and other "embedded" (they didn't use that word back then) journalists actually wore American uniforms and were unabashedly on our side.

By Afghanistan, prominent infotainment stars like Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings agreed that if they became aware of an impending ambush of American troops by the enemy, it would violate their "journalistic objectivity" to warn the Americans and save their lives. Never mind CNN, which seems committed to the other side.

Not all change is for the better, of course . . .

So...cat, mantis, and vario... (Below threshold)
marc:

So...cat, mantis, and various and sundry other loonbats and pseudo Wizbang editors when will YOU people apologize to Lori after hours of pants wetting over a "non-retraction" of the original post?

Oh wait...I know. It won't be forthcoming because it's obvious (at least to you) Lori is a despicable liar of the first order, has no family, no other commitments and just sat there for 24 hours playing tiddly-winks with Pabst Blue Ribbon bottle tops.

Pffttt.... some of you "people" are SAD!

"By Afghanistan, prominent ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"By Afghanistan, prominent infotainment stars like Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings agreed that if they became aware of an impending ambush of American troops by the enemy, it would violate their "journalistic objectivity" to warn the Americans and save their lives"_Jim Addison

Need a link for that one, please.

Lorie, Did you see the Frontline doc by Ware? Nearly grenaded, and just prevented from being pulled out of his car and kidnapped/executed.

The production/field crew was himself and a driver that saved his life both times.

I could be blending docs now, but I remember a reporter taking lead in the back seat of a cab while filming himself. Anyway, the Commonwealth reporters are the ballsiest SOBs in theater and you're political self-justification is ignorant and devoid of substance.


So give it up. He's not a drunk. He's AUSTRALIAN.

"Ware Doesn't Appear To Hav... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"Ware Doesn't Appear To Have Heckled, But Shows Bias in CNN Interview"-title

Lorie, anyone that doesn't have SOME "bias" is not worth a bucket of cold piss. (Have you ever watched Washington Week In Review? [audible shudder})

Good night and steer clear of fat nerds with story ideas (Drudge is forgivable, Ace: n'ah!)

"The production/field crew ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"The production/field crew was himself and a driver that saved his life both times."

Sorry , gonna need some lnks for that one.


"Need a link for that one, please."

Lokk it up your damn self lazy ass. Or if you were paying attention to some real News Networks you would have seen it yourself ignorant one.

No link needed here Jim.

bryanD[elusional]<... (Below threshold)
marc:

bryanD[elusional]

Lorie, anyone that doesn't have SOME "bias" is not worth a bucket of cold piss. (Have you ever watched Washington Week In Review? [audible shudder})

I don't expect you to decipher the difference however, there is a vast difference between everyone having a bias and a professional journalist, with a bias, setting it aside to preform his/her job that maintains professionalism and adheres to their code of ethics.

Such things as Seek[ing] Truth and Report[ing] It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

-- Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
-- Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
-- Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
-- Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
-- Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
-- Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
-- Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
-- Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
-- Never plagiarize.
-- Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
-- Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
-- Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
-- Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
-- Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
-- Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
-- Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
-- Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

As conservatives I think we... (Below threshold)
Mike Dysart:

As conservatives I think we need to stop talking about the MSM - it is a simple fact that they are an extension of the Democratic party. They are dedicated to pushing the liberal agenda which is to gain power - nothing more nothing less.

To call them bias is almost a complement.

Ware's pessimistic views ab... (Below threshold)

Ware's pessimistic views about Iraq probably come from living in that nation 24 hours a day, personally viewing unacceptable levels of sectarian killings and violence on a daily basis, and always having to watch his back from ever- present danger. On the other hand, it's far easier for those living in the relative security of the U.S. to hold much more optimistic views about Iraq.

Ethnocentric immersion undoubtably enables either viewpoint about Iraq.

Why this talk about Michael... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

Why this talk about Michael Ware? Shouldn't the conservatives, whatever that means, be bashing Pat Tillmans Mom? Or Pat Tillmans brother?

Nice piece Lorie: In essenc... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Nice piece Lorie: In essence: I was wrong but let me change the subject immediately and still slime the guy and CNN.

Pathetic. George Bush outta hire you. You've learned the Bush method of aceepting responsibilty for a mistake,, i.e. don't admit anything and then send the well-oiled slime machine after him/her. If he were american the loons of the right would be calling him a "traitor" on this thread.

You apologize for being "tardy" but not for the tripe you posted. Yeah I know, it was Drudge's fault. Lets hope you don't teach your children to accept responsibility for their mistakes the way you do.

What's your plan for the Mi... (Below threshold)
kim:

What's your plan for the Middleast, Hugh?
=========================

See my post from yesterday ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

See my post from yesterday Kim on the other thread. When you answer on that thread, I will also and you'll be surprised by mine.


I hope you are teaching you... (Below threshold)
Netvocates:

I hope you are teaching your children to have more ethics than you have, Lorie. Sheesh.

Hugh (if this is the Hugh w... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Hugh (if this is the Hugh who comments regularly here -- I didn't check the IP), I could pull up your comments from Wizbang from the past year (if this is the same Hugh that posts here regularly) and find much more inaccurate and incendiary comments than anything I have ever posted. This holier than thou act is just too much. Note: This is directed at the Hugh who posts regularly here. Did I mention that this is directed at the Hugh who posts regularly here?

I should have added "Drudge reports:" to the title of the post, but forgive me for doubting that would have been enough to satisfy you. Considering the first three words of the post were "Drudge is reporting" I thought I was clear enough, but I should have included that in the post title as well. It is funny that I don't ever see you up in arms over NYT headlines that declare doom and gloom on articles reporting good economic news under George Bush. I also don't hear you complaining about inaccurate headlines or reports from The Washington Post or any other mainstream media outlet. They have entire teams of reporters and editors working 24/7, and still seem to get plenty wrong, but they get a pass.

I saw the Drudge report and then read a few of the reactions from other bloggers, and frankly thought the "Neverland" quote was a "heckling" of McCain. In my mind it still is, but it was not done at the press conference so the Drudge Report is wrong, as I wrote. Explaining that after posting that I was away from the computer for 24 hours (give or take) is not an excuse, but an explanation. Like Rosie says, google it if you don't know the difference.

By the way, quoting what Ware did say, and noting what Eason Jordan wrote about what CNN did in Iraq, is not "sliming" them. I think I have now said everything on the subject, several times over. I have a full day. It is expected to hit 82 degrees here in NC and despite the pollen, it should be gorgeous. Here's to wishing you all a wonderful day.

Lorie, you have no integrit... (Below threshold)
dalleceneri:

Lorie, you have no integrity and this post reflects it.

You were gunning for Ware & CNN and the moment the fairy godfather Drudge caught your eye, you couldn't run fast enough with it.

This isn't the first time you ran with a distortion which became undone in a day or two. Your characterizations about bias from CNN & Ware pale in comparison to your Big Lie techniques and total lack of responsibility with your brand of blog journalism.

What a shining example in integrity and ethics you must be when you are fulfilling your "Mommy" role for your kids!

"It would be interesting to... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

"It would be interesting to find out who Drudge's source was."

As if he has pretensions of any sort of real reporting.

He just makes things up, flings it out there and stinks up the place -- that's his role in life -- he has found his calling.

Good luck to those who have decided to hitch their wagon to his star.

marc: Leave it to Beaver to... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

marc: Leave it to Beaver to run to teacher. The funny thing is, SPJ's maxims support Ware nicely, by and large. (Hopefully Ware wouldn't care; the "Can > Do/ Can't > Teach" thing)

Rob: $10 to mow my lawn.

And thank you very much for... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

And thank you very much for the retraction Ms. Byrd -- it couldn't have been any more niggardly but it's more than I hoped for.

Lorie:I am a comme... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Lorie:

I am a commentor not an author of an article. That's the difference. Of course your half-assed correction/non-aplogy had to bring in the NY Times. Strawman? A favorite retort of the righties here. here.

What's wrong with: "my article was factually incorrect." Gee, what a concept.

bryanD[elusional]<... (Below threshold)
marc:

bryanD[elusional]

-- Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

Let us recall a couple sections quoted above and taken from the Code of Ethics for journalists:

-- Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

When Ware provided CNN with the sniper video "produced" by the terrorists can you, or I categorically state Ware didn't promise anonymity? Are any of us sure he didn't make a sweetheart deal with those that want to kill our soldiers?

The correct answer is no and is a valid reason to question his reporting. And the reality is he KNEW and so did CNN what motives were involved, the public airing of enemy propaganda.

Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story

It would be damn safe to say Ware used "undercover and "surreptitious methods" to gain access to the sniper tape.

And it's beyond debate whether any "vital interest" was served by providing it or CNN airing it. There was none!

Hugh:I am a co... (Below threshold)
marc:

Hugh:

I am a commentor not an author of an article. That's the difference.

Ah... now we all "understand" the problem. You are somehow "different" and are free to completely disregard your promise made as an author in December to not use name calling and long strings in invective against those you disagree with.

It also allows you your own facts as opposed to opinions which we all have.

We all see the problem now.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Reporting the truth isn't "... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

Reporting the truth isn't "bias" just because it goes against an official story lne. McCain made a laughable and ridiculous claim about the streets of Baghdad being safe. Ware, who has put his life on the line for four years reporting from Iraq, immediately responded by stating clearly that McCain's remarks were completely false. The right wing blogosphere then goes into overdrive. It doesn't matter that Ware's comments were accurate. You expect him to say "Sentaor McCain declared today that the sky is green, although some observers feel that the sky is actually blue." He's not a stenographer, he's a reporter.

For all of the screaming about Ware's "bias," no one seems to have ben able to demonstrate that McCain was right. How can anyone not see the humor in McCain declaring that he can walk safely through the streets of Baghdad, and then just days later walking through the streets of Baghdad with as huge militay escort? It's like he wants to be ridiculed. But right and wrong don't matter to you guys. Instead you leap on a joke a guy made on a talk show about being drunk, and repeat it endlessly as some kind of reported fact. And the background behind that remark has been discussed enough that anyone who repeats it as some sort of fact can fairly be called a liar. Oh, but wait. Someone who's been in a war zone for four years isn't allowed to joke about being drunk.

This is classic: "...it made me angry that our soldiers and Marines seem to be able to fight the war sober, yet Ware joked that he had to get drunk to be able to stand to be in Baghdad reporting."

Lori, are you insane? I'm sure no soldier ever jokes that they'd like to be drunk while they're in Iraq. They just talk to each other about fighting for the glory of the Fatherland. You took part in a smear campaign against this guy, but instead of simply saying "Oops, I was misled" you're desperately trying to pin anything you can on him in hopes of evading responsibility. Would you honestly be writing any of this crap about Ware if you hadn't fallen for Drudge's lies?

I do think it's amusing that this has caused so many people to reprint Hugh Hewitt's interview with Ware. That interview is mostly memorable because of the way Hewitt humiliated himself. After Ware reported about the number of times he's been blindfolded in cars, or had guns pointed at him while his captors debated killing him, Hewitt responded that he was in danger too, because he was reporting from the Empire State building and it could be attacked by terrorists. Hewitt was the laughingstock of the blogosphere for weeks.

If Al Franken was talking to a US soldier who had been in harm's way and declared that he was in harm's way too, because he was in New York, you idiots would still be talking about it.

Lorie, go ahead and have a ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Lorie, go ahead and have a great day and enjoy your weather and your kids. It seems the dimmers continually slam any woman author even when she corrects her post. Maybe they are upset because you don't wear a burka? Or are independent in mind and spirit? Or plain old sexist. I still think Hugh is Rosie, what do you think?

I know you know this, but the leftist dimmers are the most uncivil bunch of bafoons I have ever seen. ww

ww.Would that you ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

ww.

Would that you would take the same position were it the NY times that had written the article. LOL, you (folks) are funnier than a barrel of monkeys. By the way, I call out Jay anytime he writes false and inaccurate garbage. Lord knows, you bangers would never admit an error or call one of your own on one.

dalleceneri, you and the ot... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

dalleceneri, you and the other pos moonbats who feel the need to bring Lori's children into your rantings are truly, truly despicable.

And I wonder how many of the moonbats here would be barking their heads off had a commenter used the term "niggardly" to describe a liberal instead of Lori? Me thinks plenty.

And yes, I understand "nigg... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

And yes, I understand "niggardly" is a completely acceptable term.

ChrisO:For all... (Below threshold)
marc:

ChrisO:

For all of the screaming about Ware's "bias," no one seems to have ben able to demonstrate that McCain was right.

And the same can be said of Ware.

If Al Franken was talking to a US soldier who had been in harm's way and declared that he was in harm's way too, because he was in New York, you idiots would still be talking about it.

And some would be defending Franken's "truthiness" to their dieing breath.

Lorie,sorry but that just d... (Below threshold)
cat:

Lorie,sorry but that just doesn't do it. By "new media" are you referring to a heavily guarded Michelle Malkin standing outside a bombed-out mosque proclaiming that it is still standing so there's the proof that AP lied?

Why did a number of people get a little upset about you slandering Ware? No one's perfect, and he must have plenty of real faults. But when a man has been right there with your own troops in the middle of every major battle in Iraq, including the room-to-room fighting in Fallujah - and they trust him enough to keep inviting him to join them; when he's been specifically named by Zarqawi as a target for assassination and very nearly executed, but continues to risk his life to help others understand a bit more about all sides in this conflict... and you attack him for joking that he needs a drink. That's just nasty. It's the same kind of vindictive opportunism that the Bush campaign used when they spread lies about McCain in the 2000 primaries.

Thank you for at least saying you were wrong (though you're really only saying that you *may* have been wrong, and anyway he probably deserved it). Once that lie is out of the way, it all comes down to the question of what is news? People like Ware think a journalist should do everything he/she can do to report all the different aspects of a situation as truthfully as possible. You think it should be straight down the line propaganda. And anything that isn't propaganda is biased. If that last sentence seems stupid, I agree - but that's what you and your friends are actually saying.

The only problem with Lorie... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The only problem with Lorie's supposed retraction is that she couldn't stop at "Ware Doesn't Appear To Have Heckled", and she had to add that big BUT there. Another one of your notorious right-wing bloggers has a field day anytime someone on the left (or a Muslim) says something and then follows it with BUT. In fact, he usually highlights it with huge letters, which we can't do here. Regardless, it is telling that you couldn't just say you were wrong and leave it at that. You had to go find some other way to slam the guy. You're the type to convict an innocent man under the reasoning of "well, he's probably guilty of something". This position is disingenuous, and worthy of the derision it has received.

I just posted another updat... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

I just posted another update. I will continue to do so as long as new information is available (at least for the next few hours). I have to attend an out-of-town fifth grade field trip tomorrow from 5:45 a.m. to 10 p.m. I say this not as an excuse, but as an explanation in case something breaks. I will not be anywhere near a computer, or a television or radio for that matter, so any of you refreshing the comments every ten minutes waiting for a response need not bother.

Still nothing from Matt Drudge. What I just posted as an update is the AFP story that mentions a reporter in the room giggling in response to McCain's statement. I don't know if laughing and giggling are the same thing to you all, but in my world they are. I don't know who the giggling reporter was. I am just repeating what the AFP (hardly a pro-rightwing organ) is reporting. Actually, I provide the link in the update.

It now appears the Drudge Report had at least part of the story right. I don't know if Ware was the giggler or if it was someone else, or if the giggling took place when the cameras were rolling or some other time. As for interpreting whether laughing and mocking, as I believe Drudge worded it, is the same as giggling, is of course, up to interpretation. But then isn't almost everything in today's reporting? If all the good economic figures (hard numbers) we have seen the past four years could be spun as doom and gloom, I guess just about anything can be.

I think it is likely the fifth graders I will be with tomorrow will engage in a higher level of discussion than some of what I have seen here the past 24 hours -- and for that matter what it appears some reporter in that press conference exhibited. At least the kids I am with will be more likely to be giggling about someone making armpit farts than over life and death matters in Iraq. It will be nice to get away from politics for a day. Hope you all have a nice one as well.

Wow Lorie, I knew someone w... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Wow Lorie, I knew someone who was in Dallas when JFK was killed. Maybe he was part of the conspiracy.

Way to continue to completely avoid adult responsibility. I imagine those fifth graders know more about admitting their mistakes than you do. Maybe they'll have a "higher level of discussion" about right and wrong and mud slinging while "ostensibly" apologizing.

Lorie, to quote the great g... (Below threshold)
dalleceneri:

Lorie, to quote the great godfather Reagan, there you go again.

If Ware was giggling it was because McCain's presser was ridiculously laughable and no one can blame someone for uncontrollable laughter.

The McCain folly had tons of protection w/ over 100 soldiers, mulitple copters, advance sweep teams and rooftop snipers, all of whose lives could possibly have been jeopardized so that the Buffoon McCain could do his totally phoney dog & pony show.

Meanwhile, in post dog & pony show interviews, a number of merchants complained about the phoney show and spoke of the fear that is still latent in that market. In fact, it came under fire less than 36 hours post the McCain clown show.

This show of force & protection (NOTABLY W/ NO IRAQI TROOPS IN VIEW) could easily have cost American lives but for fortune so that this Loon Senator could stage his fraud.

This outrage is either hysterically maddening or, at the least, totally laughable.

And Ware is at fault for laughing???? Get real you rather than post like a smear mongerer.

You have no intergrity whatever, Lorie.

Dalle,Insult my inte... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Dalle,
Insult my integrity all you want, but you are the one changing the goalposts. First I was absent any integrity because I linked a Drudge Report story saying Ware laughed and mocked the Senator, when Ware denied it and could not be seen "heckling" in the video. I updated the post as soon as I saw the reports of the video and have updated several times since, even in a separate post.

Now, when a very anti-Bush report says a reporter was giggling in response to the Senator, you say it is okay if the reporter was giggling. So which is it? Am I absent integrity and a slimeball because I linked an inaccurate story or because I think it is inappropriate for a reporter to be giggling in a press conference in Iraq? Or because I have the nerve to criticize Ware for the Iraqi sniper murder porn that ran on CNN? Probably all of the above, plus being a Republican . If the Drudge story is wrong, then I am without integrity, but if the story were to turn out to be true, I am without integrity for thinking it is unprofessional for a journalist being paid to cover a story to be giggling at a couple of Senators. I guess it depends on what your definition of integrity is.

The original headlin... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:


The original headline "Michael Ware Heckles . . " wasn't written because perhaps SOMEONE (not Michael Ware) MAY have giggled for some UNKNOWN reason (we don't even know if it was perceived as heckling by John McCain).

Just embrace your real motives here -- there's nothing wrong with that -- I'm sure the truth could be stated in one simple sentence.

I'm glad that you haven't g... (Below threshold)

I'm glad that you haven't given up and that you are still clinging to the hope that Matt Drudge will be vindicated.

Jon, great piece on Drudge.... (Below threshold)
dalleceneri:

Jon, great piece on Drudge.

<a href="http://rawstory.co... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oops! Time for another update.

So, on the evidence of the ... (Below threshold)
cat:

So, on the evidence of the tapes, Michael Ware didn't heckle. Now, according to Raw Story, Ware wasn't even the person who giggled at John McCain's joke about the market being perfectly safe if you have 100 marines, three attack helicopters, snipers on the roofs and a bullet proof vest to protect you. (As safe as Detroit?)

Where does that leave us? Exactly where we were before Drudge told his lies and the far right blogosphere helped spread them - most people think Ware's doing a good job, but a few extremists think he's an anti-American purveyor of pornography... because it just doesn't do to let the American public know what their troops are up against.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy