Dave’s not here, man. ; )

Obviously, it would be unethical if the reporter or commentator pretended that some trial balloon from an administration contact was his own view or the result of independent research, but that isn’t what happened here. Meanwhile, I don’t know what’s so wrong with an administration calling up a reporter and saying, essentially, this is what our read/take/spin of the situation is. If they are lying, then it should be on record that they lied. One way or the other, anyone who thinks this adminstration is the first to do that is very mistaken.

To me, the real problem is that people treat these press releases (or “talking points” or whatever the jargon of the day is) as if they were news by themselves, without doing any independent verification. To me, the “professional news organizations” should be looking for original sources and corroborating evidence. Politicians aren’t omniscient beings who unveil the truth at their whim. If a politician (or any government figure) says “X”, then the journalists job isn’t just to report that “Politician Says ‘X’”; it’s to find out what’s actually known about the topic and report that. Frankly, it would be no disservice to the news if the politician were scuttled to paragraph eight or ignored altogether, unless he actually discovered X. We would be a good deal better off if reporting was more about the facts in context and less about the public personalities presenting them.

Anyway, this case does make one wonder: If the situation is politically reversed in the future, will Olberman will be refusing the calls of people in a Democratic administration?

Not that this in any way indemnifies Bush & Co or Fox News. But this just strikes me as an argument best made by… someone else.

That’s assuming that the talking points are merely “its perspective” and not outright lies.

I just think it’s irrelevant. Most Fox News commentators have their heads so far up the Bush Admin bunghole that they can read the talking points in its feces.

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2008/07/you_read_it_fir.php

Take the case of Dick Cheney on Meet The Press during the run up to the Iraq war. He leaked false information regarding Iraqi WMD to Judith Miller at the NY Times so that it would be published the morning of the show. He then referenced that false information in the NY Times article to claim how dangerous Iraq was and to justify the war. In fact, the administration had organized a media blitz on that day and all involved referenced the false information that they themselves had planted.

Surely you must consider this propaganda? Where do you draw the line between talking points and outright organized propaganda?

I am still shocked to this day that Cheney was not impeached just for that alone.