posted on September 29, 2001 06:41:27 AM
A few days ago, I'd mentioned in a thread that a transcript of Bush's speech to the CIA, on The Washington Post's website, had incorrectly transcribed what Bush had said. During his speech, Bush had several times used the word "misunderestimated." However, the transcript on The Washington Post's website quoted him as always saying "underestimated."
A small thing? Yes. Still, a transcription should accurately reflect what was actually said. Mistakes like these are what " (sic) " is for. There was no " (sic) " in the Washington Post's transcription, just an oh so subtle change that maybe no one but me noticed.
Similarly, Ari Fleischer's comments ( "Americans need to watch what they say, watch what they do..." ) on Bill Maher's ( "Politcally Incorrect" host ) "cowards" remarks underwent a change, a more radical change, on the White House transcription of Fleischer's press conference (the official White House transcript of Fleishcher's press conference omitted that line of Fleischer's) That was noticed and commented on by the Press.
posted on September 29, 2001 07:18:36 AM
I have noticed these errors in US newspapers and I don't approve. That is why I read the Guardian and papers outside the US for a correct and unbiased report.
But the Washington Post did note the use of the new Bush malapropoism "misunderestimate".
Do you suppose that maybe the editors are afraid that the readers may read these errors and think that the reporters are incompetent?
But even in the tension of war preparation, Bush gave a clear sign that things were returning to normal, as he employed his favorite malapropism, "misunderestimate," three times in as many sentences.
"The folks who conducted to act on our country on September 11th made a big mistake," he said. "They underestimated America. They underestimated our resolve, our determination, our love for freedom. They misunderestimated the fact that we love a neighbor in need. They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the commander in chief, too."
posted on September 29, 2001 07:33:16 AM
Just as bombing the aspirin factory was meant to confuse the enemy, Bush's speech and speech patterns leave the Taliban saying, Duh? They don't know if they are making progress or not....good work Bush!
posted on September 29, 2001 07:53:03 AM
Ah! I feel a bit better, Helen, that you found someone who heard what I heard, and referenced it re "misunderestimated."
Compare the quote from your link on the Washington Post site with this one, also on the Washington Post site, headed - "The following is a transcript of President Bush's speech to CIA employees. The president was introduced by CIA Director George Tenet."
Scroll down about 3/4, to the paragraph that begins with "The folks who conducted" and see how it's been transcribed. That transcript I got from the "transcripts" section of the Washington Post.
"Do you suppose that maybe the editors are afraid that the readers may read these errors and think that the reporters are incompetent?"
No, because that's what "sic" is for.
The "transcript" I've linked to isn't credited to a reporter, it's not an article but presented as an actual transcript. Which it's not. Likewise, the official White House transcript of Ari Fleischer's press conference wasn't really a transcript - it was an alteration of the past, because it made no reference to that sticky "watch what you say" language at all.
As you might guess, I don't like these changes at all. Even though altering "misunderestimated" is a small thing, designed to protect our President's dignity, I imagine, it leaves a bad taste. The press should report accurately...NEVER edit quotes.
It reminds me of press photos of FDR...never showing the wheelchair. That chair was hardly shameful, nor did it show any weakness that counted. Should have been pictured, IMO. A sin of omission, granted, but symptomatic of a much bigger problem, I'll bet.
If Ari's statement was removed from the official White House transcript (which I haven't seen), I find that totally reprehensible. They need to stop such maneuvers immediately.
posted on September 29, 2001 09:26:48 AM
FDR photos.. Yes, the motivation is the same, to make the guys "look better."
The official White House transcript - I went, this morning, to the White House site, to find their version of Fleischer's press conference. What's posted there today accurately reflects what Fleischer said re the "watch what you say" type remarks.
Although I didn't see it myself, several press people noticed, and commented on the fact that the official White House transcript, at one time, didn't accurately relfect Fleischer's remarks. I'm fairly certain that I heard, on tv, a reporter mention the different version. That would either have been a CNN reporter, or a reporter at the next Fleischer press conference.
Salon also references the "cleaning" of Fleischer's remarks on page 1 in this article, one that's worth reading for itself anyway:
In the end, it won't be military superiority that determines the outcome of this war. As our implacable fundamentalist foes have told the world, this is a war of values. We cannot win by sacrificing ours. If democracy and freedom are to win over the forces of terror and theocracy, they first must flourish at home.
posted on September 29, 2001 11:21:38 AM
If the president needs people who lie for him to prevent him from looking like an illiterate idiot that says as much about him as we need to know.
posted on September 29, 2001 01:46:31 PM
In Orwell's 1984 I believe it was they had a whole government department dedicated to revising all publications to match the current "Official Truth". We be there bro'.
posted on September 29, 2001 02:08:15 PM
Maybe the thread title jogged that loose in my brain cells. And Orwell did not forsee having computers to revise everything with ease.
Don't even allow hard copy - just keep files that are easy to keep current!
posted on September 29, 2001 02:23:07 PM
I work for a transcription service and exclusively transcribe in the television news industry.
Where I am employed, it is standard policy to fire anyone who alters what is spoken in an interview. All interviews are to be transcribed verbatim. I was sickened to see the alterations in the above transcripts.
posted on September 29, 2001 02:38:04 PM
At least they "corrected" the White House transcript, if it was, indeed, altered. Maybe our government realizes they can no longer play fast and loose with this sort of thing. Information is almost instantly available to us via the Internet. We can and will watch, and be vigilant.
How did you ever find that? I gave up, though I admit, I'm not good at these searches.
I repeat what I said. It's a good thing that it was corrected. Maybe our government finally realizes they can't pull this stuff off anymore. We're watching now, and they know it.
