posted on September 11, 2003 06:09:09 PM new
No, he's thinking "Oh no another scandal with the word 'gate' after it. 'Uranium-gate.' When's naptime?"
I'm mostly talking about the article Helen linked to, but I'm starting to see this elsewhere.
Whether you think Bush lied or not, this tendency to nickname any presidential mistake a blank-gate has gotten old fast.
Watergate - Named ater the hotel, which made sense, duh.
Iran-Contra-Gate - Well, OK, it was the first time it had been used in a decade.
Whitewater-gate - it got old quick.
Uranium-gate - Just silly.
Whichever side of the political spectrum you are on, this gate-ization just makes the report sound silly.
-------------------
Replay Media
Games of all kinds!
[ edited by replaymedia on Sep 11, 2003 06:12 PM ]
You obviously did not read the article carefully because if you had, you would understand the author's use of the term Uranium-gate to point out the intense focus on this particular lie to the exclusion of other more significant lies and to fault the press for doing so. This review of Bush's lies was exceedingly fair.
The author states, "Whatever the outcome of Uranium-gate, it's dismaying that the conventions of news reporting have combined with the mechanisms of Washington media politics to erect such high barriers to freethinking journalism. The current rules end up encouraging media hysteria about personal lies of scant importance and deterring inquiry into topics that matter incalculably more."
David Greenberg is the author of the recently published Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image. He teaches history and political science at Yale and writes a column for Slate.
posted on September 11, 2003 08:26:10 PM new
Yes, I did read the article. And in fact, I do disagree with it.
But I wasn't voicing my opinion of the merits of the article. I was stating that using terms like that make the author look like a fool, his credentials notwithstanding.
-------------------
Replay Media
Games of all kinds!
posted on September 11, 2003 08:45:18 PM new
The Pope just found out that former NY Mayor
Ed Koch is going to vote for President Bush in 2004. Now that says something about the Democratic 9. Or is it 10, 11, 12, infinity ?.
posted on September 11, 2003 08:49:29 PM newYes, I did read the article. And in fact, I do disagree with it. But I wasn't voicing my opinion of the merits of the article. I was stating that using terms like that make the author look like a fool, his credentials notwithstanding.
replaymedia,
You still have no understanding of the article or the author's intended use of the term Uranium-gate which leaves you, rather than the author, "looking like a fool".
