More on McKinney - and on double standards at the American Prospect
| June 27th, 2003Showing once again that when it comes to bashing progressives, mainstream Democrats are pretty much indistinguishable from Republicans, TAPPED and The Wyeth Wire both link to a transcript of Cynthia McKinney’s comments on the Flashpoints radio show. TAPPED, in an entry entitled “McKinney is still an idiot,” claims that McKinney’s comments “could be fairly described” by this statement from the New York Times:
Wyeth Wire makes a similar claim, calling Gregory Palast’s article defending McKinney “patently false.” Just look in this transcript, Wyeth and TAPPED say, and you’ll see the statement for yourself.
The funny thing is, neither of these blogs actually quotes McKinney’s damning statements. Why? Because - surprise surprise - they’re not there.
Here’s the closest McKinney comes to saying “President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.”
So McKinney brings up two classes of people - “the administration,” who should be asked what it knew and when, and “who else,” other people who did know ahead of time and failed to warn the people of New York. To spin this into a specific accusation of Bush, or even of his administration, having specific foreknowledge of 9/11, conciously ignored for profit’s sake, is a bit of a stretch.
(Elsewhere in the interview, McKinney points out that various Bush associates are in the war profiteering business - but she nowhere connects this to foreknowledge of 9/11.)
Later in the interview, McKinney elaborates a little on what kinds of questions the Bush administration should be asked:
To me, it sounds like McKinney is saying that the intelligence prior to 9/11 should have been followed through on and taken seriously, and was not; and she’s calling for an investigation of why this happened. This is a position that many reasonable people have taken. To sum up McKinney’s statements as “President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war” is “patently” inaccurate and unfair.
TAPPED says “the comments in question are a little ambiguous, but could be fairly described the way NPR and The New York Times did.” But that’s ridiculous. The New York Times quote doesn’t describe an ambiguous statement, and readers were left with a false impression. Furthermore, when a text can be read two ways - reasonable or wacky - it’s obviously unfair to write a news story that emphasizes only the wacky reading, or doesn’t let readers know the text has a non-wacky reading.
Of course, mainstream liberals like TAPPED are quite aware of this sort of press bias. In fact, they bitch about it all the time - when the bias is used against one of their own.
Let’s compare TAPPED’s McKinney-bashing with what The American Prospect wrote about Al Gore’s press coverage. (Of course, TAPPED isn’t obliged to agree with everything its mothership publishes - but the contrast is still interesting).
Here, according to the Prospect, is what Al Gore said about creating the internet:
The press widely (mis)reported this as “Al Gore thinks he invented the internet” or something along those lines. Oddly enough, the Prospect, in this case, doesn’t argue that Gore’s statement was ambiguous but could be fairly understood as the press reported it. But why not? “I took the initiative in creating the Internet” is actually pretty close to saying “I invented the internet.” At the very least, it’s much closer than saying “What did this Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11?” is to saying “Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.”
But no - Gore, according to the Prospect, was unfairly smeared by press accounts which reported only the most damaging interpretation of his statement, as if there were no other, more reasonable readings of what Gore meant. As it happens, I agree with the Prospect on this point… but it’s clear the same thing happened to McKinney.
So why is the Prospect bending over backwards to defend Gore, while eagerly jumping on the McKinney smear bandwagon? Because Gore is a centrist Democrat, while McKinney is an actual leftist. Just as Republicans hate and smear Democrats, Democrats hate and smear leftists. TAPPED doesn’t think doing this sort of press bias is wrong; they just think it’s wrong to use it against politicians from their own political camp.
There’s also a racist and sexist undercurrent to this story.
Just to make it clear: I’m not accusing TAPPED or Wyeth Wire of being racists or sexists. (I think TAPPED’s calling McKinney an “idiot” is contemptible, but that doesn’t make TAPPED a bigot, just an asshole).
But I do think that the press as a whole is particularly open to the “Cynthia is a nutcase” analysis because she’s an uppity black woman. And I think blacks and women are, due to the racist and sexist undercurrents of our culture, particularly vulnerable to being smeared in this way.
And although I don’t think TAPPED dislikes black women (for all I know, TAPPED is a black woman - although I’d be surprised, considering how few blacks or women TAPPED’s sidebar links to), I’d have a hell of a lot more respect for TAPPED if it fought the racist and sexist presumption used against McKinney, rather than going along with it.
June 27th, 2003 at 5:58 am
Greg Palast didn’t say the remarks were distorted. He claimed they were fabricated.
All he had to do was reference the Pacifica Radio Interview and we would have had justifiably grieveance to air.
Instead, he choose to ominously intone “No such quote exists in the Atlanta Journal Constitution” and “No such statement was ever made in the Congressional Record.”
He was implying the interview never happened. I’m saying it did.
This comment was written by Wyeth.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 6:11 am
Palast’s acticle also says this:
According to NPR, her ?loony? statement was made on the radio news show Counterspin. (Not incidentally, Counterspin is produced by an NPR competitor, the nonprofit Pacifica Radio Network.) I have the transcript; it?s on the web. Her charge that Bush knew about the September 11 attacks in advance and deliberately covered it up can?t be found.
What can be read is her call for a follow-up on the revelations from the BBC and USA Today on the information about a growing terror threat ignored by Bush . . . and whether the policy response ? war, war, war ? was protecting America or simply enriching Bush?s big arms industry donors and business partners.
Yes, Palast screwed up by mixing up “Counterspin” and “Flashpoints” (McKinney has never been interviewed on Counterspin) he did discuss Pacifica’s interview with her. To say Palast implied that interview never happened is - to use your phrase “patently false.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 6:48 am
So why is the Prospect bending over backwards to defend Gore, while eagerly jumping on the McKinney smear bandwagon? Because Gore is a centrist Democrat, while McKinney is an actual leftist.
I think another element may be McKinney daring to criticize the administration after 9/11. When all dissent is automatically viewed as treason by a lot of folks, certain interpretations could become that much more attractive…
Eh, it’s a thought.
This comment was written by David Schaich.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 6:57 am
Incisive comparison with TAPPED on the McKinney and Gore “quotes.” I think McKinney’s comments in this transcript that are specifically about the Bush administration can only be reasonably interpreted as being about ignoring or misinterpreting warnings rather than a plot to allow the Towers to fall.
Her comment about the “unusual stock trades” has a bit more of a conspiracy theory smell about it (to me). Whatever happened with that story anyway? The last I remember is that trade activity wasn’t especially abnormal. But I don’t remember a systematic look at it. And in any event, such a concern in March, 2002 is not particularly disquieting.
This comment was written by JDC.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 7:06 am
No, sorry, Barry. It is possible to read that comment and get that she thinks the Bush Admin let 9/11 happen for gain. In the first quote, the way way she flows from the stock traders to questions about what the Bush Admin knew sounds very much like she is linking the two rhetotically. I do not think, to the average listener, that interpretation is a stretch.
OTO, the entire context in the interview clairifies that, and TAPPED should have pointed that out.
This comment was written by kevin.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 7:38 am
Thank you for posting the actual McKinney comments. I literally had just read the smear at Tapped before hitting your site and I gotta admit, I took Tapped seriously. They were way off base.
Keep on blogging…thekeez
This comment was written by Jeff Keezel.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 9:27 am
Kevin writes: “It is possible to read that comment and get that she thinks the Bush Admin let 9/11 happen for gain.”
If you say so. However, I think that even if I conceded that, my point would still stand: “When a text can be read two ways - reasonable or wacky - it’s obviously unfair to write a news story that emphasizes only the wacky reading, or doesn’t let readers know the text has a non-wacky reading.”
Unless you’re arguing that your reading is the ONLY plausible reading, I think the way the press destroyed McKinney IS an example of unfair, biased reporting - rather like the “invented the internet” smear against Gore.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 9:58 am
My initial inclination is that McKinney’s quote does imply some kind of specific foreknowledge.
But what’s really weird is how this stuff keeps going round and round. Why don’t people just run the damn quote and then make whatever commentary they want? Kudos to Ampersand for doing that, and letting me decide for myself if I agree with him.
This comment was written by Kevin Drum.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 10:01 am
Barry
Well, yeah, to be mean, I see the “conspiracy” stuff in McKinney’s quote as by far the most plausible reading off it. I honestly don’t think she meant it that way, as I know some of her history, but she seems to have expressed hersefl in a rather stupid fashion.
Again, having said that, it is odd that TAPPED did not do what the Repubs tried to do with Lott: push the “reasonable” explanation to the forefront. It did not work in Lott’s case becasue he had a history of associating with racits and racist casues. It WOULD have worked with McKinney, becasue she does not have a history of being a conspiracy monger.
This comment was written by kevin.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 1:08 pm
You may recall that in the previous thread I quoted from an AP report on the press release that McKinney issued when this whole thing came up. Notably, she never denied making the implication that the Bush administration might have let Sept. 11 happen in order to profit from it. Here’s a quote from the AP article:
McKinney declined to be interviewed Thursday, but she issued a statement saying: “I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case.”
Not exactly the ringing denial that Amp is now providing on McKinney’s behalf,
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 2:10 pm
Well, Joe, if you had bothered to read Palast’s Alternet piece, you would have found this little quote of McKinney’s:
“George Bush had no prior knowledge of the plan to attack the World Trade Center on September 11.”
Basically the ringing denial that Amp is now providing.
True, Palast doesn’t provide us with a link or url, so I can’t hunt it down and check context such as when she said that (although it probably wouldn’t have come up before the furor over her March 2002 remarks) or whether there were any other phrases Palast edited out (like, say, “a complete investigation may show this to be the case”). I’m sure Palast spins, but he wouldn’t just make up a quote like that from whole cloth.
If anybody has found whatever complete statement that sentence came from, it would be nice to see it.
This comment was written by David Schaich.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 2:35 pm
I did bother to read Palast’s piece, but I don’t trust him at all. He’s spinning furiously.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 3:34 pm
Palast says it’s from the Congressional Record. Anyone care to go check?
So, Joe: you believe Clemetson when she suggests McKinney said one thing, but you disbelieve Palast when he quotes McKinney directly saying another?
This comment was written by --k..Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 5:22 pm
. . . .Democrats hate and smear leftists.
This works both ways, certainly. McKinney famously said of Gore that his “Negro tolerance has never been too high. I’ve never seen him around more than one at a time.”
This comment was written by Tom T..Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 7:17 pm
Sadly, I do believe that the “average reader” would so badly misinterpret her statement — but that’s only because I do believe that the “average citizen” is stupid beyond redemption, and wouldn’t know how to think for themselves if they had to in order to save their own lives.
This comment was written by bean.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 8:02 pm
“Here’s the closest McKinney comes to saying “President Bush might have known about the September 11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.”"
Sorry, but no. As I point out here, McKinney said almost exactly this in a press release right after the KPFA interview,
“I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. For example, it is known that President Bush’s father, through the Carlyle Group had - at the time of the attacks - joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings, the stocks of which, have soared since September 11.”
Moreover Palast in his article specifically says that he searched McKinney’s web site, and this was posted to McKinney’s Congressional web site. So he’s either lying or one lousy researcher (this took me 5 minutes to find on Goolge).
This comment was written by Brian Carnell.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2003 at 11:51 pm
Brian, that quote - like the fuller quotes on your website - doesn’t include any accusation that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance but deliberately allowed it to happen for profit’s sake. That you think it does prove Palast wrong suggests that your political bias against McKinney has colored your judgement.
Now, maybe she did mean her statements as you’ve interpreted them - although I doubt it - but that your “best case” quote is so undamning shows how weak your case is.
Of course, I’ve got a bias too - but my point is, why is your bias the only one the papers adopted? A fairer, objective approach to the story would have pointed out that the “nutty” interpretation you prefer isn’t the only interpretation. That the press largely decided not to report any but your preferred (right-wing, anti-feminist) interpretation shows bias - just as Palast claimed.
The press gave the impression that McKinney made a clear, nonsubjective accusation against Bush. That’s simply not true.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2003 at 12:05 pm
He’s offering a “right wing anti-feminist” interpretation? What baloney. McKinney clearly and unambiguously 1) said that people close to the administration were profiting from Sept. 11, and 2) asked whether Bush knew about Sept. 11 ahead of time. You don’t have to be a genius or a right-winger, much less an “anti-feminist,” to think that she was heavily implying that Bush let Sept. 11 happened on purpose so as to let his friends profit. And that is clearly the implication she meant to leave in the listeners’ minds.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2003 at 3:47 pm
And that is clearly the implication she meant to leave in the listeners’ minds.
So what? You can’t say she said it if she didn’t say it.
What is so hard to understand about that? Jesus, it’s clear as a goddamn bell that not only did President Bush mean for the American people to believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11. But he didn’t actually come out and say it. You don’t see much of a stink in the press being raised about that one.
McKinney’s remarks, however you interpret them, were trying to raise important questions that must be asked, whatever the answers might be. Bush’s remarks got thousands of people killed. Advantage McKinney, as far as I’m concerned.
This comment was written by ---k..Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2003 at 5:38 pm
Left wing ass munch Greg Palast is getting lots of kudos on the lefty screamer web sites for this story alleging that former Representative Cynthia McKinney never alleged that Bush had foreknowledge of 9/11, and that she never said Bush let 9/11 go down because it would profit his family. Throughout the article on the ever reliable lefty (ever reliably left?) Alternet, Palast keeps repeating, she never said it, there’s no proof, she got screwed.
The only problem is, Palast is wrong. It’s either sloppy research, or he is lying and intentionally omitting facts in an interest to rehabilitate McKinney.
This Pacifica Radio Transcript from a Pacifica Radio interview with McKinney features the troublesome words. It’s printed verbatim.
Now I know the left has been on this kick lately, about conservative dominance of the media. Well, this transcript is from a source that will be hard to impeach… though maybe Palast can infer in a later article that the goodly hippies who run Pacifica are self-hating leftists who sabotage their own cause.
This comment was written by quit lying.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2003 at 5:47 pm
TRANSCRIPT OF APPEARANCE OF REP. CYNTHIA ANN MCKINNEY (D-Ga.) ON KPFA’S FLASHPOINTS WITH DENNIS BERNSTEIN. MARCH 25, 2002. (Real Audio Here.)
Moreover, persons close to this Administration are poised to make huge profits off America’s new war. Former President Bush sits on the board of the Carlyle Group. The Los Angeles Times reports that on a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army’s fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the Sept. 11 attacks. The stock sale cashed in on increased
congressional support for hefty defense spending, including one of United Defense’s cornerstone weapon programs.
Now is the time for our elected officials to be held accountable. Now is the time for the media to be held accountable. Why aren’t the hard questions being asked? We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, delivered one such warning. Those engaged in unusual stock trades immediately before September 11 knew enough to make millions of dollars from United and American airlines, certain insurance and brokerage firms’ stocks. What did this Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?
….
This comment was written by quit your fucking lying, amp.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2003 at 7:29 pm
“quit your fucking lying, amp”
what are charming person you are.
i’m a little puzzled at how mckinney’s alarm at a conflict of interest re defence spending can become proof positive that she thinks that bush let the attack happen to enrich himself and his friends. you imply that the connection between the two paragraphs you quote carries the implication that bush knew and let it happen so he could make a buck, but in my opinion she might just as easily be expressing her digust in bush taking advantage of a tragedy that his intelligence failures unintentionally led to. nowhere in the paragraphs you quote does she expressly say or necessarily imply that bush intentionally let it happen. ergo, amp need not quit her “fucking lying”.
also, remember at the g8 meeting in genoa in july 2001 [this comes from a bbc report published at that time]:
the airspace above the summit was closed off as well. in other words, it’s not exactly a crazy idea that certain people may have had a good idea what was coming, even if they didn’t know the exact date. in other words “what was known by whom and when” is in my opinion a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and hats off to mckinney for having the guts to ask it.
This comment was written by adam.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2003 at 7:41 pm
Note from Ampersand: Wow, four messages in a row from anonymous right-wingers (or more likely, the same one four times in a row), all carrying insults but no real arguments.
All four deleted for boring me. If you want to be a right-winger on my website, you’ll have to be polite or at least a little bit interesting.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2003 at 4:48 pm
Deleted by Amp
This comment was written by deleted by Amp.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2003 at 5:43 pm
Fascinating set of comments.
I was wondering why all the passion behind misrepresenting McKinney. Then I got to the comment just above this one (which likely should be deleted as well) and said, “Ah.”
This comment was written by Prometheus 6.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2003 at 8:52 pm
Do you agree with McKinney: do you think it was the J - E - W - S ?
This comment was written by nameless one.Report this comment to the moderators
June 29th, 2003 at 11:02 pm
“it”?
I think you’d need to be more specific before anyone could approach answering your question.
This comment was written by Prometheus 6.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 2:55 am
Nameless one is being conveniently unspecific with names. McKinney’s father made an ass of himself by saying that McKinney’s election defeat was due to the “J, E, W, S.”
It was an stupid and anti-Semitic statement, and of course I don’t agree. But nor do I beleive that the sins of her father should be visited on Cynthia McKinney. She’s responsible for her own statements, not for her father’s.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 6:32 am
Exactly why I asked for specificity, Amp. If nameless one had said “it” was “banding together to remove the representative of a locality they did not live in,” I’d have said yes-and that they were within their political rights to do so, though I really wish they hadn’t because reliance on falsehoods will come out if any persistance at all is used. They damage themselves in the eyes of a traditional ally.
This comment was written by Prometheus 6.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 8:15 am
If nameless one had said “it” was “banding together to remove the representative of a locality they did not live in,” I’d have said yes-and that they were within their political rights to do so…
I’d disagree. Some particular groups of Jews may have done as you say, but “Jews,” generically, did not. Some Jews - including me - donated money to McKinney’s re-election campaign, or in other ways banded together to support her.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 8:28 am
Oh, it’s not enough to catch me on my own blog, huh? Hmph.
This comment was written by Prometheus 6.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 10:36 am
ad hominem attacks on McKinney and now Ampersand notwithstanding, the questions remain:
1. What’s up with the Carlyle Group’s timing on their stock offering? Good business or war profiteering?
2. Who were the people who made a ton of money trading a large volume of airline stocks just prior to the WTC attack? Did they have prior knowledge of the attackers’ intentions, and if so, from whom did they get it?
To immediately twist these questions into a bald accusation that McKinney was saying Bush “let the attacks happen” so that “his friends and family” could make some money and further the PNAC agenda looks to me like a lot of folks on the right think that’s exactly how it all went down, and further, that they don’t want any investigations into those dealings since that might upset the apple cart.
This comment was written by pericat.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 2:42 pm
PERICAT SAID:
“To immediately twist these questions into a bald accusation that McKinney was saying Bush “let the attacks happen” so that “his friends and family” could make some money and further the PNAC agenda looks to me like a lot of folks on the right think that’s exactly how it all went down, and further, that they don’t want any investigations into those dealings since that might upset the apple cart.”
Uh, the quotation didn’t need twisting. She said what she said, and her sick remarks were characterized accurately.
Yeah, being disgusted by McKinney’s lunacy is proof that she’s on to something. And the less proof there is of it, the more true it must be.
This comment was written by Anonymous.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2003 at 9:00 pm
PERICAT SAID
Why yes, I did. And under my name. With a valid web address and email.
Your response was anonymous ad hominem strawman. You’re only proving my thesis, you know.
If you want to be your own person, and argue for what you like based on your own interests, you will need to begin by signing your name to that which you espouse. From that comes recognition of the difference between what you espouse versus your own interests. Unless you are a major stockholder in the Carlyle Group, your interests are not served through failing to question their most timely trades.
If you simply want to be a pawn, I’ll grant that you don’t need a name.
This comment was written by pericat.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2003 at 12:26 am
Amp, you do yourself no credit by accusing TAPPED of double standards, particularly when your evidence is the claim that “Al Gore invented the Internet” is a fair smear compared to what McKinney’s gone through. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the precise history and anatomy of the Al Gore paraphrase. It’s 100% calculated smear, and no, “invented the Internet” is not a fair paraphrase of what he said (read the link).
As for McKinney, here’s are the damning quotes you asked for, from the rise4news.net page. First, the excerpt you quote:
(Emphasis mine.) My parse of those last two sentences is different from yours. They imply that somebody could have/should have “warn[ed] the innocent people of New York”. These people are referred to as “Who else”, implying that they were not the only people who knew in time to warn the people of New York. Who are the first party, from which the “else” distinguishes the latter party? “[T]his administration”.
The innuendo and the intent are clear. “This administration”, as well as other people, knew about the events of September 11 in time to “warn the innocent people of New York”, and did not do so.
If you think this parse is too picky, then further down the interview, McKinney also says:
Is there any way to interpret this statement other than, “The Bush administration knew enough to stop September 11, and it did not”? Who else was in a position (having both adequate intelligence and power) to prevent September 11?
BTW, just to be absolutely clear, I have no fondness whatsoever for the Bush administration, and I despise the screaming right-wingers who raise shitstorms about this sort of thing (if McKinney hadn’t said it, some right-winger would have made it up—it’s all just an excuse to throw a hissyfit about those “crazy liberals”). But McKinney did stick her foot in her mouth, firmly and unambiguously. Subsequent statements to the contrary were clearly spin control.
Also, re: your comments:
I think TAPPED’s calling McKinney an “idiot” is contemptible, but that doesn’t make TAPPED a bigot, just an asshole
for all I know, TAPPED is a black woman - although I’d be surprised, considering how few blacks or women TAPPED’s sidebar links to
TAPPED is not one person, it’s a collaborative blog by the staff of the American Prospect. The American Prospect does employ several women, non-whites, and (gasp) even non-white women. I am not sure about their specific ethnicities or races.
Furthermore, your assumption that bloggers only link to people of their own race or gender strikes me as weird, given that I have no clue at all about the race of most of the bloggers I read.
Also, TAPPED, and the American Prospect in general, are solidly in the progressive camp of the Democratic Party. They’ve been struggling mightily against the DLC’s supine passivity for years. You’re way off base in questioning their progressive credentials.
This comment was written by JD.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2003 at 7:14 am
Furthermore, your assumption that bloggers only link to people of their own race or gender strikes me as weird, given that I have no clue at all about the race of most of the bloggers I read.
That isn’t my assumption. My assumption is that white people, and especially white men, are more likely than other folks to not even consider the need to support diverse voices when deciding who belongs on a blogroll (or in a magazine, or in a movie’s cast, etc etc).
So it’s not “women link only to women, men link only to men, blacks link only to blacks,” and so on, as your phraseing suggests. It’s more that “white men are less likely to view diversity as a necessary consideration, and so are more likely to link primarily to white men; other folks are less likely to ignore those aspects, and so are less likely to wind up linking near-exclusively to any one sex or race, including their own.”
As for the rest, if you honestly think that your reading is the ONLY POSSIBLE VALID READING of McKinney’s statement, and no other reading is at all possible or should be reported on, then I don’t think we have much to talk about. If, on the other hand, you acknowlege that the inference you take isn’t the only possible way to read it, then don’t you think the press should report both versions?
And I’m totally familiar with the info about the Gore quote, thanks. To me, it looks like the criticism of Gore was (if anything) a good deal more fair than the criticism of McKinney.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2003 at 6:55 pm
Hey Amp, I see trolls have reached your blog and they’ve regendered you, which is clearly their most interesting accomplishment. Fine post and (on the whole) thread, but I have to say that JD’s extract convinces me that McKinney - perhaps in a wayward moment - was indeed implying that people could have warned NYC on 9-10. Now, she doesn’t say she means the White House. And her position is oobviously far, far more civic-minded than the Bush crowd’s stonewalling both before and after 9-11. Which is only to be expected. Maybe Graham will actually open his mouth and say something.
This comment was written by John Isbell.Report this comment to the moderators
September 6th, 2003 at 7:12 am
Since you defend McKinney against the “conspiracy theory” charges, perhaps you’ll be interested to know that she is addressing a conference of conspiracy theorists in Germany:
http://www.expatica.com/germany.asp?pad=190,205,&item_id=34000
Sept 11 theorists to meet in Berlin
5 September 2003
BERLIN - Writers and activists who believe the United States government is hiding the truth about the September 11 attacks will hold a conference in Berlin this Sunday, organisers announced.
The meeting of US and European activists will compile a list of questions and demands for documents to be submitted to the US and German governments as well as the European Union on the second anniversary of the attacks.
“I take the position that the (US President George W) Bush administration had absolute fore-knowledge of the attacks,” said Michael Ruppert, who is one of the organisers, adding that he believed Bush had “facilitated” the attacks.
A former member of the US Congress, Cynthia McKinney, who is also due to address the conference, told reporters: “Who else knows … why were the innocent people of New York not warned.”
Another organiser, Nicholas Levis from New York, said the conference was encouraged by the fact that a recent opinion poll showed 19 per cent of Germans believed the US government may have given the order for the September 11 attacks.
This comment was written by Joe M.Report this comment to the moderators
October 8th, 2003 at 2:41 pm
Alright, I’m a little behind the times, as I had never even heard about Ms. McKinney until today. I just listened to the original radio interview in question in its entirety.
Of course, if you’re a Bush fan, you would have found her remarks repulsive and probably unfair. When a sitting congresswoman practically infers that the President of the U.S. “may have” committed treason, this is not something his loyal supporters are going to take lying down.
On the other hand, all this bickering over exactly which words Ms. McKinney used and whether or not it technically constituted an “accusation” kinda misses the point entirely.
I don’t see how any thinking person, if s/he listens to the entire interview, can interpret McKinney’s remarks in the way that they were reported in the mainstream press. In the context of the entire interview, it is clear that she is simply an American concerned about a myriad of “red flags” which suggest traditional American ideas and ideals are being hijacked by powerful special interests, much to our detriment on the international scene. The potential conflict of interest between Bush Jr. and his daddy is only one such red flag, albeit a big one.
And she’s right, of course. Even dyed-in-the-wool Republicans would have to admit that we as a nation are not as idealistic as we once were. Some degree of corruption is expected nowadays. The reason she’s a loon is that, unlike the jaded, cynical public she represents, she has not fully accepted that this is the way things are and nothing can be done now to set things right.
This comment was written by MG.Report this comment to the moderators