Comments on: Yeow! Knoller Feels Readers' Wrath

[cheekygal-2009]

Knoller, if you were referring to this comment please pay close attention to the first word! "Sappy" with an "s". No wonder you are a lap-dog of this administration as you take what you read and twist it to fit your agenda. It is truly as if you are being pimped by this administration and therefore the comment stands.

"Well, at least I didn't say he was a sappy-headed ho-ho!"

Stop being the administrations "ho-ho" and grow a pair of cajones and become a REAL journalist and do the job without bias!

[moend1]

The problem is not that you and others didn't ask questions challenging the president. It is that the questions didn't reflect any facts for the president to respond to. Thus, even the challenges were softballs because he got to repeat his scripted responses. Reporters have to do homework. Come prepared with specifics and make the people in power get out of their comfort zone.

[timberman]

Here's a question for your hypothetical press conference:

"Mr. President, how does what you're planning for Iraq differ from what 'air and naval forces of the Empire of Japan' did on December 7, 1941, apart from the fact that Iraq's military weakness allows you the luxury of warning them in advance?"

If you think that would have been a disrespectful question, you are clearly NOT much of a reporter.

[one_american]

Those who are most angry at you, Mark, are the people who believe that the media's job is to advance the agenda of the Liberal Democratic Party.

My belief is that these people would be quite content to live in the old Soviet Union, where one party controlled the media...

[rickathens-2009]

Mr. Knoller: You still don't seem to understand what people like me are angry about. It's not enough to ask questions and report the Administration's answers. We expect reporters to look into the veracity those answers. ALL reporters, to some extent, should be investigative reporters. After all, some of the print media got it right: The New York Review of Books (Elizabeth Drew's critique of Judith Miller's reporting, for instance), The Nation, McClatchey newspapers. And now you're joining Bill O'Reilley & Co., criticizing Bill Moyers? Really, one despairs.

[mikebeach3]

Hilarious. I'm not sure what's funnier....a member of the liberal media stunned at the venom spewed forth by liberals (it's a little different when it's aimed at you personally, huh).

Or liberals frothing at the mouth to bash the liberal media which has gone out of its way to crush Bush every chance they get. Keep it up guys! Very entertaining. :)

What would I ask? Mr. Knoller - don't do this. You are not solving anything - you are once again, looking for something defensible or a gotcha moment.

What we need from you is to start banging the drum now. Maybe you blew it, maybe you didn't but there is so much going on in this administration that needs to see the light of day. For example - How about talking about the people Bush has appointed that have vested interest in oil companies and other big business that do not have the general public's best interest in mind....There will be plenty of time for mea culpas or mea not culpas later....

Be a part of the solution - not the obfuscation...

[skeptic3]

You say that ourl media should not be blamed for this Administration's successful Iraq snow job.

Nonsense.

Our 4th Estate failed us all.

This is the age of spin. The Post-Modern Presidency, enabled by Post-Modern Journalism.
There is no such thing as "Truth;" only "points of view." Give the flat-earther with a degree in Bible Studies from Some Rural Bible College equal mike time with the PhD in geophysics from Princeton. Never question the appropriateness of this pairing.

You reveal your own level of post-modern contamination when you fly in the face of demonstrable fact: The American public WAS mislead and the media WAS used to dessiminate MISinformation. Instead you insist that you were just doing your job and those mean, misinformed Bill Moyerses shouldn't point fingers and accuse you of incompetence just because you made little attempt to distinguish between "truth" and "spin." (In a post-modern world, there is no "truth;" therefore there can be only differing shades of "spin." After all -- who are you to say that this shade of spin is better then that shade?)

Start by getting your personal philosophies straight. There is such a thing as truth. Fact. Error. Qualifications. Education. Conflicts of Interest.

It's always easier to excuse and empower ignorance by insisting there is no such thing as education or "truth." Ignorance is always easier then truth.

[jjnels]

Your entire premise is ridiculous. Being a WH reporter should be more than just sitting around all day waiting to ask a question and then repeating the answer (or non-answer) on the "news." Ask tough questions and when they don't give real answers keep pressing. And when they still don't answer get off your fat WH press corps butt and find some answers. Your job is useless if you believe that your job involves nothing more than asking questions and then repeating the vague answers you get.

[eb_in_nyc]

We are not stupid. The run up to the Iraq War is only a few years ago. It is still fresh in my mind how dishonest you in the media were back then. It was clear to most people who followed your reporting back then that what you were telling us had little or nothing to do with reallity.

This utterly weak and mendacious defense of your actions is insulting. You owe us an apology and a pledge that you will never collude with the right wing again to attempt to mislead us.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though.