UPDATE: I'm Less Confused

It seems to me that both candidates are simply taking a reasonable position in cleaning up the Bush mess.

The real issue is how the mess was created to begin with, and what their views on that are. McCain sides with the neocons. Obama, I really don't know.

I have supported Obama during the primary, but it appears that there will be a different Obama in the general election. I haven't given up on him, but my eyebrows have raised considerably recently.

OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY SAID HE WILL LISTEN TO COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND IN IMPLEMENTING HIS POLICY

June 2008: Obama: I’ve Consistently Said That I Will Consult With Military Commanders On The Ground And Be Open To The Possibility Of Tactical Adjustments. Obama said, “I’ve also consistently said that I will consult with military commanders on the ground and that we will always be open to the possibility of tactical adjustments. The important thing is to send a clear signal to the Iraqi people and most importantly to the Iraqi leadership that the U.S. occupation in Iraq is finite, it is gonna be coming to a foreseeable end.” [MSNBC, 6/16/08]

March 2008: Obama Said He Would Give Senior Military Leaders Opinions Great Weight In Implementing His Iraq Plan But As Commander In Chief Would Make His Own Assessment Of The Situation. Obama was asked “what weight will you give to the counsel of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] commander, the combatant commander on the ground in Iraq and current intelligence chiefs on the ground in Iraq regarding an immediate phased withdrawal?” Obama said, “I will give their counsel great weight. But, as commander in chief, it is my responsibility to make my own assessment of the situation. We must send a clear signal to the Iraqi political leadership that we are leaving Iraq on a timeline. Doing so will put pressure on those leaders to begin to resolve the political impasse at the heart of this civil war. But I also want to be clear about another thing. I am worried our Army is overstretched and that we have asked an awful lot from our military families. Many in our senior military leadership are worried about a plan that will keep 130,000 troops on the ground in Iraq for the foreseeable future. So, as commander in chief, I will also have to take into consideration the counsel of other senior military leaders who may be concerned that Iraq is undercutting our ability to confront other security challenges.” [Washington Post, 3/2/08]

March 2008: Obama Said The Size Of The Residual Force Will Depend On Consultation With Military Commanders And “Will Depend On The Circumstances On The Ground.” Obama said, “The precise size of the residual force will depend on consultations with our military commanders and will depend on the circumstances on the ground, including the willingness of the Iraqi government to move toward political accommodation. But let me be clear on one thing: I will end this war, and there will be far fewer Americans in Iraq conducting a much more limited set of missions that include counterterrorism and protection of our embassy and U.S. civilians.” [Washington Post, 3/2/08]

November 2007: Obama Said He Would Leave Residual Troops In Iraq Based On The Levels Of Violence, “It’s Not My Job To Specify Troop Levels.” Obama said, “If we see a serious effort by the Iraqi leadership to arrive at an agreement and an accommodation and you’ve seen continued reductions of violence, then you need one level of troop protection for the embassy…If things have gone to hell in a hand basket then you need another … It’s not my job to specify troop levels. My job is to tell our commanders on the ground, ‘Here’s your mission. Protect our embassy, protect our diplomats and our humanitarian workers in the area and make sure al Qaeda in Iraq, or other terrorist organizations inside of Iraq are not re-establishing bases there.” [Fosters, 11/28/07]

November 2007: Obama Said U.S. Has To Make Sure “We Are Not Just Willy-Nilly Removing Troops” And That It May “Take A Little Bit Longer” In Some Areas Where There Is Less Stability. “According to all the reports, we should have been well along our way in getting the Iraqi security forces to be more functional. We then have another 16 months after that to adjust the withdrawal and make sure that we are withdrawing from those areas, based on advice from the military officers in the field, those places where we are secured, made progress and we’re not just willy-nilly removing troops, but we’re making a determination – in this region we see some stability. We’ve had cooperation from local tribal leaders and local officials, so we can afford to remove troops here. Here, we’ve still got problems, it’s going to take a little bit longer. Maybe those are the last areas to pull out.” [New York Times, 11/1/07]

November 2007: Obama: “If The Commanders Tell Me They Need X, Y And Z, In Order To Accomplish The Very Narrow Mission That I’ve Laid Out, Than I Will Take That Into Consideration.” “You raise a series of legitimate questions. As commander in chief, I’m not going to leave trainers unprotected. In our counterterrorism efforts, I’m not going to have a situation where our efforts can’t be successful. We will structure those forces so they can be successful. We would still have human intelligence capabilities on the ground. Some of them would be civilian, as opposed to military, some would be operating out of our bases as well as our signal intelligence…But listen, I am not going to set up our troops for failure and I’m going to do something half-baked. If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I’ve laid out, than I will take that into consideration.” [New York Times, 11/1/07]

So were is the flip or the flop...?

I think no one who followed the campaign closely is surprised by this. Atrios has been saying for months that none of the Democratic candidates were going to withdraw that quickly.

But it serves McCain's purposes to say Obama's having second thoughts about his original position. The disappointing thing is when the media takes the bait.

(I should add that none of the three major Democratic candidates where going to withdraw quickly. Kucinich and I believe Bill Richardson *were* planning on quicker withdrawal...)

OK, let's all just stipulate that an hasty withdrawal would only exacerbate the Bush stupidity.

End of issue.

Stan, let me get back to you. That's more than I want to read right now.

KT here--

James: By the way, are you James, LA or a different one? I think JLA had logged enough time in the Swamp to go by his first name, like Madonna or Cher. But I just want to make sure I have my commenters straight.

KT: Why can't you answer your own question? Has he shifted? It seems plainly obvious that he hasn't. Why is it so hard to say? And if he has not, then why is it so hard to state what that means with respect to the statements of the McCain campaign. Do you consider this to be "interpretation" or "conjecture" or "subjective" or something?

KT here--
Dennis: I'm just laying out the evidence and assuming my readers are smart enough to make up their own minds.

Dennis: I'm just laying out the evidence and assuming my readers are smart enough to make up their own minds.

That can be a problem in a macro sense KT.

Seriously. He said/she said can be beneficial at times. Other occasions, it becomes a case of some say that the earth is flat, while others differ kind of reporting.

Not suggesting that this is the case here, but it is a pet peeve of mine.

KT here--

Laying out the evidence and he said/she said are two entirely different things, don't you think?

KT, I am flattered that you notice me. But I am just james of about 2 weeks worth of posts. Apparently, the single name wasn't taken when I registered. Thanks.

KT here--

Welcome, James. JLA was always on my case, but I loved him anyway.

KT: Sometimes readers expect the press to call out politicians when they are making false charges to garner votes or when they try to define another candidate in the negative...i remember how the press call out obama for misquoting McCain 100 years statement on Iraq...so to be fair it will not hurt if you can lead the charge to calling Team McCain and RNC out on this issue...

No shift, just a continuation of what he has been saying: a thoughtful approach to withdrawl. Not a big deal, let's not go all ballistic about this- especially since the McCain campaign and corporate media want to fuzz up his message. Remember folks, corporate media is working against us in the election, they are not our friends. They want a close election, they want distress, they want an America in upheaval- they need story lines to feed the hungry news animal.

By the way hasn't Florida Governor Charlie Crist gotten himself a nice looking future wife (beard) to enhance his VP aspirations?

It serves McCain to make it appear that Obama has shifted his position, because it makes his position look more centrist. He desperately doesn't want people to know that he's being advised by who Bush Senior called "the crazies in the basement." He'd rather make it look like centrist versus centrist and get reporters doing false equivalences, etc.

KT
Why do you think you have to lay out the case and let the readers decide when a Democrat is being attacked but you consistently explain to us what Republican's really ment. The 100 years is but one example, Swiftboat lies another.

KT here--

DFH: When did I do that?

Karen, with all due respect, this is what drives us crazy about the media. It is not partisan or 'unbalanced' to say what the truth is. This makes up a large part of the very legitimate criticism that Jon Stewart and The Daily Show level at the MSM. If it is bullsh**, then SAY IT. If it is a lie, then SAY IT. If you are getting your talking points from the newly rovian McCain camp - then SAY IT.

Honestly, I think this is one of the reasons we went to war without so much as a peep from the MSM.

This is good work, Karen. Obama is changing his tune like a cheap lounge singer taking requests. Thanks for having the guts to call him on it.

I concur with you chicagodem

See? Ugh, I'm headed back to McClatchy.

Thanks for the response. But, no, I don't think laying out the evidence is sufficient. My question was, why is it hard to draw the obvious conclusion? You did not answer that.

And my pet peeve is that I honestly think that if the average media person, if, when officiating a basketball game between cell block 9 and brownie troop #3200, would try to make sure the number of fouls called roughly "evened out" so as to not put themselves in the uncomfortable position of being labeled "biased".

DougJ...How about McCain can't we say the same about him... He changed position on many issues...or do you have a different standard for him?

As someone for whom getting out of Iraq is a very important issue, I don't see any change from Obama's previously stated position. He's always said that he would reserve the right as president to revise his policy based on the facts on the grounds, he's always said that he'd consider the advice of the military commanders. While he's said that he would start a 1-2 brigade/month soon after taking office, a withdrawal schedule that could bring most combat troops home in 16-18 months from the start of that withdrawal (with some residual forces left for fighting terrorists and guarding the US embassy, etc), he's also said that he'll continually re-evaluate the situation as time went on, taking a pause if necessary. The most important thing is that he has promised to start getting out, with a goal of getting out. McCain doesn't want out...he'd be happy to stay there in the same numbers through the duration of his presidency. Why? Primarily because he wants to leave the option open for attacking/invading/intimidating Iran.

I don't want any president to be irresponsible in withdrawing from Iraq. But I want it to start. I trust Obama will start that withdrawal. I don't trust McCain at all on that front. I'm also confident that short of something catastrophic, Obama isn't going to initiate military action against Iran. I'm alsmost certain that McCain will, especially given the neo-con folks he has in his camp.

I've always thought that the smartest thing that Obama has said re: Iraq was, "we must be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." I don't think any of his recent statements contradict this position.

KT here--

Am I too subtle for you guys?

...I think scheduling two pressers in one day to try and answer questions about their stance tells the story.

Yeah, it tells the story of how much hand-holding the media needs not to fall in love with Saint McCain and the Crazies.

Actually, I think Karen generally reports fairly. That's her job, and I think usually she does it well--a lot more so than many in the press corps.

The bottom line is you just can't flip McCain press releases into a story, as was done by many this afternoon...

chicagodem: I know we want to hear the "L" word (as in "Lie")--but I think it's understandably hard for traditional journalists to use that word. Actually I'd settle for more of "the F word," as Greg Sargent once put it.

KT - Speaking for myself, I just want to clarify that my post wasn't intended to criticize you...it was just stating my general position and why, unlike McCain, the RNC, the large majority of talking heads on the teevee, I don't think there's any flip-flop here. I don't think you're being too subtle and I think both of your posts on this topic have been pretty darned good. Thanks.

KT said: "Dennis: I'm just laying out the evidence and assuming my readers are smart enough to make up their own minds."

I'm sorry to unload on KT, because I consider her one of the better journalists at Time, but here goes...

Does or doesn't the evidence (not the campaign rhetoric, but the evidence) tell us that Obama has been consistent? Don't you owe it to your readers to say so (rather than assuming they will differentiate between facts and propaganda)? I realize that it could be a very scary and potentially career threatening move to speak the simple truth, but wasn't that what we once thought the fifth estate was for (and why it gets special treatment in our system)? What do you consider your responsibilities to be? Do you think you should merely print what other people hand you, or do you offer something more?

Here's an example of what I hope you won't think is acceptable behavior by journalists (from the NY Times):
"Correction: July 3, 2008
In describing an encounter between Barack Obama and a schoolboy in Zanesville, Ohio, Maureen Dowd’s column on Wednesday used a campaign pool report. The report said that Mr. Obama had declined to bump fists with the boy. The campaign now says that the boy was trying to get Mr. Obama to autograph his hand, but the candidate declined, citing the possible reaction of the boy’s mother".
All this B.S. about 'the campaign now says...' instead of simply saying 'what we printed was false'.

KT, I thank you for raising the issue in this post, but I think you owe more to your readers than "I'm just laying out the evidence and assuming my readers are smart enough to make up their own minds."

Um, so Obama said before that he would withdraw troops in the first 16 months of his presidency and today he said he would consult with commanders on the ground to withdraw within the first 16 months in a responsible way. Show me where the change is.

Funny the level of scrutiny Obama is getting over saying the same thing twice versus the media's giving McCain "the benefit of the doubt" (to use Chuck Todd's words) when he screws up the most basic things like the difference between Sunni and Shi'ia. It's almost like the Beltway media is bringing McCain coffee and donuts (with sprinkles!) while calling Obama a terrorist (repeatedly).

KT
Could you link to your hard hitting piece debunking the Swift boat lies. I don't seem to recall that. Lets not forget the stories about AL Gore inventing the internet. Your not going to deny that one are you?

I know that Obama will have problem with the press when AP reporters give John McCain doughnuts at their event, it is a 'symbolic affair" that did not escape my attention...and according to Yglesias "the media really earned itself an invitation to John McCain's next BBQ with their performance. Basically, unless Obama comes out and says something like "I'm a totally unreasonable person whose views on Iraq will in no way be influenced by anyone's advice or any possible factual developments" he's now a flip-flopper. Meanwhile, John McCain's views on Iraq receive no scrutiny whatsoever." that says it all.

KT - did you see DougJ? The answer is yes. How many people still think Obama is a Muslim? SAY IT. If you won't, who will?

McClatchy was the only news organization that had the balls to say stuff like "but there was no evidence offered" and "according to other intelligence reports there is no basis for this claim". Unfortunately, the MSM never did that but instead just repeated over and over "The White House said ...", "The President announced ...", "Colin Powell testified ...". And yeah, if you did say it, the WH or the RNC might get mad at you. Fox might distort your picture and call you biased. But the real cost is a hell of a lot more - it just cost us.

And I get your point J.J., but isn't the most fundamental of responsibilities of the media is to say when a lie is a lie? To say what the truth is? If not, then they should just be replaced by PR Newswire, because all there doing is passing through talking points.

typo there = they're (sorry)

KT here--

Am I too subtle for you guys?

Subtle? No, you"re just being nonresponse.

What I was really wondering, and I can go ahead and ask again, was why is it hard for you to draw and state the obvious conclusion? What is to be lost? Why restrict yourself to laying out the evidence? I understand the need to do that when conclusions are not easily drawn, but I don't think this is such a case. Is this not a fair question?

"I think scheduling two pressers in one day to try and answer questions about their stance tells the story."

Yes, it tells the story of our sorry press corp. Matt Yglesias put it best:

Basically, unless Obama comes out and says something like "I'm a totally unreasonable person whose views on Iraq will in no way be influenced by anyone's advice or any possible factual developments" he's now a flip-flopper.

We have kids dying overseas, we're losing in Afghanistan and our military is stretched to the breaking point and the vaunted Fourth Estate focuses on parsing stupid trivialities.

Shameful, shameless, both?

"He has now adopted John McCain's position..."

100 years? Obama wants to stay for 100 years too? I think the McCain campaign is still confused...

"Has he shifted? It seems plainly obvious that he hasn't. Why is it so hard to say?"

Because once said the story dies, then they'll have to post nonsense stories like Michael Scherer's today in order to NOT WRITE about Maverick's constantly changing positions and the makeup of his campaign advisors, like UBS lobbyist Phil Gram. McCain has seemingly changed a major policy position almost every day and there's been barely a whisper in the media, Obama uses the word 'refine' once(and consistent w/ what he's said in the past) and look what happens. Karen and her colleagues are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. McCain's insistence that he will listen to the same economic advisors that got us into this mess merits absolutely zero coverage. America...killed by donuts...with sprinkles!

"John McCain and Barack Obama both appeared before the nation's newspaper editors yesterday. The putative Republican presidential nominee was given a box of doughnuts and a standing ovation. The likely Democratic nominee was likened to a terrorist....McCain's moderators, the AP's Ron Fournier and Liz Sidoti, greeted McCain with a box of Dunkin' Donuts. "We spend quite a bit of time with you on the back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we've decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride," Sidoti explained. "We even brought you your favorite treat."

McCain opened the offering. "Oh, yes, with sprinkles!" he said.

Sidoti passed him a cup. "A little coffee with a little cream and a little sugar," she said. Later Sidoti asked McCain if he'd like a full body massage...with happy ending of course!"

All true...well except the massage part:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402633_pf.html

Karen Tumulty - The commentors have raised an excellent issue for discussion. The practice of 'laying out the evidence and letting the reader decide' is one that may have been suitable in another time and place but there is a growing feeling out here in the trenches that it is completely ineffective in today's media environment. It is not an issue of subtleness or even fairness - it is an issue of CLARITY.

Witness DougJ above. He now believes something completely false about Barack Obama because the McCain camp told lies in simple, declarative statements. You presented evidence to the contrary - and we can assume that DougJ read that evidence - but DougJ and other conservatives missed it completely because you did not bluntly state that McCain's camp was wrong. And your job is to communicate the facts in a way that even people like DougJ can understand.

You may be presenting evidence but you are failing to make a closing argument. You can do that without overtly taking sides - simply state which side is telling the truth. I mean this as gentle criticism Karen.

A general observation, not necessarily aimed at KT: To me, the weirdest thing about journalists' habit of only "laying out the evidence" and withholding judgment is that they practice it so inconsistently.

And I'm not talking about a pattern of favoritism toward the left or right (although it's pretty obvious how the press always portrays the left as "unserious and non-mainstream"--because "real" Americans are centrists who frequent diners!).

Instead, I'm talking about this:

On questions of truth, journalists take great pains to withhold their own judgments about whether someone is lying or not. Even when it's patently self-evident, they dare not speculate about motive.

But on speculations about whether a given political strategy will be successful with some completely imaginary idea of the public (as they all are), or whether a politician is being sincere or authentic, they make judgment calls ALL THE TIME.

Obviously, I'd need to supply evidence to back up these claims. But I'm just curious if anyone else has noticed the same unevenness in journalists' efforts to avoid judgment.

OK, one piece of evidence just by way of illustration, the lead from JNS's piece about the Wesley Clark non-issue:

"How do you make the case that a decorated war hero, a former Navy aviator who was shot down behind enemy lines and suffered more than five years' incarceration as a prisoner of war, is not well qualified to be Commander in Chief? As the Barack Obama campaign has learned, it's not easy."

There are so many implicit judgment calls about Clark's intentions AND public opinion buried in that rhetorical question--it's really dizzying.

Enceladus:

I believe you are correct. But mostly, I think its basically the continuing effect of the right's very effective (and perhaps initially true) campaignthat "the liberal media" was tending to bias reporting against them.

The right will alway respond to any criticism or judgement (or even stating of the obvious) by whining about media bias and calling people "liberal" with all they know that that connates with a certain segment of the public. The media has been cowed, and has not recovered.

Aw Karen. I always loved you too.

By the way, hats off to Mr. Swamp, a fine, fine LAT journo. We always did have the best political coverage.

Enceladus - You wrote: "On questions of truth, journalists take great pains to withhold their own judgments about whether someone is lying or not. Even when it's patently self-evident, they dare not speculate about motive.
But on speculations about whether a given political strategy will be successful with some completely imaginary idea of the public (as they all are), or whether a politician is being sincere or authentic, they make judgment calls ALL THE TIME."

This is perfect.

The part about speculation forced the hoary image of David Broder into my mind before I could do anything about it. Or Joe Klein on his bad days. The simple fact is that I do not need to know who is being sincere or authentic - I need to know who is telling the truth.

What I have figured out about the lack of simple truth-telling is that straight reporters like Karen feel that they would be taking sides if they were to state a conclusion about their own reporting. So they rely on subtlety and irony in an attempt to communicate the truth in an inoffensive manner as possible. In this way, the Washington media has become very much like the eighteenth century French court - a comedy of manners and a tragedy of corrupted alliances. And so it is left to the court jesters like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to state the truth. And then we laugh.

Speaking of LA Times, here's another great piece on the campaign:

They don't have do-overs in the campaign season. But if they did, this is a week that would merit one.

There was no real news -- just barely news and almost news. The mainstream media avoided some of it. But the rest found a place, partly because the Internet always has room, partly because the candidates are always ready to fill it.

Read the whole thing, it's a parade of horribles. the whole nine yards.

Pre-Fourth campaign news: lots of fireworks, little meat - Los Angeles Times

Terrapin--glad to hear you've noticed the same thing.

In my line of work, I interact with a lot of excellent empirical public opinion researchers. But NONE of them ever arrogantly presume that they can actually SPEAK for the public, in the way that Broder and all his other blindly ethnocentric colleagues presume to do.

"If there is any confusion, it should be laid at the feet of the Obama campaign. They are the ones obligated to articulate their Iraq position and I think scheduling two pressers in one day to try and answer questions about their stance tells the story."

It is the Obama campaign's responsibility to clear up the confusion that we have perpetuated.

liberal media bias..what liberal media bias...KT if you were allowed to vote for Obama over McCain and admit the obvious..would u donate 1000 or 2500....liberal bias in the media is worth at least 15 points...this is fact...stated by a fellow libtard.KT please at least admit u r not objective and admit what everybody alresdy knoes

Enceldaus - Well put. Broder is very much a part of the problem. For an excellent film about life in Broder's circle of friends see this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117477/

and try not to think about Maureen Dowd. I dare you.

Meursault - Excellent translation. The strategy is simple: Create confusion and then blame the person who is trying to clear it up.

KT, aren't you overcomplicating the issue? Isn't their characterization of Obama's position just demonstrably false? Why not simply say so. The confusion should be over why they would say something that is so easily refuted.

Some here are mocking me and KT for believing that Obama may be a Muslim.

Can any of you prove that Obama is not a Muslim? For the record, I believe that he is a Shiite and not a Sunni, so he is not in all likelihood all that radical.

Well, I believe that John McCain is a Sunni, and in all likelihood is extremely radical. That's why I'm not voting McCain.

CAN YOU PROVE THAT HE'S NOT??? BECAUSE I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROVE MY RIDICULOUS CLAIMS.

What in God's name is wrong with you people?

It's like someone laced the water supply at every media outlet with acid this week.

CAN YOU PROVE THAT HE'S NOT??? BECAUSE I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PROVE MY RIDICULOUS CLAIMS.

And your point is???

I'll leave it to Karen to enlighten on here.

The libtards have lost it. Totally. I don't know what to say.

DougJ,
I happen to know by applying the same logic that you have sex with barnyard animals.

I'll begin by noting that you've never denied it.....

Note to everyone else.

KT has doen something very important here. She has laid out a statement by the campaign and placed it side by side next to reality.

If you need her to flat out announce who's lying to whom, then you need to relearn the rules of the game.

I personally think that the joy of discovery that accompanies the realization should be plenty of motivation.

I also think that James Woolsey's biography ought to be explored thorouyghly and deeply, because that would help highlight the question of which campaign is spreading manure and which is trying to sweep it up.

KT has doen something very important here. She has laid out a statement by the campaign and placed it side by side next to reality.

YOUR REALITY == LIBERAL NONSENSE

What IS IS.

OK, I'm still thinking about this even after I shut my laptop down for the night, so… bing!. This week's media kerfuffles have forced me to clarify what it is I would like to see from the media. I would like reporters to force politicians to lie in a plausible way. The notion that Obama has changed his position on Iraq is simply not a plausible lie. There is too much evidence to the contrary. Likewise, the notion that Wesley Clark impugned McCain's military service or patriotism, simply is implausible, or it should be to anyone with a functional understanding of English. It's simply not plausible for John McCain to deny that he said he doesn't know that much about the economy when there are whole mashups of video evidence to the contrary.

So that's all I'm asking. Force 'em to lie plausibly, then it will be worth the time and effort to weigh evidence to the contrary.

"And your point is???

I'll leave it to Karen to enlighten on here.

The libtards have lost it. Totally. I don't know what to say."

-------

I really, REALLY want to think that you're just a troll, and that you don't actually have that much trouble grasping basic concepts and ideas. But I'll take the bait anyways, and spell it out for you.

"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Also known as: Argument to Ignorance and Shifting the Burden of Proof.

This fallacy is committed when a claim is believed to be true because it has not been proved false, or vice versa.

The general form is:

1. A states that claim X is true.
2. B states that claim X is not accepted as true.
3. A states that claim X is potentially true as B has not proved it false (wrongly shifting the burden of proof to B).

Examples:

* You can't say that PSI phenomena don't exist; after all, science hasn't disproved them.
* We have no evidence of alien visitors; therefore, aliens do not exist. (They may well exist, but are not visiting Earth).
* Just because Reiki healing energy cannot be detected does not mean that it isn't there."

DougJ has already come out in favor of eliciting false confessions, so his continued silence on his infatuatrion with goats indicates that he hasn't been interrogated thoroughly enough.

Paul Dirks: If you need her to flat out announce who's lying to whom, then you need to relearn the rules of the game

what the **** are you talking about? Dude, I don't need her to do it. I need to know why she's afraid to do it, or why she otherwise chooses to not do.

she said she "assumes her readers are smart enough BLAH BLAH BLAH". Please show me some data to support that wholly erroneous assumption.

Paul Dirks:

I'm thinking here that DougJ is yet another of QA's poisonalities...

DougJ has already come out in favor of eliciting false confessions,

Better a false confession than no confession at all.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill

What IS IS.

Oh, DougJ, barnyard animals? Really? That's disgusting, my man. For the critters, I mean. Those poor animals must feel so degraded afterward.

Please show me some data to support that wholly erroneous assumption.

You've got me there, particularly because there are some seriously stupid readers up and about tonight.

Perhaps I've gotten so accustomed to Scherer literally rewriting McCain statements so as to prevent them from meaning what he said, that when I see a clear demonstration of McCain campaign dishonesty, I accept it as as good as I can expect.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill, who didn't know DougJ but seems to have prophesied his coming

"I'm just laying out the evidence and assuming my readers are smart enough to make up their own minds."

That's what journalism is supposed to be. Of course a lot of journalists claim to be doing that, only to present campaign spin as evidence. But that is the goal.

And about the alleged flip-flop, his first statement was poorly worded. He should have made it clearer that he is going to find out more about the situation in Iraq in order to refine/determine the best way to withdraw the troops safely, as he did in his second statement. The wording of the first statement didn't sound like a change in position, but it sounded like he was preparing to change his position. And in the current political environment, it sounded like the preparation for a flip-flop. But the second statement was much clearer; Obviously the Obama campaign didn't handle this well. Anyway, I doubt anyone is paying attention to politics now...

Also, one reason that any mention of adjusting plans to reflect the situation on the ground is being seen as a flip-flop is that much of the left and right have been claiming that Obama is committed to a rapid and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. The former were focused on the primaries, and the latter were focused on appealing to their base. But as the story from Mr. Swamp shows, Obama has consistently talked about changing plans in response to the conditions in Iraq. Maybe his statements today will change which aspects of his Iraq policy the media chooses to focus on, but they don't indicate any significant change in Obama's policy. Basically, the media may be flip-flopping, but Obama isn't.

Paul:

You will be doomed to realize your low expectations. Where is the average reader ever going to learn the truth? She thinks they are smart enough to figure it out? Who's got time to read all that "laid out evidence"? People hear the soundbites. The soundbite is " He's reversed him self." Karen's soundbite is "the McCain campaign is consistent", has strong "Message discipline". When the actual truth is that they are (in this instance at least) totally full of it and they know it and they don't care and neither does she enough to clearly point it out.

And why do the people here feed the freaking trolls so much?

"Better a false confession than no confession at all."

Priceless.

> and the vaunted Fourth Estate focuses on parsing stupid trivialities.

Well, you have to consider that that's what one of the two campaigners is pushing: trivialities.

Question: how do you know a Republican is lying? His lips are moving. We see, time and again, that the Repugs are masters of double-speak; play by double standards; and are hypocrites playing gotcha at every turn. That's all they know, and all they have to offer.

Someone above said, "Why are we feeding the trolls?" You could ask the same thing of the MSM in regards to the Repugs: why does the MSM feed the Repugnant trolls? Why will no one hold them to the higher standards that one would expect - nay, demand - of the highest office in the land?

DougJ, why do you hate America? Why do you support the terrorists against your fellow Americans?

Paul D, KT--

Yes, KT is calling out the McCain camp on an obvious lie. Perhaps she IS too subtle for you guys.

jayack & D. Denuto: I'm not sure it really matters whether KT is unequivocal, or plainly spoken in her statements or not. The rabid R-wingnuts - the 25-percenters - won't pay attention to truth and reason, anyway. They are the die-hards looking for any old reason to torture people for confessions that may or may not be truthful, anyway. To them, it's not the results that matter, it's the torture.

To them, it doesn't matter that we all suffer when gas is $4 / gallon. What matters is that Exxon reap record profits.

To them, it doesn't matter that people get kicked out of their homes as a result of the financial market collapse. What matters is that the lenders all get to use their golden parachutes.

To them, it doesn't matter that the world will become unlivable if we keep destroying it. What matters is their own selfish interests right now.

So, telling the truth, or making the point of the story crystal clear doesn't matter: the R-wingnuts, who, curiously, get to drive the national storylines, would just duck, evade, distort or ignore the inconvenient truth.

Josh Marshall:

For the McCain campaign to put out a memo to reporters claiming that Obama has adopted McCain's policy only shows that his advisors believe that a sizable percentage of the political press is made up of incorrigible morons. And it's hard to disagree with the judgment.

Incorrigible morons... Heh, indeed!

(KT is the rare exception that starkly illustrates the point.)

I also would like to register my disgust over the fact that DougJ has sex with barnyard animals and his continued avoidance of the subject when he posts here. This raises many questions about his character and his relationship with his family. How long has his obsession with bestiality been going on? Why would his family tolerate such activity and for so long? And why does he refuse to discuss his deviant sexual addiction?

So I have a question for the thread: Is it the duty of Karen Tumulty to write her stories in a manner that communicates the point of her articles to people who are as dense as DougJ?

Yes, I understand that he is being willfully, aggressively ignorant, which is a hallmark of what is left of the Republican Party. But the media thinks that the average American is more like him than the rest of us. Even if that were true I would want it to be the media's job to aggressively communicate the truth and not just present it passively.

What is wrong with you? It's simple. Obama has stuck to his 16 month plan. McCain makes up a bunch of lies about it. Why can't you just tell the truth and call McCain on his lies?

I don't understand why people are shocked that Obama is turning out to be just another wishy-washy, member of the centrist cult. The Left knew that all along which is why they didn't support him when this all began. His support on the Left is mainly due to the fact that he wasn't as bad as that other member of the believe nothing, centrist cult, the imaginary bullet dodging Clinton. He will probably continue to get their support, grudgingly, because he isn’t John McCain, a person who has changed his positions so many times that no one knows what his actual positions are any longer.

Gaultheria Shallon: Welcome to the swamp. Your cousin Procumbens is an old favorite of mine, but I've never had the pleasure of running into you, and I gather you never visit the Northeast (I'm a Vermonter)

But I see through the google that your kind "is so forgiving of conditions that [it's] always tempting to stretch its ideal preferences " Pretty good qualifications for life in Swampland.

Josh Marshall said it best:

"For the McCain campaign to put out a memo to reporters claiming that Obama has adopted McCain's policy only shows that his advisors believe that a sizable percentage of the political press is made up of incorrigible morons. And it's hard to disagree with the judgment."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/202750.php

This is not the real story or issue regarding Iraq.
The real story is who in the beginning had the vision and fortitude to recognize the "surge" was in the best interests or our military, and the Iraqi people.

Who had that vision? Obama? Absolutely not. He was grand-standing, shouting at the tops of the mountains how this was not the direction for the military to take or for our country.

John McCain had that vision. He understood what was needed, and advocated for that step. It was a make or break decision on his part, but he was absolutely correct. This is the story, this is the issue and mutes all other arguments and comments.

For one, I am glad Obama is shifting and moving more to the middle, if and that is IF people are stupid enough to elect this un-expereinced man into the office of President of the US of A. Obama has always been against the war, and for ending it as soon as possible with a political motive always behind it.

The safety of our military is job #1. After that it is up for political grabs. But who is right and who has been wrong, it is clear Obama has been WRONG.

Rev Wright / Obama '08 WRONG for America!!!!!!!!!!!

As usual, I'm late to the party. But, has C-SPAN taken over the blog or is this now FOX "We report you decide."

Let me lay out some evidence as I see it:

In KT's first post she says she is confused. But is she confused because she analyzed and concluded that what Obama has said confused her? Or is she confused because of McCain's campaign response and interpretation to what Obama said?

The wording in KT's first post clearly shows it was not Obama's statement that confused her, but her confusion clearly stems from McCain's camp interpretation and response of Obama's statement.

I would also like to point out that KT words her comments about statements released by the RNC as if they are separate entity from McCain's Camp. Any one paying attention to the score should or does know that the RNC is being run by McCain's camp just like Obama has taken over at the DNC. So statements release by either are in fact not statements separate from the respective camps.

In this second post KT says she is less confused and again it's clear to me that she is not less confused by any thing Obama has said, but McCain's camp has now cleared up in her mind at least, a little what in their response confused her in the first place.

KT has then come into the comments here and said she is just laying out the evidence, as if for us to discuss and decide. But what evidence is she really laying out? She asks the question has Obama's position on Iraq changed or shifted? And she asks the question in a way that presents it as a mystery in need of solving.

However, that question can easily be answered by looking at Obama's past statements on Iraq and comparing them to his current statements on Iraq. If you do this with an objective mind you will see that Obama's position on withdrawal from Iraq has not changed. Withdrawal is Obama's solution. McCain's position on Iraq has not really changed. His solution is staying in Iraq, despite his comments about liking to see "most troops" out by 2013. The American's voters choice is which one most of us want to work toward.

Now the confusion and question should really be, why is McCain's camp so confident in handing out memos to the press they clearly know are not supported by the available evidence? I think the answer to that is clear too.

To the McCain Camp: a large portion of the MSM is a wholly owned subsidiary of StenoInc. They are confident that their bilge will be passed on without comment, analysis or an attempt at interpretation. No one will say: Why is the McCain Misinformation Machine Lying to Us? So like Fox they say: we report, you decide.

In this excerpt I think KT was nudging us to a conclusion she has arrived at : that the McCain Memos were bilge. Unfortunately leaving us to read between the lines looks like a cop out. I like KT and respect her work. Perhaps the Head Honcho at TIME (who is a regular on MorningJoe) is a little too pro-McCain for anyone to ignore.This is speculation. But what the hell, everyone is doing it on MorningJoe and the Situation Room and elsewhere.

McCain accusing Obama of flip-flopping is like Tom Cruise saying Obama is a member of a cult.

Rustydog are you claiming that the objectives of the Surge have been fully complied with? Is that the basis for arguing McCain was right? Victory is achieved and Iraq is now a constitutional democracy.

Rustydog has become a supporter of Barack Obama. My evidence for this is his statement that he is glad to see Obama's "new" position on Iraq. The wrinkle is that Obama's position on Iraq has not changed but that Rustydog has finally come to more fully understand what Obama has been saying all along.

So, welcome to the Democratic Party, Rustydog. It is a shame it took you so long to figure out what Obama had been saying: a responsible, orderly withdrawal of combat forces in a manner dictated by the stability requirements on the ground, leaving a residual force within striking distance to provide support to the Iraqi government and to bring the pain to the terrorists that Bush has allowed to roam free for seven years.

I am glad to see that Rustydog has endorsed Barack Obama's strategy for Iraq.

"Now the confusion and question should really be, why is McCain's camp so confident in handing out memos to the press they clearly know are not supported by the available evidence? I think the answer to that is clear too."

Because they know the press is too busy buying McCain his favorite donuts and coffee to bother fact-checking what he says.

If Saint McCain says it, it must be true! And mavericky!

The reason, for me, why it is better for reporters to come out and call a lie a lie is because it starts a wave of truthtelling.

If ReporterX wrote a piece explaining exactly how, with examples and references, McCain has "misspoken", flip flopped, said things that were contradictory, and outright lied, then that piece could be linked, dispersed, disseminated and just otherwise passed around.

People would start talking about it, debating it, parsing it, and hopefully, emulating it.

Even if the article itself became the story, as opposed to McCain's dishonesty, it would set a precedent that could be the cornerstone to a different, more responsible sort of journalism in this country.

It's just not enough (anymore, if it ever was) to "lay out all the facts and let the reader decide".

Someone in the TradMedia (bloggers won't cut it in this regard) needs to come right out and say 'this is true' and 'this is false'.

Then we could pass the story around, spend a couple of days talking about it, and, hopefully, encourage more like it.

Sounds good, right? Works for me.

Jay Paul D, KT--

Yes, KT is calling out the McCain camp on an obvious lie. Perhaps she IS too subtle for you guys.

Yeah, maybe, but the primary purpose of the post seems to me to be, as clearly convened in the first paragraph, to point out the McCain camps improving message discipline and consistency. If this is calling out, it seems strangely tangential to me...

"Yes, KT is calling out the McCain camp on an obvious lie. Perhaps she IS too subtle for you guys."

I can't read KT's mind and don't think subtle is a good word choice. I can however, read what she wrote. So by subtle does she mean her two posts are purposely difficult to understand or that she has provided some kind of keen insight most of aren't clever enough to pick on?

@Dennis,

Maybe I'm just moree familiar with KT's work, but when I read the piece I saw immediately that it was intended to discredit McCain's efforts to mistate Obama's position.

Considering the amount of stupidity coming from other sources, I see that as a good thing.

I can't argue with perceptions, we just came away with different impressions.

It means that within the acceptable presentation style of straight news reporting, she is being as direct as she can be. It's true that tribal people like DougJ will just take McCain's campaigns talking points and repeat them, ludicrous as they are. She's not doing a Michael Scherer five paragraph explanation of what the idiotic thing that McCain said really means. She's just saying "Whoa. These people really don't have a clue. Who would buy this?" Josh points out that, apparently, AP does. But, as with so many things McCain says, it doesn't stand up to the laugh test. Nobody is gonna buy that Obama has flipped to McCain's 100 years of war position.

I don't see KT saying there was an obvious lie, but I do see her saying McCain's position is ridiculous. I think that's pretty clear. In terms of the larger debate, I don't think a story should begin with "McCain camp accuses Obama of X." Unless the accusation is itself newsworthy. Which it seldom is. Unless it is a lie, in which case that fact has to be made clear. In the lede, even. "McCain camp accuses Obama of X even though the record clearly establishes Y."
Something even worse that building a story around an accusation is reporting the accusation as fact. "Obama did X" as opposed to "McCain camp accuses Obama of doing X." If the source of your story is Oppo campaign research rather than independent reporting, then you should not report it as fact. I don't think you should even report it. You don't, KT but AP certainly does.

In the first post KT was showing that the RNC is essentially flip-flopping in their attacks against Obama, and in the second post - after she (rather sarcastically) points out that the McCain campaign is being more consistent in its attacks - she provides evidence that their attack doesn't reflect the reality of Obama's position on Iraq (i.e. that it's a lie). And I wouldn't have chosen the word subtle to describe her work here, because it's actually very clear.

"So by subtle does she mean her two posts are purposely difficult to understand or that she has provided some kind of keen insight most of aren't clever enough to pick on?" - GySgt213, they are not difficult to understand, nor does someone need to be clever to understand them. I think the problem is that some people here (understandably) assume that MSM reporting will be bad, and the only way they can be sure it isn't is if they say "John McCain's campaign is dishonest, and Obama has a consistent position on Iraq." She is saying that implicitly, but apparently some people will only overcome their skepticism if she says it explicitly. So maybe "subtle" was the right word choice...

"It means that within the acceptable presentation style of straight news reporting, she is being as direct as she can be."

jayackroyd,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. She she is being direct as she can be?

Direct as she can be, can't be simply what McCain's camp is saying is bs?

yeah. That would be expressing an opinion, which is impermissible. It's a facet of straight news reporting that Republicans have been exploiting for a generation. Joe expresses opinions, but he does commentary, not straight news reporting. That means he gets some things spectacularly wrong, and unbalanced, as with his FISA commentary

Now, I think KT may be missing the point of blogging by treating it as a straight news venue. But that is what she does.

But, hey, TIME has them here, and it's been interesting to see the evolution of their writing in this format.

Rose,

Thanks for your response. Appreciate it.

"acceptable presentation style of straight news reporting,"

Acceptable to whom? Not me. It's not that I myself am incapable of gleaning nuance, but given the impact of the "style of straight news reporting", I've decided that I would prefer 'this is true' and 'this is false'.

The average, busy, low information voter who's all wrapped up in their own problems (which are legion) hasn't got the time or maybe even the background for "subtle".

Why can't their be a post titled "McCain is a Liar"? Such a headline could be easily proven, and an article like that would be a news item in itself. It would be parsed, linked to, and repeatedly mentioned. It would garner the writer of said piece fame, and possibly fortune. At the very least it would begin a national conversation about the "acceptable presentation style of straight news reporting".

A win/win all around. Isn't that what we all want?

"That would be expressing an opinion, which is impermissible."

Good point Jay.

It's not "expressing an opinion" to declare a political operative's press releases to be a false representation of a rival politician's actual policy statements.

It's verification.

Enceladus,

That's a very good point also. Same to Red Snapper.

Does anyone know what the implications of this are? http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1820327,00.html

I wasn't clear on which, if any, elements of his position are motivated by the requirement to conform to the Supreme Court ruling, and which actually reflect his own views. And do rape and incest cases fall under the umbrella of "mental distress,"? Also, I really didn't like this phrasing: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother." I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Obama's position on late-term abortions - I don't understand it well enough to either oppose or support his decision - but he should have been more clear about the health implications of mental distress. Maybe mental distress shouldn't be sufficient grounds for a late-term abortion, but it obviously has serious health consequences.

And right after I posted last I found this:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/43123.html

Now this is what I am talking about. Galloway is calling an outrage an outrage here. Happy Fourth of July, everyone.

Perhaps you folks in the media could, for just a moment, pretend NOT to be the stupidest people on earth.

Or do you enjoy taking dictation from the republicans?

We last spoke in Nashua at a Kerry rally in 2004, and here we're at that season again. I hope the media is a little more forthright in this effort than the last one.

I find Obama to be disciplined, so whatever anyone thinks about his policies, he has been consistent. The seeds of those policies on the 2nd amendment, outreach to faith, patriotism, etc., are within his thinking on the Constitution, and can be found within his books, at prior rallies and speeches.

A reporter should be able to remember what was learned to filter what the opponent tries to sell as wrong, and say so.

I also have a favor. I saw Mark Halperin on TV yesterday, with the scourge of the neo-cons, Cliff May, speaking as if the McCain gotcha were true and the biggest revelation of the campaign. Maybe many of you weren't sure before how to cover this horserace, and now you're back on familiar terrain. Getting daily Rove releases as the basis of the news day, and bringing excitement back to the press corp in covering the McCain camp. Instead of taking more responsibility for this very consequential election.

The tactic, and content of yesterday's scuffle, are still wrong. Please share some of what was said here with him, before he writes a whole piece that can be debunked, but not before damage is done.

Thanks, and best of luck to all of us this election.

Maybe this is the new message discipline they have been promising with Steve Schmidt at the helm.

You guys really can't see the sarcasm in the lede?

You "clever" guys missunderstand me.

I read the whole post. I can guess what she wants to convey. My original question (@8:08) to her, still unanswered, is why she feels limited to indirect subtleties and sarcasms in saying it. Why can't she say what she want to convey, when it is based on clear fact and undisputable evidence?

It means that within the acceptable presentation style of straight news reporting, she is being as direct as she can be.

Well if that is the case, that's a real problem isn't it, and one I would like to here her position on. I think Pres. Gore would alos like to have a work with her.

AC360 was so stupid on this "controversy" yesterday it made my brain hurt. But Ed Schultz gave Cliff May a good smackdown:

"That is outrageous for you to say that people on the left want to lose in Iraq. I'm not going to sit here and listen to that. This is the Fourth of July. We are Americans"

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/03/acd.01.html

"McCain got a standing ovation -- an honor Obama did not receive when his turn came two hours later."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402633_pf.html

Game over I think. Welcome to 4 more years of GOP ruining the country.

Posted by Terrapinion | July 4, 2008 9:46 AM

Rustydog has finally come to more fully understand what Obama has been saying all along. So, welcome to the Democratic Party, Rustydog. I am glad to see that Rustydog has endorsed Barack Obama's strategy for Iraq.

Well, first of all Terra you shall see HELL freeze over before I ever become a Democrat. And in your dream world sucking up all that Obama liberal koo-aide, you mistake anything I have ever said as being an endorsement of Obama. The ONLY thing I would endorse this lunatic for would be sending him packing back to Illinois, where the crazies first elected him to office.

And to Derek, victory has been acheived and Iraq IS a democracy. Have you been on a deserted island for the past couple of years? Facts are, and I'll be very happy to repeat them. The SURGE has been very successful. The SURGE that John McCain was one of the only politicians who supported and envisioned its success. While Obama and Clinton where cackling like hens in the Demo primary, they lost touch with what was happening in Iraq. Now Obama wants to waiver on his earlier statements, but you can only flip-flop on so many issues. Ask John Kerry, he can confirm that fact as well.

Have a Happy 4th Everyone! May freedom ring!

The "success" of the surge will not be determined by the level of violence directed toward US troops. Thousands of additional soldiers were placed in harm's way to foster political cooperation among various Iraqi sects. Unfortunately, there is little evidence of this. Current conditions do not validate McCain's views.

> Now Obama wants to waiver on his earlier statements

"waver". And that's incorrect, at best; lying more likely. To say, "I will do X, as conditions allow," is not to say, "I will do X. Period." You know better than that, and you're just trying to smear.

Moving along...

The fact we're discussing this in such depth indicates that, in fact, KT could've been more direct in saying what she meant.

But think about it from her perspective, for a moment. If she develops a pattern of boldly pointing out where McCain is lying, she risks not only a seat on the bus - or at the BBQ table, depending on your metaphor - but being outcast as a "radical" reporter, and having her usefulness diminished. Like those single-issue politicians who fight like hell for their one topic, and get railroaded into oblivion as irrational nutcases.

By playing the "nuance" card, KT is able to make her statement - almost via a "secret code", if you will - while still remaining "middle of the road," so she doesn't get sidetracked into obscurity.

Something to consider. KT, if this is the case, blink once for yes, twice for no...

Something to consider. KT, if this is the case, blink once for yes, twice for no...

Or better yet, raise your hand to scratch your cheek...

We'll understand!

Speaking in secret codes - sidetracked into obscurity.... same thing

Paul Dirks and Dennis Denuto:

Can we agree that KT is doing her best to report as opposed to drawing conclusions. OK. But that still leaves us with the problem of how the RW attacks place the "Left" MSM on the defensive.

Is it not time that we exposed the bogus RW response and realise that KT is working within a frame? The one thing I have at the back of my mind is that Saint McCain is the quintessential trimmer. He will go where the wind takes him. And the MSM will genuflect and side with the Great Man?

"And to Derek, victory has been acheived and Iraq IS a democracy. Have you been on a deserted island for the past couple of years?"

If everyone of the stated objectives have been met I guess there is no reason to maintain combat troops there.

KT here--

Paul Dirks, Dennis: Please don't tell me I have to start using emoticons. If so, this post should start with: ;-)

Happy Fourth, everyone!

KT here--

Argh. there was a line break. I meant: ;-)

KT:

I appreciate your thorough coverage and close analysis. Trouble is, there are scads of voters who just won't work hard enough to make the comparison between biased characterizations and the record.

Given the choice between analyzing detailed recitations of alternatives and being told e.g., "Obama flip-flopped on Iraq," guess which message gets through more effectively?

The story in the public interest is that McCain's people are attempting to persuade voters through the use of falsehood. I'm afraid that point isn't just buried; it's camouflaged.

It's as if Woodstein had only reported, verbatim, the records of CREEP bank accounts and left it to the reader to tease out the connection to the burglars. Objectivity is satisfied by giving the liars an opportunity to respond to the detailed facts and the express conclusion that they're lying.

KT-

If you had inserted a ;-), I would have assumed that simply meant that you did not really think they were achieving any true consistency or message discipline. I would not have thought it had anything to do with the question you pose, and do not answer, as to whether Obama had reversed himself on Iraq withdraw, much less somehow adopted McCain position.

I have asked why you do not answer it. I think you have alluded that you would rather allow your readers to deduce the answer themselves. Others have suggested that the standards of straight journalism (whatever that means) would not let you, that you are somehow constrained from drawing clear and obvious conclusions (particularly if they amount to calling someone a liar). I would like to hear you thoughts on this.

Kathy, you've blown my cover. It's true - temperate rainforest plants hate the media too!