Daily Brushback: Maybe Kerry was just “qualifying himself”

Today’s question is for the as-yet-unnamed Reuters editor who wrote the headline on Patricia Wilson’s Treasongate story this afternoon:

LP: A couple years ago President Bush and his beleaguered mouthpiece, Scott McLellan, made clear that if any White House employee were found to be involved in the outing of a CIA operative that person would be fired. In a story released by your agency earlier this afternoon, Bush has now flip-flopped and is saying he’ll only fire the guilty party (Karl Rove) if he’s convicted, which is dramatically different from his initial stance. However, the sanitized, Low-Truth® headline you slapped on the story reads: Bush qualifies firing vow over CIA exposure. Since saying something completely different constitutes “qualifying” in your book, can you give us an example of how far an administration official would have to go for you to employ a term like “changes story,” “reverses field,” or “contradicts self”?

:xpost :

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s