Reply With Quote
Now I'm waiting for TheMadHatter to jump all over your argument...
He related these "facts" before police had confirmed anything. That is dangerous, I don't care how you spin it. Imagine if both campaigns just started reporting 'facts' about crimes to reporters based on stuff their supporters said. How many 'victims' of stories like this would we have on our hands?
If some random Obama supporter said that some white honkey slashed his tires and yelled racial epithets at him after seeing an Obama/Biden sticker on his car, it would be completely irresponsible of the local Obama communications director to start filling in details of the crime before facts had been substantiated. This is the same thing, only worse because physical harm and sexual assault were implied, which is obviously a bigger deal than slashed tires and name-calling.
Now I'm waiting for TheMadHatter to jump all over your argument...
Yes, I'm incredibly naive to believe a communications director is under obligation to share information with the reporters who are assigned to him on a daily basis. Good one.
Yeah, the puppy dog will no doubt be coming in soon. Good call. Maybe he can recycle the Bush quote for the 234234235234th time.
This thread is so awesome now that I'm going to go play some 2k9.
What? He's a ing spin artist! He has an obligation to spin things in favor for his side!! Thats what these people do for the campaigns! Thats what media relations is for these campaigns.
If the media wants unbiased information on the event they go to a source like THE POLICE. The McCain campaign had absolutely ZERO to do with the events of a volunteer when they're off doing their own thing.
Let me put it to you this way. If I get robbed tomorrow does the media call the Obama campaign to get information on my situation simply because I've volunteered with them? Of course not.
How he was presenting the information is important. But he wasn't claiming to be a witness. He was relating the facts that the witness relayed to him. Obviously no one in the press should have believed that he was trying to supply facts other than those that had been relayed to him by the victim.
It would absolutely be his job to relay whatever information he was given and anything but irresponsible. But the presentation of that information is the KEY and exactly what I'm trying to get some information on.
No, naive for not understanding the motivation for HOW he presents the information and what information he spreads. I mean why didn't he mention that the volunteers friends doubted her story? Why didn't he mention that the girls story was fractured and the police doubted her story and thought ti was inconsistent?
Or best of all, Why did he present a the story to appear as negatively as possible for the Obama campaign?
Question: If the Communications director points the media to talk to the police to get the facts are we having this discussion? Of course not, but then again if he does that then he can't frame the story to appear so horrible for Obama, now can he?
She wasn't off doing her own thing. She was on her way to a meeting. Moreover, she was in a constant state of being with the campaign because she was traveling with them.
What? He's a ing spin artist! He has an obligation to spin things in favor for his side!! Thats what these people do for the campaigns! Thats what media relations is for these campaigns.
If the media wants unbiased information on the event they go to a source like THE POLICE. The McCain campaign had absolutely ZERO to do with the events of a volunteer when they're off doing their own thing.
Let me put it to you this way. If I get robbed tomorrow does the media call the Obama campaign to get information on my situation simply because I've volunteered with them? Of course not.
An attack takes place while you are in the process of volunteering at the time the event took place? You bet your ass the media calls the campaign to get information.
Manny, you seem a good sort, but I don't think you have the faintest understanding of how PR works in the real world. Especially in a 24/7 news cycle.
Well if your if your last statement isn't the most ironic post in this thread I'm not sure what is. Am I to assume that the White House Press Secretary is simply there to give information as well?
Why in the are you idiots saying I got owned? I sat there and said I hadn't read that much about it in the quote you guys keep copying...
I said based on the other actions of Obama supporters in this campaign it sounds real enough to me...
I listed the examples...plus there are plenty on this forum. Including this thread.
Guess what? It still sounds like something an Obama supporter would do...that hasn't changed.
And the way you guys attacked this woman. judged, witchunted and ridiculed the instant your saviour was questioned says much more about you guys than it does me...I don't give a who you think you've owned.
That said...what a dumb ing ....but I didn't get owned...no matter how much you guys might wish that was true.
If he had ANY reason to doubt her story, he would have been working his ass off to downplay it. Your logic makes no sense.
Gee. That sounds exactly like what I was asking for proof of.
NOT the October surprise the McCain camp was hoping for, I would guess.
Pure idiocy.
The McCain spokesperson's claims -- which came in the midst of extraordinary and heated conversations late yesterday between the McCain campaign, local TV stations, and the Obama camp, as the early version of the story rocketed around the political world -- is significant because it reveals a McCain official pushing a version of the story that was far more explosive than the available or confirmed facts permitted at the time.
The claims to KDKA from the McCain campaign were included in an early story that ran late yesterday on KDKA's Web site. The paragraphs containing these assertions were quickly removed from the story after the Obama campaign privately complained that KDKA was letting the McCain campaign spin a racially-charged version of the story before the facts had been established, according to two sources familiar with the discussions.
The media outlet apparently agreed seeing how they didn't leave the comments up.
"We don't have any information right now and can only say our prayers are with the victim. We're referring all inquiries to the police at this time."
Yes. That happens and we don't have a discussion. However, the girl is an attention-seeker and from all indications it appears as though she called McCain PR herself to get the story out. At this point the communications director has direct information. And reporters are sort of good about asking if you have that kind of thing.
He could have said he'd spoken with the victim and didn't want to comment further. I give you and and he may well be an asshat of the first water and fallen for this like a moron. But just because he had a first-hand account from the victim and passed on that account to reporters doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
No it does actually. He had a choice here. He could have not said anything and there's no huge uproar with that course of action. As a communications director for a campaign you have to know that everything you say has an effect. And I think its safe to say unless this guy is an Obama worker in sheeps clothing he has a goal in mind with every statement he makes to the media.
In politics when speaking to the media you can't just say "I was just giving information" because thats not the way political media relations work. There is no obligation to give the information you have to the media. None. He's not the police.
By making that information available he puts himself and his campaign in the line of fire should that information turn out to be inaccurate. Thats the way things work.
The claims to KDKA from the McCain campaign were included in an early story that ran late yesterday on KDKA's Web site. The paragraphs containing these assertions were quickly removed from the story after the Obama campaign privately complained that KDKA was letting the McCain campaign spin a racially-charged version of the story before the facts had been established, according to two sources familiar with the discussions.
The story with the removed grafs is still right here. We preserved the three missing grafs from yesterday:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoi...orters_inc.php
A source familiar with what happened yesterday confirmed that the unnamed spokesperson was communications director Peter Feldman. Feldman was also quoted yesterday making virtually identical assertions on the Web site of another local TV station, WPXI. But those quotes, which we also preserved here, are also no longer available on WPXI's site, for reasons that are unclear.
After that, KDKA went back to McCain's Pennsylvania spokesperson, Feldman, and asked if he stood by the story as he'd earlier told it, but he started backing off the story, a source familiar with the talks says. That prompted KDKA to remove the grafs.
I bolded the last part because I feel it is important. If the spokesperson had simply been duped by Ashley Todd, all they had to do was cry foul, say they were victimized by her story, too and were innocent in all this. But they didn't. Instead, they backed off their story, causing two Web sites to have to retract parts of their story (that were thankfully preserved in the links). If they were lied to by Todd like everyone else, they should just come out and say it.
I also find interesting your repeated assertion that they were relaying the story they got from the victim. Do you have a link that says they spoke to the victim, and that's where they got the details the spokesperson provided to reporters? Because I can't find evidence of this anywhere. My train of thought is there is no evidence of this because that isn't what happened. Nobody talked to her, yet they still filled in details of the attack. Ones that were damning of Obama supporters.
We're not going to agree here. You have a double-standard of disclosure to the press that I can't follow. This guy may have very well acted inappropriately, but nothing presented here shows proof of that yet.
Out of curiosity, do you think the Obama machine would have handled the same event differently?
You're not going to get any proof. What kind of proof could possible prove that inconclusively outside of the guy admitting it? But the fact of the matter is that high ranking officials of political campaigns don't just give information to the media. They give information to the media with a goal in mind. This is simply undeniable.
I don't know what other goal he could have in mind other than making Obama look bad. Believing he was "just giving out information" and not trying to spin things is why I said you were naive. I don't know any communications directors for presidential campaigns speak to the media without a goal in mind.
Probably not. It would take a really cautious media liaison to play it that safe. Its a risky business and the best players in the game aren't the ones who stay out of trouble but the ones who spin themselves out of said trouble when they step in it.
Calling a victim a liar when you're not sure is irresponsible. It seems to me that "backing off the story" just means he was getting more information that conflicted. At that point, it's the news station's call to remove the information and they made the right call.
If he did contribute untrue facts on his own into this story, then I agree that the guy needs to get raked over the coals. I just don't see it yet.
I'm basing that assumption on the fact that both Palin and McCain personally spoke with her and I'm assuming she'd have had to deal with some chain of communication. That feels reasonable to me, but I don't believe I've seen it specifically stated that she spoke with the PR person that released the information to the press. I strongly suspect she spoke to anyone and everyone that would listen, but it would be nice to know that for a fact.
I'm not saying the guy's not an idiot. I'd just prefer to have proof of idiocy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
