MB Readers have had a lot to say about this exchange with Vaughn Ververs at CBS Public Eye. John C. wrote:
Regarding Vaughan Ververs and Public Eye, Mr. Ververs refers to the issue you raised as a semantic one. First of all, it seems to me to be more a
question of accuracy. More importantly, this type of shading, whether intentional or not, belies bias in the author. This is a main point of much that Bernard Goldberg has written, and is supposedly the type of thing that Mr. Ververs should address critically, rather than carrying the news division’s water.
Clyde M. wrote:
Was your “Now We’re Getting Somewhere” post written with tongue in cheek, or are you really that gullible? Just in case you’re serious: think through it again. If Wolf Blitzer got it wrong “to enhance the story’s ’significance’ and make it more newsworthy,” with no thought of how it might reflect negatively on Bush, that’s still an intentional mischaracterization. Now find me one–just one story, at any time since the election–where Wolf or anyone in the MSM intentionally mischaracterized a Bush statement simply to “enhance the story’s ’significance’ and make it more newsworthy,” which reflected positively on Bush.
And Dave J. wrote:
Regarding Wolf Blitzer stating (very unambiguously) that President Bush had taken responsibility for all the failures leading up to and in the aftermath of Katrina, when he had only taken responsibility for Federal government failures, you said: