Monday, December 24, 2007

Russert versus Stossel: A Quality Assessment!

Both of these professionals are investigative reporters. Since they both have this in common it should be possible to compare and contrast them to evaluate how well they do their job.

Another more specific commonality is their interview with Ron Paul. Let's examine the interviews and see if either of these reporters distinguishes himself.

John Stossel sat down with Ron Paul for an interview and broke the interview into segments. Each segment focused on certain aspects of the Ron Paul candicacy derived from the issues raised by Ron Paul during the campaign and from the reasons for supporting him given by his supporters. This was the first bit of evidence that John Stossel did preparatory research.

Then during the interview John Stossel asked probing questions, always posing the questions in the manner of a polite skeptic. Listening to the thoughtful questions posed it was obvious again that John Stossel did his research.

In contrast Tim Russert sat down with Ron Paul and broke the interview up into disjointed points. Tim Russert also did research, apparently digging deeply to find any inconsistencies in Ron Paul record of service. One reason Russert chose the 'disjointed points' format was to create an appearance of inconsistency.

Combined with this strategy of 'disjointed points' was the style of the interview chosen by Russert. Instead of asking a question or making a statement and allowing an answer, Russert pelted Ron Paul with these points allowing little time for Ron Paul to answer and even used unsubstantiated quotes as part of the interview technique. Consider this: If a question is asked, and a distortion is used as part of the question, which of these two should be responded to? And then before the response is finished another deliberately duplicitous question is thrown out.

The result of these techniques is to create the appearance of confusion.

How many decent human beings act his way? How would you respond to this vulgar and oppressive interview method?

Ron Paul is too polite to call Tim Russert a liar. He did, however, say that Russert simply did not understand that 'amending the Constitution is constitutional' during one of the times when Russert was conniving.

I think that journalism majors will be able to compare and contrast these two interviews for many years. Students will see the dignity of John Stossel and how well he prepares and I am sure they will want to model his professionalism.

And then there is the Tim Russert interview! Even students at his alma mater will cringe at this reprehensible interview.

What would make a person who is supposedly a professional act in such a degraded manner? Apparently he is a puppet with strings attached. The interventionists who are in control of the media are moving the strings and Russert is moving just as they wish.

During the interview Ron Paul spoke about the danger of fascism as being very real. As the champion of the Constitution he knows that he will have to battle enemies foreign and domestic. The fascists who move Russert's strings are trying to discredit Ron Paul.

Hopefully brave and free Americans will not be not as gentle and polite as Ron Paul. What I mean is this: Tim Russert is a lying, conniving, and enslaved haranguer!

Friday, December 21, 2007

Desperate Lies From The Tyrants - The Interventionists And Their Media!

What do I mean by desperate? The groundswell of support for Ron Paul in the U.S. (and all around the world!) is beyond their control. They have already tried to ignore him, and to minimize his access to the debates and then to the debate questions; and they have tried to avoid giving him any coverage. They have tried to make his support seem insignificant and then they tried to make them all appear odd.

These were lies but they were masked by complacency. Now that they are desperate the lies are bold and immoderate. They think that flooding the internet with lies will give them control of the internet. These are the same ones (and for the same reason) that want to regulate the internet.

Most internet users are well aware that good information comes only from good sources. Most well informed modern citizens also know that good sources are not the ones controlled by the interventionists and their minions.

What this means is that the desperate lies about Ron Paul propagated by the tyrannical ruling class can, at most, put out sparks of some of the less wise users of the internet.

In terms of education and ethics the interventionists and their media lapdogs fail horribly. They are failures in true education and they are dishonorable and corrupt.