Betsy's Page

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

You knew that it wouldn't take long for the media to find an anti-Bush line in the tsunami disaster. First it was the UN's Egelund taunting western nations for being stingy. All that did was tick people off and Egelund's remarks actually served like some sort of reverse psychology to get Americans to donate more and more to private charities. Glenn Reynolds has been following the exponential increase in contributions on Amazon's link to donate to the American Red Cross.

Now the Washington Post has an article saying that Bush has been criticized for not showing a public face to express sympathy for the victims of the disaster.
The Bush administration more than doubled its financial commitment yesterday to provide relief to nations suffering from the Indian Ocean tsunami, amid complaints that the vacationing President Bush has been insensitive to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions....

Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics said the initial aid sums -- as well as Bush's decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy -- showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia.

After a day of repeated inquiries from reporters about his public absence, Bush late yesterday afternoon announced plans to hold a National Security Council meeting by teleconference to discuss several issues, including the tsunami, followed by a short public statement.

....Some foreign policy specialists said Bush's actions and words both communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do in the United States. "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that you care," said Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

There was an international outpouring of support after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and even some administration officials familiar with relief efforts said they were surprised that Bush had not appeared personally to comment on the tsunami tragedy. "It's kind of freaky," a senior career official said.

Note the lack of specific proper nouns to put names to those critics of Bush. Instead you get these generic words like "complaints" and "skeptics." In fact, let me translate what these words mean in journo-speak. They mean "bored journalists sitting in Crawford with nothing to write about and ticked off at spending their holiday at a dinky town in Texas." A secondary meaning is "foreign service diplo-weenies who have despised President Bush since he took office and are happy to bash him for anything and everything."

This helpful translation service will help you read Reuters' report on Bush's announcement that, contrary to the implication that he didn't care about the disaster, the US has put together a coalition of nations to organize aid efforts to the region.
President Bush said on Wednesday a $35 million U.S. pledge for victims of the Asian tsunami was only the beginning and any suggestions America was stingy were "misguided and ill-informed."

It was Bush's first public statement since the tsunami struck on Sunday. The president did not announce an immediate increase in aid to the region where the death toll is now nearing 70,000 and could ultimately exceed 100,000.

The White House faced criticism on Tuesday over the fact that Bush, who is vacationing at his Crawford, Texas ranch, had not yet appeared in person to talk about the disaster.

See. He's facing "criticism." Thus speaks the ticked off reporter who is angry to be spending his time in Crawford. Those are first three paragraphs of a story that purportedly covers Bush's announcement of aid. Shouldn't that be the focus of the story rather than some indefinite slur against Bush?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:02 PM 0 comments

Comments:

You knew that it wouldn't take long for the media to find an anti-Bush line in the tsunami disaster. First it was the UN's Egelund taunting western nations for being stingy. All that did was tick people off and Egelund's remarks actually served like some sort of reverse psychology to get Americans to donate more and more to private charities. Glenn Reynolds has been following the exponential increase in contributions on Amazon's link to donate to the American Red Cross.

Now the Washington Post has an article saying that Bush has been criticized for not showing a public face to express sympathy for the victims of the disaster.

The Bush administration more than doubled its financial commitment yesterday to provide relief to nations suffering from the Indian Ocean tsunami, amid complaints that the vacationing President Bush has been insensitive to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions....

Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics said the initial aid sums -- as well as Bush's decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy -- showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia.

After a day of repeated inquiries from reporters about his public absence, Bush late yesterday afternoon announced plans to hold a National Security Council meeting by teleconference to discuss several issues, including the tsunami, followed by a short public statement.

....Some foreign policy specialists said Bush's actions and words both communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do in the United States. "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that you care," said Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

There was an international outpouring of support after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and even some administration officials familiar with relief efforts said they were surprised that Bush had not appeared personally to comment on the tsunami tragedy. "It's kind of freaky," a senior career official said.

Note the lack of specific proper nouns to put names to those critics of Bush. Instead you get these generic words like "complaints" and "skeptics." In fact, let me translate what these words mean in journo-speak. They mean "bored journalists sitting in Crawford with nothing to write about and ticked off at spending their holiday at a dinky town in Texas." A secondary meaning is "foreign service diplo-weenies who have despised President Bush since he took office and are happy to bash him for anything and everything."

This helpful translation service will help you read Reuters' report on Bush's announcement that, contrary to the implication that he didn't care about the disaster, the US has put together a coalition of nations to organize aid efforts to the region.

President Bush said on Wednesday a $35 million U.S. pledge for victims of the Asian tsunami was only the beginning and any suggestions America was stingy were "misguided and ill-informed."

It was Bush's first public statement since the tsunami struck on Sunday. The president did not announce an immediate increase in aid to the region where the death toll is now nearing 70,000 and could ultimately exceed 100,000.

The White House faced criticism on Tuesday over the fact that Bush, who is vacationing at his Crawford, Texas ranch, had not yet appeared in person to talk about the disaster.

See. He's facing "criticism." Thus speaks the ticked off reporter who is angry to be spending his time in Crawford. Those are first three paragraphs of a story that purportedly covers Bush's announcement of aid. Shouldn't that be the focus of the story rather than some indefinite slur against Bush?

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:02 PM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Wednesday, December 29, 2004 You knew that it wouldn't take long for the media to find an anti-Bush line in the tsunami disaster. First it was the UN's Egelund taunting western nations for being stingy. All that did was tick people off and Egelund's remarks actually served like some sort of reverse psychology to get Americans to donate more and more to private charities. Glenn Reynolds has been following the exponential increase in contributions on Amazon's link to donate to the American Red Cross. Now the Washington Post has an article saying that Bush has been criticized for not showing a public face to express sympathy for the victims of the disaster. The Bush administration more than doubled its financial commitment yesterday to provide relief to nations suffering from the Indian Ocean tsunami, amid complaints that the vacationing President Bush has been insensitive to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.... Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics said the initial aid sums -- as well as Bush's decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy -- showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia. After a day of repeated inquiries from reporters about his public absence, Bush late yesterday afternoon announced plans to hold a National Security Council meeting by teleconference to discuss several issues, including the tsunami, followed by a short public statement. ....Some foreign policy specialists said Bush's actions and words both communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do in the United States. "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that you care," said Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. There was an international outpouring of support after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and even some administration officials familiar with relief efforts said they were surprised that Bush had not appeared personally to comment on the tsunami tragedy. "It's kind of freaky," a senior career official said. Note the lack of specific proper nouns to put names to those critics of Bush. Instead you get these generic words like "complaints" and "skeptics." In fact, let me translate what these words mean in journo-speak. They mean "bored journalists sitting in Crawford with nothing to write about and ticked off at spending their holiday at a dinky town in Texas." A secondary meaning is "foreign service diplo-weenies who have despised President Bush since he took office and are happy to bash him for anything and everything." This helpful translation service will help you read Reuters' report on Bush's announcement that, contrary to the implication that he didn't care about the disaster, the US has put together a coalition of nations to organize aid efforts to the region. President Bush said on Wednesday a $35 million U.S. pledge for victims of the Asian tsunami was only the beginning and any suggestions America was stingy were "misguided and ill-informed." It was Bush's first public statement since the tsunami struck on Sunday. The president did not announce an immediate increase in aid to the region where the death toll is now nearing 70,000 and could ultimately exceed 100,000. The White House faced criticism on Tuesday over the fact that Bush, who is vacationing at his Crawford, Texas ranch, had not yet appeared in person to talk about the disaster. See. He's facing "criticism." Thus speaks the ticked off reporter who is angry to be spending his time in Crawford. Those are first three paragraphs of a story that purportedly covers Bush's announcement of aid. Shouldn't that be the focus of the story rather than some indefinite slur against Bush? posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:02 PM 0 comments Comments: You knew that it wouldn't take long for the media to find an anti-Bush line in the tsunami disaster. First it was the UN's Egelund taunting western nations for being stingy. All that did was tick people off and Egelund's remarks actually served like some sort of reverse psychology to get Americans to donate more and more to private charities. Glenn Reynolds has been following the exponential increase in contributions on Amazon's link to donate to the American Red Cross. Now the Washington Post has an article saying that Bush has been criticized for not showing a public face to express sympathy for the victims of the disaster. The Bush administration more than doubled its financial commitment yesterday to provide relief to nations suffering from the Indian Ocean tsunami, amid complaints that the vacationing President Bush has been insensitive to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.... Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics said the initial aid sums -- as well as Bush's decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy -- showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia. After a day of repeated inquiries from reporters about his public absence, Bush late yesterday afternoon announced plans to hold a National Security Council meeting by teleconference to discuss several issues, including the tsunami, followed by a short public statement. ....Some foreign policy specialists said Bush's actions and words both communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do in the United States. "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that you care," said Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. There was an international outpouring of support after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and even some administration officials familiar with relief efforts said they were surprised that Bush had not appeared personally to comment on the tsunami tragedy. "It's kind of freaky," a senior career official said. Note the lack of specific proper nouns to put names to those critics of Bush. Instead you get these generic words like "complaints" and "skeptics." In fact, let me translate what these words mean in journo-speak. They mean "bored journalists sitting in Crawford with nothing to write about and ticked off at spending their holiday at a dinky town in Texas." A secondary meaning is "foreign service diplo-weenies who have despised President Bush since he took office and are happy to bash him for anything and everything." This helpful translation service will help you read Reuters' report on Bush's announcement that, contrary to the implication that he didn't care about the disaster, the US has put together a coalition of nations to organize aid efforts to the region. President Bush said on Wednesday a $35 million U.S. pledge for victims of the Asian tsunami was only the beginning and any suggestions America was stingy were "misguided and ill-informed." It was Bush's first public statement since the tsunami struck on Sunday. The president did not announce an immediate increase in aid to the region where the death toll is now nearing 70,000 and could ultimately exceed 100,000. The White House faced criticism on Tuesday over the fact that Bush, who is vacationing at his Crawford, Texas ranch, had not yet appeared in person to talk about the disaster. See. He's facing "criticism." Thus speaks the ticked off reporter who is angry to be spending his time in Crawford. Those are first three paragraphs of a story that purportedly covers Bush's announcement of aid. Shouldn't that be the focus of the story rather than some indefinite slur against Bush? posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 12:02 PM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment