DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on November 08, 2011, 07:53:03 AM
-
The French website ARRETESURIMAGES ("Freeze-Frame") reports on an open-mike gaffe that allowed a private conversation between Sarkozy and Obama to be played into a roomful of reporters, who then agreed amongst themselves to honour the conference's press rules and maintain silence over the incident. The website is a continuation of a dropped TV show of the same name. Two paragraphs from the website and my own half-assed translation follow:
Selon nos informations, les deux présidents ont laissé de côté toute retenue à propos du délicat dossier des relations israélo-palestiniennes. Obama a d'abord reproché à Sarkozy de ne pas l'avoir prévenu qu'il allait voter en faveur de l'adhésion de la Palestine à l'Unesco, alors que les Etats-Unis y étaient fermement opposés. La conversation a ensuite dérivé sur Benyamin Nétanyahou, le Premier ministre israélien. Sûrs de ne pas être entendus, les deux présidents se sont lâchés. "Je ne peux plus le voir, c'est un menteur", a lancé Sarkozy. "Tu en as marre de lui, mais moi, je dois traiter avec lui tous les jours !", a rétorqué Obama, qui a ensuite demandé à Sarkozy d'essayer de convaincre les Palestiniens de mettre la pédale douce sur leur demande d'adhésion à l'ONU.
We hear that the two presidents left aside all their entourage to discuss the sensitive matter of Israeli-Palestinian relations. Obama first complained to Sarkozy that he had failed to warn him that he was going to vote in favour of the admission of Palestine to UNESCO, when the US was strongly opposed [to it.] The conversation then turned to Benjamin Netanyah, the Israeli prime minister. Believing themselves to be in a secure setting, the two Presidents let themselves go. "I can't stand to look at him, he's a liar," Sarkozy began. "You are sick of him, but I've got to deal with him every day!" Obama replied, and then asked Sarkozy to try to convince the Palestinians to go slow on their demand to be admitted to the UN.
. . . .
A notre connaissance, ces propos explosifs, dont l'existence ou la teneur nous ont été confirmés par plusieurs journalistes, ne sont pas parus dans la presse (mais ils ont été mentionnés en une phrase sur le blog d'Arnaud Leparmentier, du Monde). Les journalistes présents se sont en effet mis d'accord pour ne pas les exploiter : "Nous n'avons rien enregistré, et les utiliser revenait à reconnaître qu'on avait triché, explique l'un d'eux. De plus, cela aurait gravement mis en difficulté les personnes chargées de l'organisation." Un membre de la hiérarchie d'un média confirme :"Il y a eu des discussions entre les journalistes sur place, qui sont convenus de ne rien en faire. C'est un sujet un peu sensible : il est embêtant de ne pas faire état de ces informations, mais en même temps, nous sommes soumis à des règles déontologiques précises, et diffuser ces phrases revenait à les enfreindre."
As far as we know, these explosive words, which have been confirmed to us by several journalists, either literally or in substance, have not appeared in print (although they were referred to briefly in the blog of Arnaud Leparmentier, of Le Monde.) The journalists who were present agreed amongst themselves not to take advantage [of the slip-up.] "We didn't report any of those words and anyone who reported them [now] would be seen as cheating," explains one of them. A media executive confirms: "The journalists discussed this amongst themselves at the time, and agreed not to make anything out of it. It's kind of a sensitive topic: it sucks that we can't use the information, but at the same time, we agreed to a set of precise, if arbitrary, rules, and the publication of that conversation would amount to a breach of those rules."
-
Don't read too much into it.
Obama being persuasive starts with Obama being agreeable.
I wouldn't be surprised if a few days later he was cominserateing with Netanyahu about how duplicitous that Sarcosy is.
-
...and notice how its NOT being reported by our MSM folks, here
-
The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments. A Reuters reporter was among the journalists present and can confirm the veracity of the comments.
A member of the media confirmed Monday that "there were discussions between journalists and they agreed not to publish the comments due to the sensitivity of the issue."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4145266,00.html (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4145266,00.html)
-
The surprising lack of coverage may be explained by a report alleging that journalists present at the event were requested to sign an agreement to keep mum on the embarrassing comments
Interesting
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sarkozy-overheard-telling-obama-that-netanyahu-is-a-liar-expressing-frustration-at-hard-line/2011/11/08/gIQAau6E0M_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sarkozy-overheard-telling-obama-that-netanyahu-is-a-liar-expressing-frustration-at-hard-line/2011/11/08/gIQAau6E0M_story.html)
The Washington Post is MSM right?
-
I am trying to remember the last time the Press cut a president this sort of slack.
I can't know when the last time was that they succeeded at hiding something of course, I am trying to remember when the last time was that they were caught assisting a cover up.
-
The Washington Post is MSM right?
Yea.....and?
-
So that would make reply #2 incorrect?
-
When you can stop misrepresenting my position on the MSM bias, that even YOU have acknowledged in the past, then perhaps we can address the continued flawed attempts at trying to claim my replies to the bias, as incorrect
-
Are these not your words:
...and notice how its NOT being reported by our MSM folks, here
and yet the Washington Post ran a story on it. And you agreed that the Washington Post would be part of the MSM. Ergo you post #2 was incorrect.
So i don't see how i misrepresented your post. Perhaps you can explain.
And Plane is correct, the story is not that Sarkozy and Obama think Netanyah a pain in the ass, the story is that the international press colluded to attempt to kill a story.
-
The words you continually omit, despite my ongoing efforts in providing, is that the bias is in the predominance of what's reported vs what's not. Especially that which is provided very little media scrutiny, when its about Democrats or liberals, compared to if the story were about....ohh, let's say a conservative black man, running for President. If this were Bush and Netanyahu, caught talking about Sarcozy, it'd be 24/7 news, with no collusion of covering up, in the slighthest
Meaning it's not an all or nothing scenario, where 1 report in 1 MSM outlet, 1 time, or even a couple of times, by a couple of outlets, supposedly debunks my position. That's what you keep misrepresenting, over, and over, and over again, by citing "a" report in the MSM.
So please, stop it
-
...and notice how its NOT being reported by our MSM folks, here
The words you continually omit, despite my ongoing efforts in providing, is that the bias is in the predominance of what's reported vs what's not.
So you are saying you omitted words.
Which is much different than me omitting words
-
No, I don't find it necessary to restate my specific parameters of MSM bias, every damn time a reference to MSM bias is brought up, when you know damn well what I've meant from the beginning
So, as I said, please stop it now >:(
-
No, I don't find it necessary to restate my specific parameters of MSM bias, every damn time a reference to MSM bias is brought up, when you know damn well what I've meant from the beginning
And i don't think it necessary to link an article from every card carrying member of the MSM to show that in this specific case the MSM was in fact reporting the story. Which was the point of the link and my verification that the Washington Post was current in their dues.
You just got it wrong. no biggie.
-
No, you keep misrepresenting my position on MSM bias, and that IS a biggie
So knock it off
-
I can only refer you back to post#2 in this thread, which is what i addressed in my posts. If you don't stand behind that post feel free to retract it. But i certainly did not misrepresent what you wrote.
-
And I can refer you back to years of posts that provide my actual position on MSM bias, vs your CONTINUED attemps at painting it something that it has never been. One has to wonder, WHY DO YOU GO DOWN THAT HOLE?? Is it some kind of perverse pleasure you get out of misrpresenting my position, time after time after time??
Plane, I'm trying to be nice...trying to be civil....not sure why Bt keeps pulling this garbage >:(
-
#2 was a declarative sentence. Another example of the MSM showing bias, often by omission.
...and notice how its NOT being reported by our MSM folks, here
and yet it was being reported.
You act as if you didn't write #2. Yet your name is right there to the left of the post.
-
And you don't act as if my position has been crystal clear since the beginning....its a PREDOMINANCE OF 1 SIDED REPORTING vs NOT. NOT that there's NEVER any reporting. And you KNOW that, but KEEP pushing the notion that it's somehow my position, that the MSM NEVER posts a story critical of Obama or Democrats. So you post 1 story, and whalaaa I'm supposedly wrong, despite it was never my position that the MSM NEVER writes a critical story about the left, in the 1st place
Again, WHY?? >:(
-
Then parse #2.
...and notice how its NOT being reported by our MSM folks, here
-
Easy....its in reference that you see very little, if any reported here....consistent with my position, since the beginning. Yet there you are, painting my position as one where the bias is in ZERO reporting. Your crack about "isn't the Washington Post part of the MSM?" Why you, a person I had so admired since the beginnings of the Cafe, and subsequent Saloon, why you'd purposely and continually misrepresent my position, then sit there and try to play semantics, claim I was wrong, when you know damn well what my position on MSM bias has always been.
-
Everyone always misunderstands what sirs really meant. And the Media is so cruel and unfair. It's like a guy with a size 11 foot who constantly complains that they cannot make shoes that fit him, but all he ever tries on are size 10's.
-
Easy....its in reference that you see very little, if any reported here....consistent with my position, since the beginning. Yet there you are, painting my position as one where the bias is in ZERO reporting. Your crack about "isn't the Washington Post part of the MSM?" Why you, a person I had so admired since the beginnings of the Cafe, and subsequent Saloon, why you'd purposely and continually misrepresent my position, then sit there and try to play semantics, claim I was wrong, when you know damn well what my position on MSM bias has always been.
Then why didn't you post that instead of saying that it was NOT being reported by the MSM, here.
You make a simple declarative statement, with little to no ambiguity, then cry victim when i simply show that that particular statement was not true.
-
BECAUSE MY POSITION ON MSM BIAS HAS BEEN CLEAR SINCE THE BEGINNING. I'M NOT THE ONE MUTATING IT INTO A POSITION, THAT IT NEVER WAS
-
But your post number 2 was not true. Perhaps you can show where post number 2 was correct, in face of the fact that Washington Post did run a story about the subject at hand.
-
It was true BASED ON THE POSITION I'VE ALWAYS HAD REGARDING MSM BIAS.
YOU WOULD BE CORRECT, IF YOU TOOK MY STATEMENT IN A VACUUM, AND PREDISPOSED THAT MY POSITION WAS THAT THE MSM NEVER WRITES A STORY CRITICAL OF THE LEFT
SINCE ITS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN, THE PERSON WHO'S WRONG ISN'T JUST WRONG, THEY'RE BEING DISENGENUOUS. Hint, it's not me
STOP NOW. I'VE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES, CIVILY. PLEASE STOP IT
-
No, I don't find it necessary to restate my specific parameters of MSM bias, every damn time a reference to MSM bias is brought up, when you know damn well what I've meant from the beginning
So, as I said, please stop it now >:(
I used to tell the kids , don't tell your little sister you hate to hear her voice , unless you want to hear a lot of singing.
-
It was true BASED ON THE POSITION I'VE ALWAYS HAD REGARDING MSM BIAS.
YOU WOULD BE CORRECT, IF YOU TOOK MY STATEMENT IN A VACUUM, AND PREDISPOSED THAT MY POSITION WAS THAT THE MSM NEVER WRITES A STORY CRITICAL OF THE LEFT
SINCE ITS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN, THE PERSON WHO'S WRONG ISN'T JUST WRONG, THEY'RE BEING DISENGENUOUS. Hint, it's not me
STOP NOW. I'VE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES, CIVILY. PLEASE STOP IT
On the face of it, taken as written, your 2 was not correct, regardless of previous positions or attempts to to deflect. And i certainly did not misrepresent your 2.
How you can continue to say the statement you made in 2 was not the statement you made in 2, is beyond me.
-
In a vacuum, where my history on the issue does not exist, is where it is not correct.
In your ongoing efforts to misrpresent my position, is where it is not correct
When taken in context, with my LONGTIME standing on the position of MSM bias, its perfectly consistent
How you can keep pushing this demonstrates far more about your obsessions, than it does anything of mine. It's easier to see how I was suspended for no other damn reason, than I didn't cotow to your demands of apology, after having highlighted your efforts, at that time.
Plane, I tried
-
So am i to conclude that since your 2 was incorrect your longtime standing position regarding MSM bias should also be under suspicion?
-
We're done with your extracurricular efforts at mispresenting my position.
-
Sorry you can't answer the tough questions.
-
Sorry I can't cure you of this obsession in lying about my positions >:(
-
Where is the lie?
do you retract your number 2?
-
The lie is in the ongoing misrepresenting my position, that the MSM bias apparently requires ZERO reporting by ANY agency, as it relates to critiquing anything on the left, despite clear articulations past and present that indicate that its not
Your continued efforts to paint my position as something that is not, is the lie
I tried plane. Bt just couldn't let it go
-
The lie is in the ongoing misrepresenting my position, that the MSM bias apparently requires ZERO reporting by ANY agency, as it relates to critiquing anything on the left, despite clear articulations past and present that indicate that its not
Your continued efforts to paint my position as something that is not, is the lie
I tried plane. Bt just couldn't let it go
I see no reason to quietly accept your accusation of lying about your post number 2 when i clearly did not. And your failure to back up that claim , dare i say, speaks volumes.
-
We're done. I showed precisely how.
-
There you have it. Accusations without the backup.
-
Gawd! sirs sure gets his drawers in a bunch over nothing!
-
Yea, its gets a little tiring being lied about, regarding a position I've had for so long. Sorry, my bad
-
And yet he can't show what the lie was, because there was no lie, except for claiming there was a lie.
Sad that
-
Except (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16137.msg134008#msg134008), I did (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16137.msg134043#msg134043)
-
except you didn't. The Washington Post story was the first msm member that popped up when i googled it.
The Post story was attributed to the AP , so that's two MSM'ers who reported the story, I'm sure there were more.
And your claim in 2 was what again?
-
Except I did, and demonstrated precisely how, with the links provided, which includes the continued attempt at trying to apply my position in a vacuum. Predominance apparently is a term you're take great pains to ignore
-
Your position is at odds with your claim in 2.
which was
...and notice how its NOT being reported by our MSM folks, here
-
and as I also demonstrated (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16137.msg134008#msg134008) no, it's not
As I said, we're done
-
whatever
-
.............................
.............................
Plane, I tried
Why are you feeling like I was adressing that to you?
-
Oh, I know you weren't involved.....you've merely been a strong advocate of civil debate, and an excellent example of such. I'm envious that your positions are rarely misrepresented, by anyone. I was simply trying to let you know that despite overt temptation to go the uncivil route in responding, due to the above repetative misrepresentation efforts made by our head fella, I endeavored to keep you in mind
-
Calling someone a liar without proving the lie is considered civil on this board now?
Interesting
-
I'm envious that your positions are rarely misrepresented, by anyone. .....................................
Hehehehehehehehohoho!
That is a good one!
Do you think it is easy to be as trite as me?
-
Calling someone a liar without proving the lie is considered civil on this board now?
Being that it was proven (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16137.msg134013#msg134013), along with other links previsously provided, and you simply want to ignore those that did demonstrate such, is starting to remind me of Tee's claim that Uncle Tom isn't a racist reference, because ...... he says so. Just because you say it wasn't proven, doesn't actually make it so. Sorry
-
Sorry. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts.
You stated that the MSM did NOT report the story Here
The facts prove you wrong. And somehow providing that fact has me lying about your position (opinion) when all i did was show the your statement wrong, by providing facts.
-
And LAST time, my comments are not, and never were to be taken in a vacuum, where ZERO reporting is to be expected to validate MSM bias. Them are the facts, as provided by in numerous links
Lemme rephrase....you're done
-
i think what you are saying is your posts can not stand on their own.
I can agree with that.
I'll be done when i decide i'm done. You don't have that power.