Tag Archives: opinion

Michaela Wallace Interview: A Chat with Justin Bieber’s Girlfriend*

(* Not really.) I love Justin Bieber because he has great music that I can relate to, and it doesn’t hurt that he’s really hot! Michaela Wallace is certainly not the only 14-year old with this opinion. But she is the only 14-year old with a song titled ” Justin Bieber’s Girlfriend ,” one with a video that has gone viral and turned Wallace into an online sensation. The young singer spoke to Celebuzz this week about her single and her hopes for a successful music career. Might we have a female version of Justin on our hands? How long has been involved with music? I have been singing as long as I can remember. Music has always been a passion of mine and part of my life. In church, at school or just on a regular day when I disappear into my room for some one-on-one time with my guitar. I have been playing the piano since I seven years old and playing the guitar since I was ten. Does she have any special Justin Bieber concert memories? Yes! Before the concert in Nashville, I got to go backstage and play Xbox Kinect with Justin. The concert was AWESOME! It really was a night I’ll never forget. Her EP is currently available via iTunes. What are her next plans? I don’t really have any plans right now, but I look forward to writing and recording more music and who knows where it will take me!

Continued here:
Michaela Wallace Interview: A Chat with Justin Bieber’s Girlfriend*

NewsBusters Sparks PolitiFact Examination of Bill Clinton Remark

A NewsBusters article about misstatements made by former President Bill Clinton on “Meet the Press” sparked a fact-checking examination by the St. Petersburg Times’ PolitiFact. As reported Sunday, Clinton bragged to host David Gregory that his administration had “paid down the debt for four years, paid down $600 billion on the national debt.” This of course was quite incorrect as the debt didn’t decline one year while Clinton was in the White House and actually increased by $394 billion in the four years in question. PolitiFact staff writer Lou Jacobson contacted a number folks on this issue including me to reach what I consider a “politically correct” conclusion : It depends on what the definition of “national debt” is. There are actually a few ways of tabulating the debt. One is public debt, which includes all debt borrowed by the federal government and held by investors through Treasury notes and other securities. Another is gross federal debt, which includes public debt plus debt held by the government. The most notable forms of debt held by the government are the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, money which is owed to beneficiaries in the future. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the public debt will reach $9.3 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2010. Add in the $4.5 trillion in debt held by the government, and you come up with a gross federal debt of $13.8 trillion. Now let’s look at Clinton’s tenure. Using the public debt figures, we see that the debt rose year by year during the first four fiscal years of Clinton’s stewardship, then fell during each of the following four fiscal years, from a 1997 peak to a 2001 trough. So using this measurement, Clinton is correct that “we paid down the debt for four years,” though he did overestimate the amount that was paid down when he said it was $600 billion. The actual amount was $452 billion — which was equal to about 12 percent of the existing public debt in 1997. But what about gross federal debt? On this score, NewsBusters is correct: In each fiscal year from 1993 to 2001, the gross federal debt increased, because the increase in money in government trust funds exceeded the annual decreases in the federal budget deficit. So by one of these measures, Clinton is correct, and by another, he’s wrong. After citing a number of economists on either side of the aisle, PF quoted one of my e-mail messages concerning the subject: “If the public debt during those years was bought with other debt — meaning by the Social Security trust and the Federal Reserve — we didn’t actually pay down any debt, did we? If you take out an equity line of credit on your home to pay off your car loan, your debt didn’t decrease. Furthermore, if you take out an equity line of credit to pay off your car loan and buy a boat, it would be deceitful on your part to say you reduced your debt, right? This is what happened those four years: We did retire some debt held by the public, but we did so by increasing debt held by the government and the (Federal Reserve). That’s not retiring debt. That’s just shifting it from one lender to another.” Despite this seemingly incontravertible logic, PF concluded: We see merit in using both public debt and gross debt, so we are reluctant to declare that Clinton is definitively right or definitively wrong in citing statistics supported by the public debt figure. Clinton’s phrasing — talking about “the debt” and “the national debt” — strikes us as vague enough to refer to either the public debt or the gross federal debt. So we are left with a statement that’s correct using one measurement and incorrect using another measurement. In addition, Clinton overestimated by about 25 percent the dollar amount by which the public debt declined from its peak during his term, though he also correctly characterized the changes in the debt under Republican presidents. So on balance, we rule Clinton’s statement Half True. As readers likely predict, I feel Clinton’s statement should have gotten either a “False” or a “Pants on Fire.” Looking at exclusively public debt would be like a lender only considering your mortgage balance in determining your credit-worthiness while completely ignoring your car loans and your credit cards.  Don’t you wish that were the case? The reality is the Treasury includes moneys owed to Social Security and Medicare in its gross debt figures because they are part of our nation’s total debt. Even the National Debt Clock tabulates gross federal debt and not just what is held by the public. In this instance as it pertains to Clinton’s claim, here are the pertinent facts. Debt held by the public did decline by $452 billion from the end of FY 97 to the end of FY 01. However, the amount held by government accounts – which mostly means Social Security and Medicare trusts – increased by $853 billion. Yet the surpluses in Social Security and Medicare only totalled $534 billion. This means these trust accounts purchased $319 billion more Treasury paper those four years than their actual surplus. That represents most of the $394 billion increase in gross federal debt during this period. Remember, we were told at the time that this debt buyback was as a result of the surpluses. Quite the contrary, what happened was debt held by the public was largely converted into debt owned by the Social Security and Medicare trusts as well as the Federal Reserve.  As our budgets are “unified,” it is therefore ludicrous to only look at public debt when referring to what the nation owes. Let me explain. Since 1969, we calculate what’s called “unified” budgets meaning they include receipts and expenditures associated with Social Security and Medicare. When the Clinton administration was reporting budget surpluses from 1998 on, and the CBO was projecting “surpluses as far as the eye can see,” they were including projected surpluses in Social Security and Medicare. Without these “trust fund” surpluses, we actually showed what’s called “on-budget” deficits in FY 98 and FY 01. In fact, in the four years that we showed unified budget surpluses of a combined $559 billion, fully $534 billion of that came from surpluses in Social Security and Medicare. Our actual “on-budget” surplus those four years was only $25 billion, a far cry from what was advertised and celebrated. With this in mind, if we’re going to report budget figures that include Social Security and Medicare surpluses – and even brag about our performance – we should certainly include what we owe these programs when we talk about national debt. Failing this is allowing political figures to have their cake and eat it too.  Something else to consider is media outlets look at the gross debt and not just what’s held by the public. When the gross debt past the $13 trillion mark earlier this year, these were some of the headlines: ABCNews.com reported on May 26, “National Debt Soars Past $13 Trillion”     Bloomberg.com reported on May 26, “U.S.’s $13 Trillion Debt Poised to Overtake GDP”  CBSNews.com reported on June 2, “National Debt Tops $13 Trillion for First Time” Once again, please recall that Clinton said “national debt.” As such, it appears our friends at PolitiFact were being generous in their ruling, at least in my opinion. That said, Jacobson was tremendously cordial in his e-mail discussion with me, and appears to have done a nice job of soliticiting varied opinions for this piece. Also of note, and in case your assumption was that this group always defends anyone named Clinton, this is not the case. Mr. Clinton has had twelve of his previous comments examined by PF resulting in four “Trues,” three “Half Trues,” one “Barely True,” two “Falses” and two “Pants on Fires.” Maybe this means that the next time the gang at PF is led to examine someone’s statements as a result of something I wrote, I’m going to need to plead my case a little better. To quote the late Ed Hart, we will know in the fullness of time.

Read the original here:
NewsBusters Sparks PolitiFact Examination of Bill Clinton Remark

How Far Can You Get in This Wingnut Rant About ‘Celebrity Nipple Nazis’?

I ran out of gas right around here: “Gisele Bundechen [sic], the Brazilian civil rights hero, I mean supermodel, recently pronounced ‘I think there should be a worldwide law, in my opinion, that mothers should breastfeed their babies for six months.’ And what happens if we don’t Gisele? Do we get thrown in a Nipple Nazi lactation prison?” Your mileage may vary. [ Big Hollywood ]

Read this article:
How Far Can You Get in This Wingnut Rant About ‘Celebrity Nipple Nazis’?

Man Claims Watching ‘Recycled News Shows on MSNBC’ Caused Him to Threaten Congresswoman

Can watching too much MSNBC affect a person to the extent that he acts in a completely irrational manner? According to a Tampa Tribune story , a Florida man convicted of threatening death upon a congresswoman for her opposition to ObamaCare believes the answer would be yes: TAMPA – A Spring Hill man who threatened U.S. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite during the health care debate will spend more than two years in federal prison. Eric Lawrence Pidrman, 66, claims he was in an alcoholic blackout when he telephoned Brown-Waite’s office about 6:30 a.m. on March 25 and left a message saying he had 27 people who would make sure she “doesn’t live to see her next term.” “I’m terribly sorry that it ever happened,” Pidrman said this morning before he was sentenced. At the time of the morning he made the call, he said, “I very often watch the recycled news shows on MSNBC.” When agents questioned Pidrman in April, he said he was upset about threats reportedly made against Democrats during the health care debate. He said he probably thought, “Let me scare one of those righties.” “Righties.” And who frequently uses that term? I’ll give you a hint. It was the MSNBC host who recently made this “scorching” threat : “I’m going to torch this f***ing place!” he screamed during a meeting in the MSNBC newsroom according to the New York Post . “F***ers!” he added for good measure. Compare that irrational MSNBC host threat to the irrational threat left by Pidrman on the answering machine of the congresswoman: “Just wanna let you know I have 27 people that are going to make sure that this ***** does not live to see her next term.” Readers of this story have noted that there are not all that many degrees of separation between Erik Lawrence Pidrman and Keith Olbermann or…Ed Schultz: He’s right if i watched all the recycled news on MSNBC i might go nuts too. A looney leftnut was inspired by MSNBC to threaten conservatives for voicing their opinion. And this is news??? Here is just another example of where the threats and violence comes from. Not the teaparty folk etc. The union supported leftists have always been the violent ones. This guy is just typical of them. MSNBC is all I needed as they are all leftists. The big question now is if trial lawyers will begin using the “MSNBC defense” as an excuse for their clients’ threats against conservatives. 

More here:
Man Claims Watching ‘Recycled News Shows on MSNBC’ Caused Him to Threaten Congresswoman

Ed Schultz: Obama’s School Speech Should Be Mandatory For All Students

At certain schools across the country, parents possessed the authority to pull their children from class Tuesday so as not to witness President Obama’s address to students nationwide – and Ed Schultz believes that constitutes an “opt-out for Right-wing whackos.” Schultz seemed to be not in favor of academic freedom – in this case. Decrying opposition to the speech as “perverse conservative hatred” for Obama and “motivated by race,” Schultz was apparently doubly-mad about this, as he hit the issue hard for two nights in a row on his MSNBC show. “I think the President’s speech should be mandatory for all students,” he insisted. Some public schools notified parents if their children would be watching the speech, while others left the decision to the teachers whether or not to show it. “If you’re a superintendent, and it wasn’t shown in your school, or in every one of your classrooms, you ought to be ashamed,” Schultz raged. “It’s amazing you’re on the payroll in this country.” “Educators are trying to keep your kids away from President Obama,” he warned, sounding somewhat like a fear-mongering political TV ad. “The conservative movement in this country wants to brand the thinking of young people like cattle.” And why should students be forced to listen to the speech? “This is the President talking to kids about bettering themselves,” Schultz claimed. However, he argued that parents should not even have a say in whether their child listens to the speech. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter agreed with him, appearing on Schultz’s Monday evening show. Alter asked if the same teachers provided an opt-out clause for parents when President Bush and President Reagan were in the White House. If not, they should be “ashamed,” he admonished. “That’s the subtext of this, that he’s not really the President,” Alter said of conservatives’ opposition to Obama’s speech. “He’s the ‘Other.’ He’s an alien. He’s not our President. That’s not the way things are supposed to work in America. Elections are supposed to have consequences. People should support the results of the election.” “Conservatives, well – they hate public education,” Schultz snarled on his Tuesday show. He added that their opposition is “motivated by race,” and that “there are still millions of people who just don’t want to see their kids have any association with anyone who’s black.” A partial transcript of the two segments, which aired on September 13 and 14, at 6:48 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. EDT respectively, is as follows: THE ED SHOW 9/13/10 6:48 p.m. EDT ED SCHULTZ: Educators are trying to keep your kids away from President Obama. (…) SCHULTZ: And I’m sorry to say folks across America are still suffering from the effects of Righty fear-mongering after the President – and so concerned about the President indoctrinating students. Now in flyover country, let’s take for instance in West Fargo, ND – parents have to be notified if their kids will be watching the speech. And they have to have the option to remove their child from class during the address. Down in Texas, students – well they’ve got to get their parents to sign permission slips to watch the President of the United States. This is absolutely outrageous and ridiculous. Last year we saw the same kind of garbage that was thrown out there by the Righties that infiltrated into the public schools. But all the President did was urge students back then to stay in school and work hard. There was no agenda, no socialist indoctrination. The President of the United States is a prime example of how far you can go if you’re willing to work hard. Treating it as a controversial event with an opt-out for Right-wing whackos I think is appalling. I think the President’s speech should be mandatory for all students.   (…) SCHULTZ: Jonathan, is this a product of a lot of fear-mongering that has taken place surrounding the Obama presidency? What do you think? JONATHAN ALTER, Senior Editor, Newsweek: Oh absolutely. Look, you could barely understand it last year, I mean, even though it was outrageous then, too, because you could argue, okay, maybe some of the far-Right believed some of the right-wing propaganda that he would use the occasion to indoctrinate. But then, as you said, he gave the speech, “Stay in school, work hard, follow your dreams.” So they know what the message is, so for them to ban kids from – prevent kids from seeing it this year is triply ridiculous. Because we know what he’s going to say. SCHULTZ: We have gutless administrators, in my opinion, that don’t have the guts to stand up. In some school districts across the country, they say “Oh well we’ll leave it up to the teachers, meaning the teachers will make a decision in the classroom whether the President’s going to be seen or not. The administration gives them no cover whatsoever, no leadership whatsoever. This is the President talking to kids about bettering themselves, and it’s being, you know – ALTER: And a question for every one of those teachers and administrators – did you do the same when George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan gave their speeches, if you’ve been in the schools long enough? Did you do the same? If not, if not, if you didn’t give parents the chance to opt out you should be completely ashamed of yourself if you didn’t do it in this case. It’s basically saying that this President isn’t legitimate. That’s the subtext of this, that he’s not really the President. He’s the “Other.” He’s an alien. He’s not our President. That’s not the way things are supposed to work in America. Elections are supposed to have consequences. People should support the results of the election.   THE ED SHOW 9/14/10 6:00 p.m. EDT ED SCHULTZ: I’m on fire that conservatives have taken their warped hatred of President Obama into public schools in this country. Parents are shielding kids from watching the President’s “Back to School” message. Can you believe it? What a low-point for this country. (…) SCHULTZ: The perverse conservative hatred for President Obama has infiltrated public schools all across this country. It’s a debate that’s being held in every school district. … For the second straight year, the President of the United States took time to give an uplifting, positive, forward-thinking message to American school kids for the second straight year. Conservatives, what are they doing? Well they’re trying to protect young, impressionable ears and minds from his message. Here’s the deal. In Aiken County, SC, parents were given the choice to opt their children out of the President’s education speech today. In Fargo, ND, parents were given the option to show or not show the speech. And a school near Austin, TX required parents to fill out a permission slip so their kids could watch the President of the United States give their kids this message. (…) SCHULTZ: If you’re a superintendent, and it wasn’t shown in your school, or in every one of your classrooms, you ought to be ashamed. It’s amazing you’re on the payroll in this country, and that’s what’s wrong with education in this country. We don’t have people who can make positive decisions. This is crazy. Now I’ve talked with parents from all over America on my talk show about this for the last two days. A woman in Colorado told me a principal at her kid’s school said that the President was too controversial! This is a low moment in America. The level of acceptance for keeping kids away from the President is disgusting. All of this is fueled by the nutjobs on the Right, Beck saying that the President has a deep-seated hatred for white people, Newt out there trying to make Americans believe that the President is from Kenya. The list goes on and on, and you know who the culprits are. The conservative movement in this country wants to brand the thinking of young people like cattle. It’s outrageous this kind of thinking is commonplace in American public schools. He is the President of the United States of America elected by American citizens! But, you see, conservatives, well – they hate public education. They’re afraid to ask “Where is the leadership?” I’ll ask it tonight. This is all part of villifying public education on the part of the conservatives. Superintendents who shied away from this are just walking in lock step with those who are scared. Superintendents should make the correct call, and not put the burden on the teachers. A speech like this should have been mandatory, it should have been not even considered whether it’s an issue or not. This, you know, if it was Ronald Reagan, or if it was George W. Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh – their heads would explode. They’d be screaming about the liberal schoolteachers dishonoring the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. But nobody seems to care about dishonoring the black President. I think a lot of this is motivated by race. There are still millions of people who just don’t want to see their kids have any association with anyone who’s black. That’s right. What’s wrong with our country? What’s wrong with this picture? I mean, I can’t believe that liberals sit back and take this garbage. Where’s the conversation about this at the leadership level in politics? This is a kitchen table issue that I think the Democratic leadership team should speak to across this country. The story speaks to the decay of our country, the lack of respect for the Oval Office, the lack of respect for our elections, the lack of acceptance that Barack Obama is, in fact, the President of the United States. Now if you’re a superintendent, I should probably point out to you that the irony is that this President is probably one of the most academically-accomplished Presidents we’ve ever had. And his critic across the street loves to tell people that he’s a college dropout. So you make the choice. You mean to tell me that we have school administrators in this country that are so afraid of the local school board, and so concerned about their job and their security that they’re afraid to put the President of the United States, with a positive message about education, in their school? Hell, you’re no better than the politicians that take money in Washington. You’re all about your job. You’re afraid to stand up. And this is one of the problems we have in public education in this country – we don’t have enough leaders. We don’t have enough people that stand up and say “Look, this is the correct thing to do because he’s the President of the United States.” Conversely, what do you think the kind of problem that would be created if President Obama were to take this opportunity and really give a strong speech about universal health care? Or really give a strong speech about taxes and say, “Well, you know your dad makes over $250,000 a year, I think that, heck, he ought to be paying more.” You think the President would do something like that? Well, in the twisted thinking of these Righties, they think he’ll do anything. In fact, one broadcaster on Fox is now saying that President Obama is going to lead liberals to violence if the election doesn’t go their way. I guess this is why we have a segment on this show called “Psycho Talk.” It is a sad day for America, because there are other countries around the world that watch our model of entrepreneurship in developing young minds to be aggressive in the capitalistic system in this country. And what message are we sending? “Hell, they don’t even let Obama speak to their kids in public schools. America’s on the decline. We can kick their ass. Let’s see if we can get more of their jobs.” Yes, there is a ripple effect throughout the whole thing.

Visit link:
Ed Schultz: Obama’s School Speech Should Be Mandatory For All Students

Man Burns the Koran at Ground Zero

“If they can burn American flags, I can burn the Koran,” shouted the unidentified man. “America should never be afraid to give their opinion.” The man was led away by police but did not appear to be arrested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-5NCgB6MmE added by: ibrake4rappers13

Drake Says Rat Pack Inspired VMA Performance

‘I wanted to get up there and look fly,’ he tells MTV News. By Shaheem Reid, with additional reporting by Sway Calloway Drake Photo: MTV News LOS ANGELES — You know you’ve made it when the chorus from your song is quoted on “SportsCenter.” You know you’ve made it tenfold when you have a highly anticipated slot at the MTV Video Music Awards . Drake has both, with “you fancy, huh?” permeating pop culture, and on Sunday, you’ll see him team up on the big stage with Swizz Beatz and a very special guest, Mary J. Blige, for his debut VMA performance. “All I remember is that VMAs in Vegas, in the hotel,” Drake said Friday afternoon (September 10) in his dressing room at the Nokia Theatre. He had just finished rehearsing for a couple of hours. “I remember being at home … seeing Tyga perform with Wayne, and I was like, ‘Man, I gotta get my ball rolling. I gotta be there one day.’ It’s surreal, being on that stage.” And yes, Drizzy will be surrounded by several beautiful ladies and one lovely Queen. “Fancy” was originally slated to be a Mary record , before eventually making its way to Thank Me Later. Drake and the song’s producer, Swizz Beatz, decided to keep her vocals on the hook of the song. “Her vocals are what make it so sweet,” Drake beamed of having MJB perform with him. “What’s more classy, more fancy than Mary J. Blige? I’m not sure. She is the epitome of class, in my opinion. It’s more of a real theater production than it is a performance. It’s really a lot of acting.” If rehearsals are any indication, Drake’s performance will be reminiscent of the up-to-date Sinatra cool in his VMA promo spot . “I watched the Rat Pack live at the Copa Room,” Drake recalled. “It was just so relaxed. They were smoking cigarettes and drinking Jack. It was women everywhere. It wasn’t, ‘Let’s just rap and be epic and be huge.’ They were like, ‘I really run this. Me and Sammy and Dean.’ I wanted to get up there and look fly.” Are you looking forward to Drake’s VMA performance? Let us know in the comments! Related Videos Drake’s First VMAs VMA 2010 Exposed Related Photos VMA 2010: Rehearsals Related Artists Drake

See the rest here:
Drake Says Rat Pack Inspired VMA Performance

Ricky Gervais, Red Herrings and 2 Other Ways The Office Plans on Dealing With Steve Carell’s Exit

Everyone and their mother has offered up their opinion on who should inherit the Dunder Mifflin throne once Steve Carell’s lovable Michael Scott retires, but now, THR has finally learned how NBC plans on moving forward with The Office — and “the plan” is a lot more complicated and uncertain than anyone ever imagined.

Read this article:
Ricky Gervais, Red Herrings and 2 Other Ways The Office Plans on Dealing With Steve Carell’s Exit

Open Thread: Another Left-wing Reagan Movie?

A biopic about Ronald Reagan is in the works, slated to be released next year. Reuters reported the following yesterday: The story of Ronald Reagan’s life — from boyhood to Hollywood actor to leader of the free world — is about to spill out on the big screen in a way quite different from the miniseries that caused such a stir seven years ago. The feature film, titled “Reagan” and sporting a $30 million production budget, is set for release late next year and will be based on two best-selling biographies of the 40th U.S. president by Paul Kengor: “The Crusader” and “God and Ronald Reagan.” Jonas McCord, who was not a Reagan fan, wrote the script. “I was of the opinion that at best he was a bad actor and at worst a clown,” McCord said. But the scribe, whose credits include “Malice” and “The Body,” said he was drawn to the project as he researched the former president’s upbringing. He described Reagan’s childhood as “a surreal Norman Rockwell painting with his alcoholic Catholic father, devout Christian mother, Catholic brother and ever-changing boarders the family took in.” Not exactly heartening words for the Gipper’s fans. Should we brace ourselves for another left-wing distortion of Reagan’s life and legacy? Also, who should play the lead ?

See more here:
Open Thread: Another Left-wing Reagan Movie?

Flashback: Reacting to MRC, ABC News Chief Westin Apologized for ‘No Opinion’ on Whether Pentagon Was ‘Legitimate’ 9/11 Target

Reporting ABC News President David Westin’s plan to step down at the end of the year, the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz noted “some early missteps” during his 13-year tenure, such as “a comment after the Sept. 11 attacks, for which Westin apologized, that journalists should offer no opinion about whether the Pentagon had been a legitimate military target.” That apology was promoted by an MRC CyberAlert item in October of 2001 which put into play an answer Westin delivered during a Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism seminar. Barely six weeks after the 9/11 attack, Westin was remarkably reticent about expressing an opinion, contending that’s improper for a journalist to do so – how quaint: The Pentagon as a legitimate target? I actually don’t have an opinion on that and it’s important I not have an opinion on that as I sit here in my capacity right now….Our job is to determine what is, not what ought to be and when we get into the job of what ought to be I think we’re not doing a service to the American people….As a journalist I feel strongly that’s something that I should not be taking a position on. I’m supposed to figure out what is and what is not, not what ought to be. After the Monday CyberAlert item was widely picked up (FNC’s Brit Hume, plastered across the DrudgeReport, New York Post, lengthy discussion by Rush Limbaugh) on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 ABC News called to get an e-mail address to send a statement from Westin, which read: Like all Americans, I was horrified at the loss of life at the Pentagon, as well as in New York and Pennsylvania on September 11. When asked at an interview session at the Columbia Journalism School whether I believed that the Pentagon was a legitimate target for terrorists I responded that, as a journalist, I did not have an opinion. I was wrong. I gave an answer to journalism students to illustrate the broad, academic principle that all journalists should draw a firm line between what they know and what their personal opinion might be. Upon reflection, I realized that my answer did not address the specifics of September 11. Under any interpretation, the attack on the Pentagon was criminal and entirely without justification. I apologize for any harm that my misstatement may have caused. Monday, October 29 CyberAlert : “Pentagon a Legitimate Target?” Wednesday, October 31 CyberAlert Extra : “Reacting to CyberAlert Item, ABC News President David Westin Has Apologized and Said ‘I Was Wrong’ for Having ‘No Opinion’ on Whether the Pentagon Was a ‘Legitimate’ Military Target” A few weeks later, Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes recounted in the magazine : …On October 23, Westin spoke to a class at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. Asked if the Pentagon were a legitimate target for attack by America’s enemies, he said, “I actually don’t have an opinion on that…as a journalist I feel strongly that’s something I should not be taking a position on.” The comment drew no criticism from the students, which may tell you something about them. But four days later, the Westin speech was shown on C-SPAN, where Brent Baker of the Media Research Center caught it at 2 A.M. Baker put excerpts in the daily “CyberAlert” he writes for MRC’s website. Rummaging through the Internet, Brit Hume spotted the item and mentioned it on “Special Report” that evening on Fox. Two days later, the New York Post picked it up and the next day so did the Drudge Report. That alerted Rush Limbaugh, who devoted an hour or more to it on his radio show. With Limbaugh’s show still in progress, Baker got a call from ABC. A reply would be e-mailed to him soon for posting on the MRC website. It was a total capitulation. “I was wrong,” Westin wrote. “Under any interpretation, the attack on the Pentagon was criminal and entirely without justification.”… Westin’s original October 23 answer, in full: The Pentagon as a legitimate target? I actually don’t have an opinion on that and it’s important I not have an opinion on that as I sit here in my capacity right now. The way I conceive my job running a news organization, and the way I would like all the journalists at ABC News to perceive it, is there is a big difference between a normative position and a positive position. Our job is to determine what is, not what ought to be and when we get into the job of what ought to be I think we’re not doing a service to the American people. I can say the Pentagon got hit, I can say this is what their position is, this is what our position is, but for me to take a position this was right or wrong, I mean, that’s perhaps for me in my private life, perhaps it’s for me dealing with my loved ones, perhaps it’s for my minister at church. But as a journalist I feel strongly that’s something that I should not be taking a position on. I’m supposed to figure out what is and what is not, not what ought to be.

Go here to read the rest:
Flashback: Reacting to MRC, ABC News Chief Westin Apologized for ‘No Opinion’ on Whether Pentagon Was ‘Legitimate’ 9/11 Target