Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Drudge: The Ellipsis As A Tool Of Deception

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 11:02 PM
Original message
Drudge: The Ellipsis As A Tool Of Deception
Edited on Thu Jan-15-04 11:29 PM by cryingshame
Another Debunking- this from the Columbia Journal Review.

Drudge: The Ellipsis as a Tool of Deception

Drudge is using the ellipse as a weapon, with malice aforethought.
Clark's statement that "Saddam Hussein is a threat" came from his opening remarks to the committee. An ellipse then carries the reader more than 11,500 words later into the transcript to a second quotation. Finally, Drudge uses the next ellipse to jump way back to the beginning of Clark's testimony. The effect is to make Clark's testimony sound more frantic than it really is and to incorrectly suggest that Clark had endorsed the war.

The deceptive reporting continues with two final excerpts. The first is drawn from a section in which Clark states that the use of force must remain on the table as a threat, but that all diplomatic measures must be taken before military action proceeds. Drudge's selective excerpt ends with Clark suggesting that the situation with Iraq has "been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Drudge would like you to think that Clark's thoughts on the subject end there. In fact, only moments later, Clark clearly stated, "but time is on our side in the near term and we should use it."

Then Drudge leads into the final excerpt with the words, "Clark explained," implying that Clark's statements in the final excerpt modified his statements in the previous excerpt. Once again, however, Drudge is cavalierly skipping through Clark's testimony: There are 3,798 words in-between these two statements -- enough to fill four pages of Time magazine.

--Thomas Lang
http://campaigndesk.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sinistrous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent analysis. However, If I may pick a significant nit...
Your subject line would read better if you used the word "ellipsis" instead of "ellipse". At first, I thought you were saying Drudge had somehow made use of the park behind the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thanks For The Correction and The Laugh
:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windansea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. snip snip snip
another word for elipsis...soundbytes...shallow media

out of context distortion for lazy people

good post!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kodi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-15-04 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. sommerby/daily howler was on this a while back with krauthhammer
"1...........and..........1................equals..........42"

context is everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jan 20th 2025, 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC