Trent 0 #1 May 4, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/04/bush.spanish.ap/index.html Bush's Spanish 'no muy bueno,' White House says WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush likes to drop a few words of Spanish in his speeches and act like he's proficient in the language. But he's really not that good, his spokesman said Thursday. "The president can speak Spanish but not that well," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "He's not that good with his Spanish." McClellan's comment was noticeable because presidential press secretaries usually boast about a president's ability rather than talk about any shortcomings. McClellan is in the last days of his job, leaving the White House next week. McClellan made his remark in response to a report that Bush had sung the Star-Spangled Banner in Spanish during the 2000 campaign. Just last week Bush said the national anthem should be sung in English, not Spanish. (Full story) "It's absurd," McClellan said of the report, suggesting that Bush couldn't have sung it in Spanish even if he had wanted to. *** Is it dishonest of the reporter to make this article seem like McClellan was talking about Bush's Spanish being bad when it is clearly in response to whether or not Bush knew enough Spanish to sing the national anthem translated? Look at the headline and the first few paragraphs. You don't really get the gist of how it really went down until you get to the end. It seems a bit shady to me. Just thought I'd show it to you. Not necessarily a "biased media" thread, but it seems that if something like this is done on a trivial subject like this... that it's plausible that it's just as bad for serious issues, which IS a problem.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #2 May 4, 2006 >Is it dishonest of the reporter to make this article seem like > McClellan was talking about Bush's Spanish being bad when it is > clearly in response to whether or not Bush knew enough Spanish to > sing the national anthem translated? McClellan's point was that Bush's spanish was not good enough to sing the national anthem in spanish. Hence, a headline that says "Bush's spanish is not very good, White House says" is an accurate description of the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #3 May 4, 2006 QuoteMcClellan's point was that Bush's spanish was not good enough to sing the national anthem in spanish. Hence, a headline that says "Bush's spanish is not very good, White House says" is an accurate description of the issue. Accurate, and incomplete to the point that the context is lost. In my opinion, that context is very important. Do you really not see how the article LOOKS to be about 1 thing on a quick glance, then is really not that big of a deal once you read the complete info... that is buried at the bottom? The headline and first 3 paragraphs seem to make it look like Mclellan was taking a shot at Bush... who tries to use Spanish on occasion. It's cheap. The whole bit could HONESTLY be summed up in: Mclellan responded to questions about Bush singing the national anthem in Spanish by saying that Bush's Spanish isn't good enough translate and sing it. But I guess that doesn't make a headline. Anyone else? I may be crazy, but I'm not that crazy. It was pretty obvious to me.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #4 May 4, 2006 How would you have titled that story? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #5 May 4, 2006 I edited my last post to include something like you're looking for. Personally, it wouldn't have been a story at all for me if I was an editor, because without the "deception"... it doesn't amount to anything. It could go in the "Have you heard..." section of Skydiving Magazine though.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #6 May 4, 2006 >Personally, it wouldn't have been a story at all for me if I was an editor . . . . Well, that goes without saying. I think it is a story, though, one created by Bush himself. He said "I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English" when he himself has sung it in spanish. It's reasonable to ask him why he's had the change of heart. Had he not wanted to talk about it, not talking about it would have been key. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #7 May 4, 2006 This post is not about whether or not he did sing in Spanish, it is about the article being written in a way which makes it look like Mclellan is slamming his soon-to-be-former boss when he clearly wasn't. Can you really not see that happening from reading the headline then the article?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #8 May 5, 2006 Quote>Personally, it wouldn't have been a story at all for me if I was an editor . . . . Well, that goes without saying. I think it is a story, though, one created by Bush himself. He said "I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English" when he himself has sung it in spanish. It's reasonable to ask him why he's had the change of heart. Had he not wanted to talk about it, not talking about it would have been key. The fact he can and has sung it in Spanish doesn't mean he thinks it should officially be sung in Spanish. If he said English should be the official language of the US, would you have a problem with someone who spoke German when they gave a speech to Germans? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #9 May 5, 2006 QuoteQuote>Personally, it wouldn't have been a story at all for me if I was an editor . . . . Well, that goes without saying. I think it is a story, though, one created by Bush himself. He said "I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English" when he himself has sung it in spanish. It's reasonable to ask him why he's had the change of heart. Had he not wanted to talk about it, not talking about it would have been key. The fact he can and has sung it in Spanish doesn't mean he thinks it should officially be sung in Spanish. If he said English should be the official language of the US, would you have a problem with someone who spoke German when they gave a speech to Germans? So which version is more "official", a bunch of musicians singing it on the radio or the President of the country singing it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #10 May 5, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote>Personally, it wouldn't have been a story at all for me if I was an editor . . . . Well, that goes without saying. I think it is a story, though, one created by Bush himself. He said "I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English" when he himself has sung it in spanish. It's reasonable to ask him why he's had the change of heart. Had he not wanted to talk about it, not talking about it would have been key. The fact he can and has sung it in Spanish doesn't mean he thinks it should officially be sung in Spanish. If he said English should be the official language of the US, would you have a problem with someone who spoke German when they gave a speech to Germans? So which version is more "official", a bunch of musicians singing it on the radio or the President of the country singing it? I couldn't care less whether someone who is campaigning sings it in Spanish, German, Chinese or any other language. Just as I don't care what language they say the Pledge of Alliegence in. When ther is an official ceremony like a Presidential Inauguration etc. I think it should be sung in English. Do you consider a political campaign to be an official ceremony? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #11 May 5, 2006 >The fact he can and has sung it in Spanish doesn't mean he thinks it > should officially be sung in Spanish. I agree 100%. And if Bush had said that, case closed. Instead, he said that "I think the national anthem ought to be sung in english." It is perfectly reasonable for a reporter to ask for clarification, to see whether he really meant it should OFFICIALLY be in english, but that it was OK for people to sing it in whatever language they want. Had Bush or McClellan said "yes, that's what we meant" then that's fine; end of story. But McClellan didn't say that. Instead, he claimed that Bush couldn't sing it in spanish, which is untrue - thus the fuss. Sometimes just telling the truth can prevent a lot of fuss. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 May 5, 2006 Quote>The fact he can and has sung it in Spanish doesn't mean he thinks it > should officially be sung in Spanish. I agree 100%. And if Bush had said that, case closed. Instead, he said that "I think the national anthem ought to be sung in english." It is perfectly reasonable for a reporter to ask for clarification, to see whether he really meant it should OFFICIALLY be in english, but that it was OK for people to sing it in whatever language they want. Had Bush or McClellan said "yes, that's what we meant" then that's fine; end of story. But McClellan didn't say that. Instead, he claimed that Bush couldn't sing it in spanish, which is untrue - thus the fuss. Sometimes just telling the truth can prevent a lot of fuss. Yeah, well now we know why he's leaving the White House don't we? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #13 May 5, 2006 QuoteThis post is not about whether or not he did sing in Spanish, it is about the article being written in a way which makes it look like Mclellan is slamming his soon-to-be-former boss when he clearly wasn't. I think you're reading too much into it. I wouldn't consider it a slam if someone said that my Spanish sucks. I REALLY don't take it as a slam if someone says that Bush can't speak Spanish very well. He needs to get a little better at English before trying to add other languages! Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
