Being Accused of "Parsing" By the Clinton Campaign

Is Jake Tapper a psuedonym for Bill O'Reilly? Maybe abc is really an outlet of Fox (Faux) news?

Very misleading reporting .....

Anyone with a 5th grade education can read what Clinton said and see that you completely reversed the meaning of it. You must see that yourself. How about having some integrity and admitting it? Your request for "clarification" is an underhanded dodge worthy of the slimiest politician.

Jake I believe the job of "dishonest right wing bloviator and facts fudger has been filled (many times over). Might I suggest going for the "Truth Seeker" position, there is a dearth of that particular profession.

Oh no it's not just the Clinton campaign that's attacking you for this, it's pretty much everyone, right, left, and center. I mean let's be honest.

Oh wait. That was your problem to begin with.

So you heard Bill Clinton saying that we could address global by slowing the economy, but that would be a bad idea, so we should do it while keeping the economy going, instead.

And you turned that into "We should slow the economy to combat global warming"

Now, you're leapt upon by virtually everyone across the entire spectrum for such dishonesty (unless you really are that thick, which I just find hard to believe) and you claim that it's only the Clinton campaign who leapt.

What was that line about right wing TV reporters digging themsevlves deeper and deeper because they just won't apologize and admit how unetheical they were the first time?

Oh wait, I just made it up.

Perhaps you think you are being clever or amusing in your response to the Clinton campaign's statement, but let's be clear: "parsing" is an awfully polite way of saying that you wrote a distorted and grossly misleading piece about a speech that Bill Clinton gave. Your defensiveness and cheap shots aren't to your credit.

As to you conclusion that Clinton made a "confusing public statement," I'd ask you to read the text of the speech once more. It's really not confusing, at least not in the way you've suggested. There was no ambiguity about what Clinton was trying to say regarding "slowing down the economy." It was generous of Iain Murray to throw you a lifeline with his sympathetic reading of your original piece, but it seems a bit of a stretch for you to suggest that that's what you were trying to say all along.

The simple fact remains that your original article was dishonest. You should own up to your mistakes or you risk losing your credibility.

And Brett--you're an idiot.

Whoa, I cannot believe you are defending such a gross distortion of Clinton's comments. I am a republican, but I take strong offense to such taking quotes out of context.

It is similar to somebody saying "You could lie, but that would be wrong", and then finding only the first part of their quote being reported ("You could lie") and suggesting they were being accused of promoting lying.

Shame on Jake and ABC for posting such a shoddy piece of journalism on their website!

Sad. ABC please find smarter employees. Thanks.

"Burrito:

It's not "fickle" to applaud a journalist who tells the truth, and criticize that same journalist when he tells a lie."

THIS.

Burrito:

It's not "fickle" to applaud a journalist who tells the truth, and criticize that same journalist when he tells a lie.

Tapper continues to pretend that a construction like "We could do A, but that would lead to disaster, so we need to do B" is ambiguous, and could easily mean "We should do A." Nobody who knows how to read could believe this

I love the sound of shoveling in the evening.

What a profoundly dishonest set of posts.

Jake:
Second point:

Fighting global warming will simultaneously IMPROVE the economy, add jobs at all levels, and speed up America's economic competitiveness on the global stage.

Sorry to disappoint. But methods that fight global warming also raise property values, lower energy bills, and improve quality of life.

You took Bill Clinton's sentence waayy out of context. You needn't parse a thing---unless your intent was to misrepresent his meaning.

It's be great if you could simply adhere to the facts---in science and in politics. We deserve no less from a ...journalist.

Not a real heartfelt apology when anyone with eyes can see Clinton's real meaning was impossible to miss. So, how did you miss what he was actually saying?

Hmm?

Not good enough. You didn't read or could not comprehend the clear text you pasted into your own post, and you made a huge mistake. All you have to do is make an unambiguous CORRECTION.

"This is the much more important issue here. Any serious effort to reduce greenhouses gases will have an impact on the economy and, initially, that impact could be negative."

Funny, I would have thought that as a reporter the important issue would be to, you know, REPORT what Clinton said not make up your own quote because it generates more traffic. My bad.

Mr Tapper, do you base any of your editorializing on anything except RNC press releases and Drudge news reports?

ANY TIME we've reduced industrial pollution, industry and the right wing have pulled their Chicken Little stunt, insisting it would devastate the economy. Every time they are proven wrong.

But rather than read some kind of analytical report or something, you just echo the wingers' discredited statements.

No, if we do take the back seat and let OTHER nations develop the clean technologies (as has been national policy for decades) then I do expect that we will not see as many jobs and new industries. So we import turbines from the Dutch, but at least we're now seeing wind tower manufacturers sprout up around the Great Plains.

But I do wish you would not opine if you don't know the subject.

Just another reason why I don't watch Disneyland News (ABC), and never will. Mickey Mouse ALL the way.

Mr. Tapper, I recall you getting nothing but praise a few weeks ago from the Internet left when one of your blog posts made the front page of Digg.com. You had called out the Clinton's lies about Obama and everyone applauded that someone from the media had the courage to print the truth.

Two weeks later you're back in the dog house with the Liberals again.

The Internet is fickle, isn’t it?

Dude, you screwed up. Salvage the dignity and move on.

Heck. I should have given you that advice a little earlier. Now it's too late.