The US or any country for that matter is not run by “just one guy” so voting for one of them is not a “black-and-white-decision”. I’m sure there are many Americans who are undecided as to whom they should vote for. Saying that Obama lacks the ability to think clearly is not a question of having better American media coverage. It’s just a question of common sense. If Obama lacks the ability to think clearly, then what is the percentage of Americans who suffer from the same problem?[YSaerTTEW443543]
Come one, guys. Jamie is actually quite predictable. And I think we all know that Jamie is a Republican. We all know that Jamie always states his opinions very strongly and directly. But, let’s face it. He generally also provides information and reasons for his opinions.
This is also starting to sound predictable. I suppose it should have been clear from the very start that the ulterior motive of this thread was to bash all Americans in general. :x
.
The motive of the thread? I think you mean “the motive of the author”. Since I live in Europe, I watch CNN Europe where at least 50% of the news anchors are not Americans so please try to relax, Amy.[YSaerTTEW443543]
Actually, you’re wrong about that. I don’t belong to any political party (because I think it’s immoral to belong to them), and I split my ticket when I vote.
I can be better described as a former socialist to broadened his reading habits.
Same here. I’ve never joined a political party and I almost always end up splitting my ticket to one degree or another when I vote. But I wouldn’t say I find belonging to a political party to be “immoral”. That’s a bit too strong a word. :lol:
.
It was nonetheless a potshot at Americans. Read what you wrote:
You proposed the idea that a plausible explanation for news anchors’ mispronunciation of the name Saakashvili was somehow caused by the Republican presidential candidate. It’s such a preposterous idea that it had to have been cooked up mainly to make Americans and McCain look foolish.
I’ve just listened to a video of McCain pronouncing the name, and the only problem with his pronunciation is that he pronounces the initial [s] as [ʃ]. Again, this is understandable, because we had a high-ranking general in public office with nearly the same name, but it began with [ʃ].
Secondly, think of all the sorts of spellings and transcriptions that English speakers have to keep track of. The “ceau” in a name like “Clemenceau” is pronounced [so], but in a name like “Ceausescu”, it’s pronounced [tʃau], and the S is pronounced [ʃ]. If someone has to keep track of the correct pronunciation of hundreds of foreign figures, including names that are not in any English reference work, then it’s understandable that a person would flub one or two.
And clear pronunciation has no relation to clear thought.
No, I actually intended to write it exactly the way I wrote it, thank you. If you are willing to blindly support and accept Alan using words any way he wishes, kindly extend the same courtesy to me.
Well, if that’s the case then shouldn’t your question have been more along the lines of “Why do so many people worldwide mispronounce Saakashvili’s name?” Why ask whether he was being “mocked” specifically by CNN and John McCain? Do you feel that you are being mocked if someone spells your name as “Thorsten”, for example?
.
I have no idea. I did not mention Alan in connection with that pronunciation, but now you have. Why? Do you think he also has trouble with that?
.
.
I commented on your correction of my English in this thread (and you also quoted my comment). I found it rather odd that you decided you needed to “correct” what I had written. If you feel you have the time to “correct” my sentences here, how about also correcting test sentences which clearly have errors? Are you willing to accept blatant errors that are a result only of Alan’s lack of knowledge of American English? Do you feel that the correction of a native speaker’s choice of words in the “What do You Want To Talk About” forum is more important than that fixing errors in the tests?
It was you who chose to reword my English in this thread. I reacted to that. If you don’t want reactions to what you write, then perhaps you shouldn’t write it.
.
Clearly McCain was on a roll with butchering the pronunciation that day. Did the American announcer (newscaster) manage to pronounce the name adequately in your opinion?
.
You are doing an excellent job and we all appreciate your invaluable contributions. It’s great that you give us an insight into standard usage of American English. You are the best. Keep up the good work![YSaerTTEW443543]
You fell for CNN’s technique. CNN is always in the tank for the Democrats, and they tend to emphasize flaws in Republican candidates – or even create the perception of them when they don’t exist – while not reporting similar blunders by Democrats. Obama is very weak on foreign policy, and McCain has decades of experience in it, both in government and military matters. CNN can’t build up Obama as a strong foreign policy candidate by reporting on his knowledge or experience, and reporting on McCain’s (or even Hillary’s) real credentials just makes Obama look weaker and weaker. This is not the result CNN wants. The only way out of the predicament is to try to turn priorities upside down by discrediting McCain with some superficial error that has no actual bearing on his fundamental expertise, such as mispronouncing Shaakashvili’s name more than once on what was evidently the same occasion – even while CCN’s own reporters mispronounce it.
The one thing I don’t like about American campaigns is the public mudbath that both parties celebrate. The end justifies the means, and adapting dirty means to come to an ‘heroic end’ by issuing overly simplified and falsified statements (mostly taken out of context) is something that never ceases to amaze me. The clip you posted is a very god example - it shows Obama who is half taken off guard by a question put to him somewhere during a campaign, and then you see McCain reading a prefab presidential style speach in front of two American flags. We don’t know how many people have written his speech, but we get to hear that Obama ‘fails’ even though he has 300 advisers. And then the slogan ‘Obama fails’ is repeatedly shown and pronounced by a beguiling female reader; nice propaganda. Maybe M. Moore’s films are similarly deluding, but definitely cleverer.
[size=84](i.e. no response from Torsten yet)[/size]
On the off chance that you might actually have some real interest in this, Torsten, I think the way the newscaster pronounced Saakashvili’s name (in the link you posted) was not too bad, and it was McCain who was being mocked. In my opinion, the newscaster’s pronunciation is probably the closest most Americans will get to a correct pronunciation of Saakashvili’s name. Though it may still not be quite right, that pronunciation (i.e. similar to the newscaster’s) certainly would not be intended as mockery. I would also expect that McCain is now aware that his mispronunciation has been laughed at, so I would not be surprised if he has managed to improve his pronunciation in the meantime. If he hasn’t, then he should not be surprised if he is laughed at again.
.
In my opinion the newscaster in that clip pronounces Saakashvili’s name correctly. There is no need to try and imitate a Georgian accent. I was not referring to accents or dialects. I was trying to point out that if you meet with a partner to discuss serious business, you should be able to get the syllables of his name right. The same holds true for professional newscasters.
As I said, on the night I started the thread I heard at least 3 different CNN anchors muddle up the syllables of “Saakashvili”. Come to think of it, it might very well be that none of those newscasters was American.[YSaerTTEW443543]
Ralf, I personally prefer the public mud bath to no public mud bath, or as it’s often called in the States, “negative campaigning”.
The negative advertising and clips are extremely useful in two ways:
They point up perceived flaws in the opposing candidate’s ideas, behavior or policies that are based in fact but have context removed. Radio commentators and newspaper columnists provide the context almost immediately, and so a voter can judge whether to accept one side’s premise or the other’s.
The types of criticisms a politician’s campaign makes of the opposing candidate, and how the criticisms are framed, give you LOTS of information about the mentality of the politician and the people around him. It’s been rather clear all along what McCain’s about; but since Obama is such a chameleon (or as he has put it, a mirror onto which people project their own beliefs), and since he dodges specifics so much, the his own negative campaign ads against McCain are necessary for learning about his mentality. For example, they reveal that his economic thinking is essentially Marxist, among other things, and that he doesn’t care if the “widows and orphans” who have to rely on dividend income from major corporations have to suffer due to his redistributionist schemes. Obama’s attacks on McCain tell more about Obama than Obama ever reveals in a speech or interview.
I posted that one video for the purpose of showing how tongue-tied Obama was in trying to comment on the situation in Georgia. Had CNN shown McCain’s off-the-cuff remarks straight, his clarity would have made Obama look bad, so CNN had to focus on McCain’s pronunciation of Saakashvili, rather than on the substance of what he said.
McCain doesn’t need actual speech writers to remark articulately on the situation in Georgia, because he has been apprised of its details for a number of years and predicted that it would happen, as you can see here: