This certainly isn't the first time dishonest journalism has been blogged about, and this most definitely won't be the last.
MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell have been caught... again. What did they do this time? Well, you decide. Here are 3 links; one from the "right" in Fox News, one from the "left" in The Huffington Post, and a non-mainstream write-up that captured this, too.
Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/19/msnbc-edits-romney-rally-speech-portrays-candidate-as-out-touch/
The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/msnbc-romney-edit-andrea-mitchell_n_1609298.html
Commentary Magazine: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/19/how-desperate-can-msnbc-get/
I recently wrote (http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/06/fill-in-blank-obama-campaign-is-based.html) that it seems that the Obama campaign and the liberal mainstream media's biggest play is to spin, deceive, and mislead. I gave specific examples of this. Of course, many people will say, "well, both sides do it, too." Okay... fine. Back it. I asked for examples. I'm open to hearing it. In fact, I said the following:
- "Now before you jump up and say, "well, it's being done by the Romney campaign, too," me and the writers of this blog say, "okay, we are open to it... let's see it." If you have something that you think the Romney campaign is doing that is misleading, please share it in the comments section below. Frankly, I'm not seeing it yet. But if it's out there, please share it. It's all about learning and sharing information."
The point of this post and the previously linked post is to point out the deception on the left. I've heard all too often the liberal chant "Fox News lies," and every time I've asked the chanter (whether it has been someone on the street or a personal friend) for evidence, they have none. This isn't about policies. This isn't about Obama versus Romney. This is about truth. This is about honest reporting and honest campaigning. For those that say "Fox News lies" and "Romney lies" I would like to hear some examples. Where did Fox News lie? Where did the Romney campaign mislead in the promotion of Mitt Romney as the Obama campaign has? If both sides do it, where is the "doing it" on the right? The Obama campaign has spun the "Massachusetts was 47th in job creation under Romney" baloney out of control. Does anyone have the balance coming form the Romney side?
What do you think?
MSLSD is editing tape to make their own narrative? Surely you are kidding.
ReplyDeleteRemember when Breitbart played about a 3 minute un-edited clip of Shirley Sherrod? Because Breitbart didn't play the whole hour of her ramblings it was "out of context".
MSLSD can edit the heck out of a tape and then claim it is in context. It is too comical. What is even funnier is to think people actually watch that sham of a network and believe them.
In response to you asking to see demonstration of Fox doing this:
ReplyDeleteShowing footage from a separate, more violent/disruptive protest in another state and labeling it as footage from the [at the time peaceful] WI protests while running a piece on how violent they're getting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/wisconsin-protests-fox-news-sacramento_n_830314.html
Showing footage of Ron Paul with a crowd boo'ing him, when the crowd at the time was actually cheering him:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/17/fox-anchor-wrong-cpac-footage-of-ron-paul-was-an-honest-mistake/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-airing-of-old-cpac-footage-showing-crowd-booing-ron-paul-was-a-mistake/
Showing footage of a crowd cheering after Bolton's response to a military vet's controversial question, when they in fact did not cheer and even boo'd/hissed him:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/2-minute-video-fox-edits-fakes-applause-for-john-bolton-pro-war-statement.html
A bit on the silly/less-serious side, but photo-shopping photos of journalists on competing news networks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCQ4gAAVW2k&feature=related
I'm making no implication as to how these compare and what is the bigger deal here, and am just merely answering your call for evidence on the opposing side. No argument from me against the fact that it certainly happens on both sides, and of course the frequency and degree of seriousness is always up for debate.
RKen - Good afternoon! I hope it's not as hot where you are. It's like 239895034 degrees here in the suburbs of DC.
DeleteThank you for posting these. I've watched all of them, and have some comments about all. I wanted to make sure I addressed this post, because I truly appreciate you answering. I'm never facetious when I ask for something like this, and I respect that you did. Some of them I agree with, some I don't. We are all entitled to our opinions :)
For the first one about the union protests... this is probably the one I disagree with the most. Even the Huff post modified their stance. In fact, after reading the article I then watched the clip (I missed the "update"). After watching the clip I found myself thinking "there is nothing wrong." The violent union shoving was labeled as "union protesters" and O'Reilly never claimed they were from Wisconsin. I then ended up reading the update which read, "UPDATE: Earlier in the segment, O'Reilly discusses union protests from "all over the country," during which time the Sacramento footage also airs. About a minute and a half later, the segment transitions to an interview with Tobin, who is in Wisconsin. The Sacramento footage airs again during the interview, and the show never overtly labels it as coming from Wisconsin." I can see the point, but in my opinion, it's a stretch. Now, label it "rhetoricing" (which I talk about often... how news media sites with constantly broadcast negative Mitt Romney headlines to sway the public's opinion for example) and to me, the case is slightly stronger.
For the Ron Paul one... yah, that's not good. The only question I ask is... why would they intentionally smear (or negatively report) a fellow conservative? Was this truly an accident? I can see people being upset, but this isn't as if MSNBC was going against someone from the other side. To me, this one did hold more water. I don't think we will ever know the true intentions of Fox News, but I can most definitely appreciate the point you made.
The John Bolton one... this one is tough to get around. It seems pretty air tight. A different questioner was circled, labeled... and when the maker of the claim backed what he said (whoever did this video), his thesis was pretty much proven. Shame on Fox for doing that (again, intentional? who knows with all the editing going on... and if I hold MSNBC to the regard I do with what they did to Mitt, then my needle does, in this case, point to the side of intentional instead of accidental).
As far as the photoshopped ugly dudes... that one did make me laugh. I think this is done a lot on both sides, and yes, I don't like it no matter who does it. Have you ever noticed on ABCNews.com for example you don't exactly see Romney shown in the most flattering way. Both sides do it, you're right, and I wish it would stop.
I do appreciate you answering the call. I was thinking of coming up with an Elephant scale or something (some kind of quantifiable rating system that shows how in agreement or not I am with you... so if I do, mark this as the post that did it :-D )... but some I did, and your point is dead on... some I didn't. But that's debate. Yes, frequency and seriousness are definitely up for debate (this from MSNBC, and the fiasco with Rick Perry and Ed Schultz, to me, is much more serious), but either way, it will continue. Additionally, do you have anything from the Romney campaign?
Hope all is well. Stay cool!
Oh man, it was way too hot today. I got the great idea in my head that it would be a nice day to just walk to the gym instead of drive, and nearly didn't make it back after lol. Tomorrow will be worse too!
DeleteHappy to contribute. I actually agree with you on the first one being a bit on the iffy side, and you make a fair argument about it.
Ha, I had to laugh at the Elephant scale remark! Sounds interesting lol. As far as the Romney campaign, I might have to get back to you another day on that. I'm a bit short on time now, but certainly will keep it in mind. :)
Have a good one.
funny how you do a whole article on this but no mention of Romney running ad's quoting Obama when actually Obama was quoting McCain....
ReplyDeletehttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/mitt-romney-ad-misquotes-president-obama/
Honestly, Loyal Watcher, I want to label this as a "nice try." I watched 3 clips of this now, and I'm trying to figure out what the issue is.
DeleteObama said what he said. Fact.
Romney camp says that they used that clip to show how Obama spoke from McCain's point of view in 2008.
- "It was instead to point out what's sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander," Romney told reporters. "He spoke about the economy being a huge burden for John McCain. This ad points out, guess what, it’s now your turn. The same lines you used on John McCain are now going to be used on you, which is that this economy is going to be your albatross."
So when Obama uses McCain's speech in 2008, it's not okay for Romney to use Obama's speech in 2012? I'm confused about the issue. Where is the deceit? One of Romney's biggest campaign points is that Obama can't (and is avoiding) talking about his economic record. McCain called out the GOP on this in 2008, Obama hit him on it. So now, Romney is using Obama's exact words that Obama used against McCain against Obama? Somehow, this is deceit? Please help me understand this.
I just want to make sure this isn't another stretch by the left like it did with Mitt Romney's "I like to fire people" spin. Of course, he wasn't saying he liked to fire people. He was making the point that in the free market, if someone isn't doing what they're supposed to be doing, you can get rid of them and get someone else to do the job you're paying for. That's how the free market and freedom works. Of course, the left spun that in the most misleading fashion possible. I'm not sure how Romney's what's "good for the goose is good for the gander" ad compares. Like I've said this whole time, I'm all for hearing it, and above party, policy, and politics, I stand for truth. If you read what I wrote in response to RKen, I fully acknowledge when our side messes up and I don't condone dishonesty. I'm just not sure this example is the same as what MSNBC did. Please let me know.
And by saying "nice try," I'm not being facetious or snooty at you... it's more against ABC's claim/write up. I'd never have anything personal against you.
Deletethey took his words out of context it is exactly what you are saying msn did.
ReplyDeleteObama quoted something mcain said, they left that part out, they made it seem like obama said that. This is the exact same thing you describe above lol
you are so in love with romney you are defending the exact same thing you complain about........
I dont need to re-invent the wheel politicfact describes it well here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obama-said-if-we-keep-talking-abo/
I can't believe you are actually arguing this... im speachless.
You do realize that is a point of view... an opinion, right? Saying that he took the comments out of context is an opinion. In my opinion, that analysis is a little off.
DeleteI'm still not sure how you don't see this, but that's fine. It's your prerogative to see things how you see them. I'll break down how I see it:
Obama uses McCain's speech of "if they look at the economy, we are in trouble" in 2008 - Fact. Yes! That was Obama's tactic: to say that since the republican-led (debatable) economic crash was the fault of GWB, if McCain wants to talk about the economy, he will lose. He quoted McCain with the intention of showing that McCain knows that the economy is not a strong point for him to argue. That was Obama's tactic in 2008.
So now, in 2012, guess what Romney's strategy is? To show that Obama knows if he talks about the economy he will lose. No, Obama didn't say that himself; he only acknowledged that in 2008 McCain said it. But it is 100% perfectly okay to point out that Obama used this strategy in 2008 AND it is still applicable to call out your opponent for acknowledging his knowledge of how a weakened economy hurts his chances today (and yes, it's a double entendre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre) That's exactly what Romney is pointing out. It's the same tactic Obama employed 4 years prior.
Obama did not say McCain's words as his own. That is true. Obama said McCain's words to use McCain's words against him. That is also true. So now when Romney uses Obama's words against him, it's a "lie?" Again, and without the "you love Romney so much" personal attacks, thank you, please explain how this is a lie or something different. I'm not saying, "you detest Romney so much you instantly swallow and believe anything bad that anyone says about him."
Maybe it's an example of bad thesis management. Perhaps if the Romney video came out and said, "this was Obama's tactic against McCain in 2008, to use McCain's words against him..." etc, it would have been more clear. Try putting it in 30 seconds or a minute and you'd have trouble. Again, this is where I say it's a "close, but no cigar" case.
Romney's camp has come up with many reasons behind it: The Romney camp seems to have anticipated this complaint. In a blog post published around the time the ad was released, Romney spokeswoman Gail Gitcho acknowledged that, "Three years ago, candidate Barack Obama mocked his opponent’s campaign for saying, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’" She went on to say Obama is trying to distract voters from his economic record.
Your case against that is simply, "Romney lies?" I have no reason not to believe the intent of the ad. No one in their right mind believes Obama actually would say that about his own economy. Again, look up double entendres.
To say this is similar to MSNBC's play above, is, in my opinion, way off. MSNBC, an agency that is supposed to report NEWS, took something someone said and then drew conclusions from it (Mitt Romney is out of touch). The Romney ad took something someone said (that yes, has irony incorporated), and played it to show that yes, it is about the economy (as Obama did to McCain in 2008). I'm not sure how this is being misconstrued.
the add has obama saying part of his sentence:
Delete"If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.
Obama actually said:
Sen. McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.
They spliced out the first couple words on purpose...... Is there really anything else that needs said, your telling me they could not add 2 more seconds of speech.....
you are so mesmerized by romney you are blind to the fact he did the exact same thing msnbc did he took part of a speech and made is seem like it was something it was not.
yall are depressing sometimes .... you seriously are so angry at the left you can't see the right doing everything you talk about....
Fox news has whole dedicated websites and youtube channels that just show how they do this on the regular and you post this stuff about msnbc as if its some crazy abnormal practice ........
Im with you its a bunch of crap but fox news takes the cake on this one sorry and both parties love to do it in politics to.
The "liberalviewer" on youtube has a bunch of well done video's on fox's constant distortions and outright lies
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL814374ED833C9047&feature=plcp
Again, without the personal attacks of "you're so mesmerized by Romney..."(it seems you're not able to resist yourself here), where am I wrong in my assessment?
DeleteI did concede that this is perhaps a poor backing of the ad's point. But, as the Romney camp as stated, and as I have stated above:
"Obama uses McCain's speech of "if they look at the economy, we are in trouble" in 2008 - Fact. Yes! That was Obama's tactic: to say that since the republican-led (debatable) economic crash was the fault of GWB, if McCain wants to talk about the economy, he will lose. He quoted McCain with the intention of showing that McCain knows that the economy is not a strong point for him to argue. That was Obama's tactic in 2008.
So now, in 2012, guess what Romney's strategy is? To show that Obama knows if he talks about the economy he will lose. No, Obama didn't say that himself; he only acknowledged that in 2008 McCain said it. But it is 100% perfectly okay to point out that Obama used this strategy in 2008 AND it is still applicable to call out your opponent for acknowledging his knowledge of how a weakened economy hurts his chances today (and yes, it's a double entendre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre) That's exactly what Romney is pointing out. It's the same tactic Obama employed 4 years prior."
I'm not sure I understand your point that this was an intentional lie. To make it really, really simple. McCain said it... Obama believed the best tactic against McCain was to use the economy against him Obama called out McCain on this. Romney believes the best tactic is to use the economy against Obama. Romney knows Obama used this tactic against McCain. Romney now uses this tactic against Obama. This is a lie somehow?
And, as I have said in response to RKen, (it seems that you're in this group, correct me if I'm wrong) that every time I confront the "Fox News lies" crowd, I get nothing, no examples, no proof, nothing in return. It appears to be an empty chant. As I have asked (because I favor truth above all things), I have always wanted to see proof of this. You have done what everyone else has done ("Fox News takes the cake") - Okay... prove it.
RKen gave me examples above. Some I agree with, some I don't. When I agree, when it appears that facts are above all things, I happily admit it. What I don't stand for is "Fox News lies" or "Obama sucks" or "Romney sucks" without proof. You've provided one example where yes, (I can see your view on it though I disagree with it) there might be some misconstrued intent with a Romney ad. I haven't seen any proof yet to back the "Fox News lies" claim. If you have it, please post it.
And keep in mind, I actually don't watch Fox News. If you'd like my boss's input (the wife will tell) it's pretty much never on on our house. I just don't have time to sit and watch it. I just defend truth above claims.
I can see it both ways. Honestly, though. To claim Mitt misled people, and especially to say it's on the same level as what MSNBC did (they laughed at Mitt), is definitely not in the same ball park.
DeleteLoyal - most of the time I disagree with you (and yes, you make me angry), but I can absolutely see where you are coming from with this. Now LME provides a very strong counter-argument (he lays it out pretty clearly the path and progression of why he believes his explanation), and I can agree with his argument, too.
DeleteNeither of you are 100% right. Neither of you are 100% wrong in my book.