Good ol' MSNBC, or, "As if there was any doubt regarding media bias" v2.0

[MastaG8r]

MSNBC Airs Sandy Hook Father's Unedited Testimony After Critics Complain (about edited version) (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/msnbc-airs-sandy-hook-fathers-416977)

On Monday, MSNBC's Martin Bashir aired a video that seemed to show grief-stricken Neil Heslin being heckled by pro-gun lobbyists as he talked about his 6-year-old son, who was killed in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. While making a plea for gun control at a legislative hearing, Heslin at one point he turned to the audience and said: “I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.”

When the audience remains silent, Heslin adds, “Not one person can answer that question.” And that’s when a few people recited the Second Amendment in response. The video that host Martin Bashir aired, though, clipped out Heslin's question and pause in the audience's direction. The resulting edit made it look like boisterous audience members interrupted Heslin's testimony. After the edited video aired, Bashir set up pundits with: “A father’s grief, interrupted by the cries of a heckler. That was the scene today in Hartford, Conn., where the parents of children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary testified before an audience that wasn’t always friendly.”

A spokeswoman for MSNBC has declined comment. Although the edited segment is not available on MSNBC’s website, and the unedited version eventually was aired on a subsequent Martin Bashir show and other shows on the networks, conservative activists have pounced. One version, uploaded to YouTube and embedded below, shows Bashir’s version followed by Heslin’s unedited testimony.
But...but...

single examples never prove anything.
Okay, fair enough. So the article (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/msnbc-airs-sandy-hook-fathers-416977) continues...

It's not the first time a controversy over editing has plagued NBC News. Ten months ago, NBC's Today -- and subsequently MSNBC -- aired doctored versions of a 911 call in the Trayvon Martin case, which led to an apology and several people losing their jobs. The tape had been edited to make it appear that George Zimmerman invoked skin color when reporting "a real suspicious guy," deleting the portion where the 911 operator specifically asks Zimmerman to describe Martin’s race.

Here's the YouTube clip mentioned in the article so you can judge for yourselves if a Declaration of Shenanigans is in order.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pac0BLKL608" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Oh and just in case two examples of liberal media bias "never prove anything" either, here's something else from today's news that is not as glaring as MSNBC's selective video editing but it's still enough to make you go, "hmmm...."

Turns out that Glen Johnson, one of those supposedly fair, impartial and objective journalists who was working as the political editor at the Boston Globe...has joined John Kerry's staff (http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2013/01/31/glenn-johnson-political-editor-for-boston-com-joining-secretary-state-john-kerry-staff/IPLgxlGCByM2KyKEBXDKuN/story.html) for his new position as Secretary of State.

“I think the world of Glen and the path he’s traveled as a shoe leather reporter in the best sense of the word,” Kerry said. “I know it was not an easy decision for him to turn a page after thirty years of journalism for a chapter in public service, but he does so for the same reasons he became a journalist in the first place. He’s not a partisan. He just cares about the quality of our dialogue and he cares about our country and he’ll contribute to both of them. I’ll be lucky to have him at my side in this endeavor.”Umm..."he's not a partisan"? Seems kind of funny that Kerry would just throw out that unprovoked defense of the guy's impartiality. The new Secretary doth protest too much methinks.

Even though Johnson was close enough to prominent Democrat John Kerry - who btw "thinks the world" of him - to get appointed to his staff, I'm sure his political editing at the Boston Globe was right down the middle and never skewed to the Left or anything like that. Perish the thought.

:roll:

[rivergator]

As I've said before, I don't watch MSNBC, but it appear to be approaching Fox's level of partisanship. It could even be there. I don't know.

[surfn1080]

Wait the victims at sandy hook were killed with assualt rifles??

[GatorAbe7]

As I've said before, I don't watch MSNBC, but it appear to be approaching Fox's level of partisanship. It could even be there. I don't know.

It's been there since Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews anchored the evening starting in 2008.

[mocgator]

As I've said before, I don't watch MSNBC, but it appear to be approaching Fox's level of partisanship. It could even be there. I don't know.

You are kidding right?? right??

[rivergator]

It's been there since Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews anchored the evening starting in 2008.

The same Matthews who gushed over Bush, supported Giuliani for the 2008 nomination and bashes the Clintons every chance he gets? That guy?

[malligator]

Yeah, the one that felt a tingle up his leg over Obama.

[wargunfan]

As I've said before, I don't watch MSNBC, but it appear to be approaching Fox's level of partisanship. It could even be there. I don't know.

How do you know about Fox's level of partisanship? Please explain.
Could you treat us to a couple of glaring examples?

[ChartsandGrafs]

What I want to know is, where did the notion that the media is, or should be, unbiased come from? These are corporations we're talking about here, and corporations have a product to sell. In the case of the corporate mass media, the product isn't news or investigative journalism, it's infotainment, distraction, and opinion shaping (mind control).

This shouldn't even be an argument or debate. What we should be discussing are the far-reaching implications of this system of control.

[DaveFla]

As I've said before, I don't watch MSNBC, but it appear to be approaching Fox's level of partisanship. It could even be there. I don't know.

MSNBC is by far worse than FOX could ever hope to be. At least FOX makes the attempt to air an opposing view. MSNBC doesn't even bother.

[fredsanford]

MSNBC is by far worse than FOX could ever hope to be. At least FOX makes the attempt to air an opposing view. MSNBC doesn't even bother.

Yes, I remember all their commentators predicting a fairly obvious Obama reelection win.

Oh, wait...

[MastaG8r]

Taking another look at Kerry's quote about Glen Johnson:

I know it was not an easy decision for him to turn a page after thirty years of journalism for a chapter in public service, but he does so for the same reasons he became a journalist in the first place. He’s not a partisan. He just cares about the quality of our dialogue and he cares about our country and he’ll contribute to both of them.

So, one of the "reasons he wanted to become a journalist in the first place" was to make some sort of contribution to our country. But...last I checked reporters were supposed to simply report the facts of what happened, and leave it to others to make things happen. They're not supposed to be striving to proactively make the country better in some way.

Who is to say what's the best way to help our country? Everyone has a different vision. If a supposedly-neutral journalist is using their media platform to "contribute" to the country by furthering his or her own vision of what's best for it...then that right there is what you call a biased journalist, friends.

[ncbullgator]

MSNBC is by far worse than FOX could ever hope to be. At least FOX makes the attempt to air an opposing view. MSNBC doesn't even bother.

Anyone who argues differently is simply can't think for themselves.

:happy:

[rivergator]

Yeah, the one that felt a tingle up his leg over Obama.

Gushed over Bush, tingled over Obama.

[MastaG8r]

Gushed over Bush, tingled over Obama.You seriously won't acknowledge that Chris Matthews is biased and favors the Liberal viewpoint on nearly every political issue, if not every?

[rivergator]

You seriously won't acknowledge that Chris Matthews is biased and favors the Liberal viewpoint on nearly every political issue, if not every?

I don't watch him, but from what I've read he can swing both ways. As I said, he certainly gushed over Bush, claiming "Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs ..." at a time when the polls showed the majority of Americans with a negative opinion of him.
Or claiming that Bush "glimmers ... with a kind of sunny nobility."
I'm not sure Hannity or Rush would do that with Obama. What do you think? Who on Fox would say that kind of thing about Obama?

[rivergator]

Matthews complained about Giuliani being 'screwed over by the press' in 2008. Which conservative commentator on Fox would complain about a Democrat being unfairly treated by the media?

[MastaG8r]

I don't watch him, but from what I've read he can swing both ways. As I said, he certainly gushed over Bush, claiming "Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs ..." at a time when the polls showed the majority of Americans with a negative opinion of him.
Or claiming that Bush "glimmers ... with a kind of sunny nobility."
I'm not sure Hannity or Rush would do that with Obama. What do you think? Who on Fox would say that kind of about Obama?Okay well since you don't watch him and I do regularly, allow me to enlighten you with a statement of totally indisputable fact about Chris Matthews: He is EXTREMELY biased in favor of the Liberal viewpoint. He may like some Republican politicians on a personal level and dislike some Democrats, but that doesn't change the totally indisputable fact that he is EXTREMELY biased in favor of the Liberal viewpoint.

[rivergator]

Okay well since you don't watch him and I do regularly, allow me to enlighten you with a statement of totally indisputable fact about Chris Matthews: He is EXTREMELY biased in favor of the Liberal viewpoint. He may like some Republican politicians on a personal level and dislike some Democrats, but that doesn't change the totally indisputable fact that he is EXTREMELY biased in favor of the Liberal viewpoint.

then how do you explain his comments above? can you point to anyone who might be considered EXTREMELY conservative who would say such gushing stuff about Obama? Who made it clear his choice for the president was a Democrat?

[MastaG8r]

Matthews complained about Giuliani being 'screwed over by the press' in 2008. Which conservative commentator on Fox would complain about a Democrat being unfairly treated by the media?What does your question have to do with the issue of whether Chris Matthews is a Liberal or not? If Rush Limbaugh says something critical about a Republican or complimentary about a Democrat does that call his Conservative bias into question?

If you've watched Chris Matthews then be honest and admit he is a raging, flaming far-Left Liberal. Or, if you want to claim that (even though you consider yourself well-enough informed on politics to be a regular poster here) you never, ever watch Chris Matthews, then just say you don't have an opinion and leave it at that. Please don't make a complete and utter fool of yourself by continuing to question whether he is a biased Liberal commentator.

[rivergator]

Oh, Chris Matthews is a raging liberal, assuming you can ignore all the times he's blasted Democrats and praised Republicans.

[Minister_of_Information]

Matthews, while liberal, appears to have a kind of hacky integrity. In other words he only says what he actually believes to be true, although what he believes to be true is filtered through a liberal prism for which precious little allowance is made.

[MastaG8r]

Oh, Chris Matthews is a raging liberal, assuming you can ignore all the times he's blasted Democrats and praised Republicans.That's right, continue denying that Chris Matthews is a raging Liberal even though you already claimed you don't actually watch him. If he blasted a Democrat it was probably because he perceived them as doing damage to the brand, and if he praised a Republican it was most likely for some sort of concession they made to the Left. With regard to George Bush, many people who detested him as a political figure found him to be a likable guy on a personal level, so that means nothing if Matthews said something to that effect.

I notice that no other posters are joining you in questioning Chris Matthews' Liberal bias. Don't be shy, folks. Speak up if you think river is onto something.

[rivergator]

That's right, continue denying that Chris Matthews is a raging Liberal even though you already claimed you don't actually watch him. If he blasted a Democrat it was probably because he perceived them as doing damage to the brand, and if he praised a Republican it was most likely for some sort of concession they made to the Left. With regard to George Bush, many people who detested him as a political figure found him to be a likable guy on a personal level, so that means nothing if Matthews said something to that effect.

I notice that no other posters are joining you in questioning Chris Matthews' Liberal bias. Don't be shy, folks. Speak up if you think river is onto something.

No, I don't watch him. Honestly find him fairly unwatchable. But I've read a good bit about what he says. I would think the amount of time he's spent praising Republicans and bashing Democrats would remove him from the 'raging liberal' category. But I could be wrong about categorization.
So I'll ask again, can you point to someone who might be considered a raging conservative who has gushed over Obama the way Matthews did over Bush? Who made it clear that his choice for president was a Democrat?

[BobK89]

You want partisanship? Watch MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. A truly disgusting person.

[rajinGator]

Particularly despicable of MSNBC considering the sensitivity of this matter. but don't if it's worse than the hatchet editing by NBC on George Zimmerman 911 recording.

[MastaG8r]

No, I don't watch him. Honestly find him fairly unwatchable. But I've read a good bit about what he says. I would think the amount of time he's spent praising Republicans and bashing Democrats would remove him from the 'raging liberal' category. But I could be wrong about categorization.
So I'll ask again, can you point to someone who might be considered a raging conservative who has gushed over Obama the way Matthews did over Bush? Who made it clear that his choice for president was a Democrat?No "could be" about it. As for your question, I'll save keystrokes and say Chris Christie rather than argue the irrelevance of the question.

[rivergator]

No "could be" about it. As for your question, I'll save keystrokes and say Chris Christie rather than argue the irrelevance of the question.

you really think Christie is considered an extreme conservative? Aren't you the one who claimed he was going to run for president as a Democrat?
Let's see, Christie saying something nice about Obama means he's a Democrat, so Matthews saying something nice about Bush must mean .....
kinda screwed that one, didn't you?

[Gatoragman]

It is really funny how so many on this board have such strong opinions of Fox,Msnbc,Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.... But hardly no one on here will admit that they watch them. I could care less what you watch but when opinions are voice as fact from "what you read" rather than forming your own opinion from experience it makes you no better than any other partisan. I watch and or listen to most all of them and it is easy to say: Fox leans conservative but has liberal view points from contributors, Msnbc is very left and hardly no view point on any shows that stray, Hannity is partisan, Limbaugh conservative and uses absurdity to make points. All those view points from my experience rather than some talking points I read on a partisan web site.

[108]

lol at the Fox crowd

MSNBC is using Fox's playbook

partisan politics makes for good ratings, ratings = advertising $$$

i personally don't watch these talking heads, and those who do, need others to tell them what to think or to agree with their own opinions

its no coincidence that Fox wins that battle despite the humorous claim that so-called conservatives are "free-thinkers" :roll:

[g8orbill]

you really think Christie is considered an extreme conservative? Aren't you the one who claimed he was going to run for president as a Democrat?
Let's see, Christie saying something nice about Obama means he's a Democrat, so Matthews saying something nice about Bush must mean .....
kinda screwed that one, didn't you?

I was the one who thinks Christy will run as a dem shab

[rivergator]

I was the one who thinks Christy will run as a dem shab

Shab?
Anyway, MastaG8r started a thread on Too Hot claiming that Christie would run as a Democrat and added:
..but he'll lose in the primaries. Because nobody likes a traitor, including the ones who benefited from the treachery.

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?p=6130052&highlight=christie#post6130052#ixzz2JefzV7nQ

[g8orbill]

Sorry river- I do not know how to edit from mh iphone

[MastaG8r]

you really think Christie is considered an extreme conservative? Aren't you the one who claimed he was going to run for president as a Democrat?
Let's see, Christie saying something nice about Obama means he's a Democrat, so Matthews saying something nice about Bush must mean .....
kinda screwed that one, didn't you?Kinda screwed what one? You mean the nonsensical, petulant thrashing around on the floor you've been doing in response to this thread undermining your quixotic little campaign against FOX News? That one? That...tantrum?

The subject of the thread is the latest evidence that MSNBC's Liberal bias is more egregiously blatant than the Conservative bias on FOX that you and other Libs on the forum regularly harp on. Your response? To question whether Chris Matthews is really a Conservative or not, as if that has anything to do with the price of tea in China.

First of all it's a totally ridiculous question, made all the more ridiculous by your admission (or more likely, false claim) that you don't watch Chris Matthews. EVERYBODY knows the guy is as Liberal as they come, but since he's apparently committed the unpardonable offense of occasionally saying something nice about a Republican or critical of a Democrat, as far as you're concerned his Liberal Card is revoked. Absurd.

And to cap it off, you demand names of Conservatives who have made favorable comments about Democrats, as if that somehow supports your denial of Chris Matthews' Liberalism. It doesn't. Just to humor you I name Chris Christie, and you predictably deny that he's a Conservative.

So in rivergator's world, Chris Matthews is not a Liberal and Chris Christie is not a Conservative. :roll:

The former may have had a kind word for a Republican or a critique of a Democrat from time to time, but that makes him no less of a flaming, far-Left Liberal. And the latter may be a disloyal Republican for his passive-aggressive undermining of Mitt Romney, but that makes him no less of a Conservative. And ultimately, none of those things have anything to do with the fact that is the topic of this thread: MSNBC broadcasts false Liberal propaganda and their bias is worse than FOX's.

[Minister_of_Information]

lol at the Fox crowd

MSNBC is using Fox's playbook

partisan politics makes for good ratings, ratings = advertising $$$

i personally don't watch these talking heads, and those who do, need others to tell them what to think or to agree with their own opinions

its no coincidence that Fox wins that battle despite the humorous claim that so-called conservatives are "free-thinkers" :roll:

Actually Fox is attempting to counteract CNN, which is partisan via an incompetent imitation of network news, by deliberately presenting conservative editorial content along with a lesser degree of liberal editorial content. MSNBC interprets that approach as open season for bias which they indulge in from the left, though some conservative thought is occassionally allowed in the building. Given their connection to NBC news proper many times their content is superior to Fox, but on balance their bias is significantly worse.

[northgagator]

lol at the Fox crowd

MSNBC is using Fox's playbook

partisan politics makes for good ratings, ratings = advertising $$$

i personally don't watch these talking heads, and those who do, need others to tell them what to think or to agree with their own opinions

its no coincidence that Fox wins that battle despite the humorous claim that so-called conservatives are "free-thinkers" :roll:

108, lets take partisanship out if the equation.

Don't you have a problem with a member of the 4th Estate manipulating the fact to advance their agenda?

[MastaG8r]

In the course of reading about this latest episode of MSNBC's misleading editing practices, I came across yet another instance of it that I missed the first time around back in June:

MSNBC's Selectively Edited Romney Video, Andrea Mitchell's Non-Apology Illustrate Network's Dishonesty (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2012/06/19/msnbcs-selectively-edited-romney-video-andrea-mitchells-non-apology-il)

Barack Obama’s adoring cheerleaders at NBC are back in the editing room distorting the truth, and, not surprisingly, Andrea Mitchell has the gall to make no apologies for it. First it was their vile attempt to make George Zimmerman sound like a racist to gin up racial conflict, and now they’ve set their sights on Mitt Romney who they’re desperately trying to paint as an out-of-touch, silver spoon Republican wowed by Wawa sandwiches.

This is a brazen attempt by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell to create a modern “supermarket scanner” moment for Mitt Romney where one clearly does not exist. This “gaffe” is a complete fabrication deliberately perpetrated by MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports. Her attempt to right this wrong by playing a few more seconds of video today is a slap in the face. Romney was making a valid point about the efficiency of private sector innovation. He was not amazed that he could order a sandwich with a touchscreen. His message is clear as day to anyone who watches the full video of his stump speech, and should sicken anyone who compares it to Mitchell’s sensational hatchet job.

This isn’t journalism. This is make believe. Barack Obama has been damaged by his careless comment that "the private sector is doing fine" – exposing how out of touch he is with reality – and his friends in the liberal media are busy dicing up video clips to pin the "out of touch" label on his Republican rival. Several media outlets picked up on Mitchell’s "report" – including CNN and Politico – and now have to eat crow as her deception has come to light. This is another outrageous example of how NBC will do anything to help Obama in 2012, no matter how unethical, irresponsible, and dishonest it is.

Here's the video:

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/114124" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And here is Andrea Mitchell's uncontrite non-apology for the misleading editing:

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/114140" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:roll: Good ol' MSNBC.

[ArtVandelay]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2012/02/2-29-12-stewart-sg-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg

[MastaG8r]

Please stay on topic:

http://www.localseoguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/msnbc-logo.jpeg

[108]

108, lets take partisanship out if the equation.

Don't you have a problem with a member of the 4th Estate manipulating the fact to advance their agenda?

i have a problem with all of it, and i wish people would just stop watching the propaganda channels

[fredsanford]

Why are people talking about MSNBC's night time hosts as if they are anything but commentators? They are no different than O'Reilly, Hannity, et al.

[PIMking]

too bad no "assault" style weapon was used in the shooting that tragically took his sons life.

[gatorman_07732]

Why are people talking about MSNBC's night time hosts as if they are anything but commentators? They are no different than O'Reilly, Hannity, et al.

Well there is a difference shab, nobody watches them

[MastaG8r]

Why are people talking about MSNBC's night time hosts as if they are anything but commentators? They are no different than O'Reilly, Hannity, et al.Who said they were something other than commentators? In any event, they're not the topic of the post. It's about MSNBC deliberately editing news footage to misleadingly portray Conservative figures or issues in a negative light. Any comment on that, other than predictably claiming that "FOX does it too" but then failing to produce examples comparable to what MSNBC has done?

[rivergator]

Kinda screwed what one? You mean the nonsensical, petulant thrashing around on the floor you've been doing in response to this thread undermining your quixotic little campaign against FOX News? That one? That...tantrum?

The subject of the thread is the latest evidence that MSNBC's Liberal bias is more egregiously blatant than the Conservative bias on FOX that you and other Libs on the forum regularly harp on. Your response? To question whether Chris Matthews is really a Conservative or not, as if that has anything to do with the price of tea in China.

First of all it's a totally ridiculous question, made all the more ridiculous by your admission (or more likely, false claim) that you don't watch Chris Matthews. EVERYBODY knows the guy is as Liberal as they come, but since he's apparently committed the unpardonable offense of occasionally saying something nice about a Republican or critical of a Democrat, as far as you're concerned his Liberal Card is revoked. Absurd.

And to cap it off, you demand names of Conservatives who have made favorable comments about Democrats, as if that somehow supports your denial of Chris Matthews' Liberalism. It doesn't. Just to humor you I name Chris Christie, and you predictably deny that he's a Conservative.

So in rivergator's world, Chris Matthews is not a Liberal and Chris Christie is not a Conservative. :roll:

The former may have had a kind word for a Republican or a critique of a Democrat from time to time, but that makes him no less of a flaming, far-Left Liberal. And the latter may be a disloyal Republican for his passive-aggressive undermining of Mitt Romney, but that makes him no less of a Conservative. And ultimately, none of those things have anything to do with the fact that is the topic of this thread: MSNBC broadcasts false Liberal propaganda and their bias is worse than FOX's.

That's just a bit over the top, don't you think? If all you have to rely on is insults ...

But to summarize: You're the one who declared Christie a traitor and said he would run as a Democrat in 2016. Now you're back claiming the opposite?
All he had to do was compliment the job Obama was doing on one issue to draw your scorn and removal from the Republican ranks. But you want to ignore far more compliments that Matthews has given to Republicans, because they don't count, right?
All your silly insults do not exactly make that stuff reasonable.

[DaveFla]

i have a problem with all of it, and i wish people would just stop watching the propaganda channels

Good idea. The first step in this process would be admit that the bias exists. I don't know of ANY FOX News viewers who claim FOX isn't biased. OTOH, there are MANY from the left who insist CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC etc. are not biased.

[CHFG8R]

As I've said before, I don't watch MSNBC, but it appear to be approaching Fox's level of partisanship. It could even be there. I don't know.

Approachng? Nah. They've been completely in the tank (like Fox) for years now. The losers? That's you and me and anyone else out there who actually would like to watch an unbiased, unvarnished real television newscast or channel.

I personally don't see how anyone can watch either. I can't last a minute with either. Just so damn intellectually insulting.

[CHFG8R]

Gushed over Bush, tingled over Obama.

I'm actually going to back you here. He seemed to just hate Gore in 2000. Not that he gushed about Bush so much, just that he couldn't help but punch the Gore campaign on an almost nightly basis.

Seems the next 8 years changed Chris. I used to really like Hardball back then and his critiques of Gore seemed to be strictly from a political standpoint, not unlike a color guy on a pregame show disecting the upcoming Super Bowl.

But, WOW, has he just thrown it all to the wind these last 5 years. Unbelievable how someone could just throw away every professional standard they had adhered to for the previous 20+ years. Amazing, really.

[rivergator]

I'm actually going to back you here. He seemed to just hate Gore in 2000. Not that he gushed about Bush so much, just that he couldn't help but punch the Gore campaign on an almost nightly basis.

Seems the next 8 years changed Chris. I used to really like Hardball back then and his critiques of Gore seemed to be strictly from a political standpoint, not unlike a color guy on a pregame show disecting the upcoming Super Bowl.

But, WOW, has he just thrown it all to the wind these last 5 years. Unbelievable how someone could just throw away every professional standard they had adhered to for the previous 20+ years. Amazing, really.

In 2008, he blasted Hillary every chance he got and made it clear that Giuliani was his choice for prez. If the question is comparing Fox and MSNBC, can anyone name a conservative Fox commentator who has clearly supported a Democrat for president?

[MastaG8r]

That's just a bit over the top, don't you think? If all you have to rely on is insults ...

But to summarize: You're the one who declared Christie a traitor and said he would run as a Democrat in 2016. Now you're back claiming the opposite?
All he had to do was compliment the job Obama was doing on one issue to draw your scorn and removal from the Republican ranks. But you want to ignore far more compliments that Matthews has given to Republicans, because they don't count, right?
All your silly insults do not exactly make that stuff reasonable.You're making a very dumb argument. If you regard that as an insult than so be it. It's a dumb argument. Sorry.

Yes, Chris Christie is a traitor to the GOP and it wouldn't surprise me to see him switch parties or go independent, because he is first and foremost a political opportunist. But in terms of his ideological viewpoints he is still a Conservative, just like former Democrat Joe Lieberman is still a Liberal.

How many compliments has Chris Matthews given to Republicans, really?

As noted earlier, any number of hardcore Left Wingers who passionately hated George Bush in the political sense were willing to acknowledge his personal likability. That didn't make them any less of hardcore Left Wingers. As I said it is simply a dumb argument to try to question the extent of his Liberalism simply because in occasional moments of candor he said something nice about a Republican. And it's all the more of a dumb argument coming from someone who claims they don't even watch Chris Matthews and therefore is in no position to question the extent of his Liberal bias.

I've thrown out the challenge several times and we have yet to hear from a single other poster who denies that Chris Matthews is anything less than one of the most unabashedly Liberal commentators on television. It's totally appropriate to include him in the company of Maddow and Olbermann, which was the comment by GatorAbe that originally set you off.

[108]

Good idea. The first step in this process would be admit that the bias exists. I don't know of ANY FOX News viewers who claim FOX isn't biased. OTOH, there are MANY from the left who insist CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC etc. are not biased.

can you show this or is this just what you believe?

[MastaG8r]

can you show this or is this just what you believe?How would you "show" something like that? Any longtime poster on this forum knows that what Dave said is absolutely true, so don't be coy.

Let's try a show of hands on this in a new thread and see what happens.

[MastaG8r]

Relocated from the Ed Koch thread.....

RIP Ed - One of the libs I liked

I join in the RIP. Often disagreed with him ideologically but he always seemed like a relatively honest, conscientious and well-meaning politician.

However with regard to him being a "lib" -- Ed Koch was occasionally complimentary of Republicans and critical of Democrats, so according to rivergator's riverlogic that calls his Liberalism into question. I'm relieved that's the case because I was complimentary of Koch earlier in this post, so if he is a Liberal then I guess that calls my Conservatism into question?

Yeah you're completely misrepresenting what he said (big surprise). According to rivergator this would preclude him from being considered a "raging liberal". It's so ironic, you're actually agreeing with him and you either don't realize it, or won't admit it.
You claim I'm "completely misrepresenting what he said (big surprise)," with the parenthetical implying that it's typical of me to misrepresent what a poster said. Please direct us to examples of me doing that, otherwise we can all conclude that you're full of crap.

And my earlier post in this thread doesn't qualify because I didn't misrepresent anything. With all apologies for interrupting this thread about the late Honorable Mayor Koch, I must now defend my own integrity just as I would defend his.

A thread (http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=255815) was started about MSNBC's latest episode of misleading editing. With regard to MSNBC's Liberal bias, the following exchange took place:

It's been there since Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews anchored the evening starting in 2008.

The same Matthews who gushed over Bush, supported Giuliani for the 2008 nomination and bashes the Clintons every chance he gets? That guy?

Yeah, the one that felt a tingle up his leg over Obama.

Gushed over Bush, tingled over Obama.

You seriously won't acknowledge that Chris Matthews is biased and favors the Liberal viewpoint on nearly every political issue, if not every?

I don't watch him, but from what I've read he can swing both ways. As I said, he certainly gushed over Bush, claiming "Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs ..." at a time when the polls showed the majority of Americans with a negative opinion of him.
Or claiming that Bush "glimmers ... with a kind of sunny nobility."
I'm not sure Hannity or Rush would do that with Obama. What do you think? Who on Fox would say that kind of thing about Obama?

So quite clearly, just as I said, rivergator called into question the extent of Chris Matthews' Liberal bias - not whether he is a "raging Liberal" - on the basis of him supposedly having been complimentary of Republicans and critical of Democrats on occasion. Which is a pretty dumb argument, isn't it magnafides?

For example, as I noted earlier, I was complimentary of Liberal Democrat Ed Koch earlier in this thread about his passing. I disagreed with the self-described "Liberal with sanity" on many issues but not all, and respected him as a well-intentioned political leader with a lot more integrity than many of the NYC mayors who preceded him. He was certainly an honorable and admirable man.

Now. Do those comments call into question my Conservatism, or my fully-admitted Right-wing bias and partisanship? Trust me: They don't.

I accept in advance your apology for wrongly accusing me of "completely misrepresenting" what river said in the comments re-posted above.

[MastaG8r]

Well now the President of NBC News has been fired (http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/01/BREAKING-Steve-Capus-Out-as-President-of-NBC-News), possibly because he's the one who presided over the instances of misleading editing previously mentioned in this thread, plus two more:

In August of 2011, MSNBC's Ed Schultz used deceptive editing (http://www.examiner.com/article/msnbc-s-ed-schultz-edits-video-of-gov-rick-perry-to-smear-him-as-a-racist) to make Texas Governor Rick Perry, who was running for president at the time, look racist:

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/104680" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And in August of 2009, MSNBC's Contessa Brewer was caught deceptively editing a piece of video (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/08/18/msnbc-no-mention-black-gun-owner-among-racist-protesters) to portray the Tea Party as racist, but only after she edited out the fact that the Tea Partier carrying a sidearm was a black man:

On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer fretted over health care reform protesters legally carrying guns: "A man at a pro-health care reform rally...wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip....there are questions about whether this has racial overtones....white people showing up with guns." Brewer failed to mention the man she described was black.

Following Brewer’s report, which occurred on the Morning Meeting program, host Dylan Ratigan and MSNBC pop culture analyst Toure discussed the supposed racism involved in the protests. Toure argued: "...there is tremendous anger in this country about government, the way government seems to be taking over the country, anger about a black person being president....we see these hate groups rising up and this is definitely part of that." Ratigan agreed: "...then they get the variable of a black president on top of all these other things and that’s the move – the cherry on top, if you will, to the accumulated frustration for folks."

Not only did Brewer, Ratigan, and Toure fail to point out the fact that the gun-toting protester that sparked the discussion was black, but the video footage shown of that protester was so edited, that it was impossible to see that he was black. The man appeared at a health care rally outside of President Obama’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, Arizona.

So for those still claiming false equivalency between MSNBC and FOX, please show us five examples of FOX airing misleadingly-edited footage and then running with the deception in the follow-up commentary.

[dangolegators]

I agree with Masta. MSNBC sucks.

[MastaG8r]

I agree with Masta. MSNBC sucks.That's all I'm saying. It's tough to deny it at this point. No fewer than five separate examples of deliberately-misleading editing in the past few years? Come on.

[108]

That's all I'm saying. It's tough to deny it at this point. No fewer than five separate examples of deliberately-misleading editing in the past few years? Come on.

Masta, as long as you can admit that Fox has been charged of the same things many times :wave:

[MastaG8r]

Masta, as long as you can admit that Fox has been charged of the same things many times :wave:No I will not admit it. I don't know that to be true. Obviously Media Matters is constantly complaining about FOX's Right-Wing spin on everything but I am not aware that within the past few years - because we're talking about the present state of things - FOX has been accused of as many as five different occurrences of the MSNBC-type shenanigans documented in this thread. If you've got recent examples of FOX running a misleading video followed by critical commentary about the phony, trumped-up controversial issue, by all means bust em' out and I'll admit that FOX does it too.

[Row6]

Matthews isn't a news anchor, he's an opinion anchor. I like his quirkiness but wouldn't pretend he is anything but liberal.

As to "fair and balanced" (not, by neither is Fox) some republicans, like Steele and McCain's campaign manager are regular commentators.

The only truly balanced shows on MSNBC are Morning Joe and Chuck Todd's Rundown which follows, and which is quite good on inside Washington coverage. The evening lineup is unapologeticaly liberal.

[neisgator]

As I've said before, I don't watch MSNBC, but it appear to be approaching Fox's level of partisanship. It could even be there. I don't know.

SMH.

My God. MSNBC is 100,000 times more partisan than fox.

I think Corky from Life Goes On could tell you(rhetorically) that.

[neisgator]

No, I don't watch him. Honestly find him fairly unwatchable. But I've read a good bit about what he says. I would think the amount of time he's spent praising Republicans and bashing Democrats would remove him from the 'raging liberal' category. But I could be wrong about categorization.
So I'll ask again, can you point to someone who might be considered a raging conservative who has gushed over Obama the way Matthews did over Bush? Who made it clear that his choice for president was a Democrat?

Wrong again. They guy is left of a raging liberal.

[harwil]

Matthews isn't a news anchor, he's an opinion anchor. I like his quirkiness but wouldn't pretend he is anything but liberal.

As to "fair and balanced" (not, by neither is Fox) some republicans, like Steele and McCain's campaign manager are regular commentators.

The only truly balanced shows on MSNBC are Morning Joe and Chuck Todd's Rundown which follows, and which is quite good on inside Washington coverage. The evening lineup is unapologeticaly liberal.

They are sometime commentators, but throw in Halperin, Heilman, Mikka, Harold the guy who ran for senator from Tennessee, San Stein, Howard Dean,Katy Kay, Richard Wolffe,Eugene Robinson, Andrea Mitchell,Chris Matthews,Danny Deutsch ,the seesaw definitely pulls to the left.

[Row6]

They are sometime commentators, but throw in Halperin, Heilman, Mikka, Harold the guy who ran for senator from Tennessee, San Stein, Howard Dean,Katy Kay, Richard Wolffe,Eugene Robinson, Andrea Mitchell,Chris Matthews,Danny Deutsch ,the seesaw definitely pulls to the left.

Probably so - I wouldn't argue the point, nor do I care - though the moderator is a conservative republican ex-congressman.

If you haven't watched Rundown and are interested in inside the beltway politics, I'd recommend it. More news than opinion, and for example, Blount (R, Mo) announced his opposition to Hagel on it today.

[fredsanford]

Who said they were something other than commentators? In any event, they're not the topic of the post. It's about MSNBC deliberately editing news footage to misleadingly portray Conservative figures or issues in a negative light. Any comment on that, other than predictably claiming that "FOX does it too" but then failing to produce examples comparable to what MSNBC has done?

What in God's name are you talking about? This board has had 1,999,999 threads started here (many by me) about Fox News' propaganda BS against Dems and particularly against Obama. Fox is a 24/7 anti-Dem attack machine. Even their dopey morning show hosts get in on the act.

[dangolegators]

Fox and MSNBC are two sides of the same worthless coin.

[harwil]

Probably so - I wouldn't argue the point, nor do I care - though the moderator is a conservative republican ex-congressman.

If you haven't watched Rundown and are interested in inside the beltway politics, I'd recommend it. More news than opinion, and for example, Blount (R, Mo) announced his opposition to Hagel on it today.

I watch Joe from 6:15 to maybe 7 and then go to work. No shot at Chuck Todd. I did watch MSNBC's coverage of 2010 election night and Fox's 2012 election night show.As the dems were being(in Obama's term"shelacked"),Olberman led off he 10 PM segment by pronuncing "It's been a mixed bag for the Republicans tonight..." Classic denial

[MastaG8r]

The only truly balanced shows on MSNBC are Morning Joe and Chuck Todd's Rundown which follows, and which is quite good on inside Washington coverage. The evening lineup is unapologeticaly liberal.Scarborough is a Conservative who felt rejected by the Conservative establishment. So he let his ego overcome his ideals and in the process of getting even carved out a little niche for himself on MSNBC as the supposed voice of reason on the Right who is willing to be critical of his own. But his criticisms are often pretty transparent.

Just this morning, for example (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2013/02/07/scarborough-gloats-over-fox-news-trust-ratings-ignores-msnbcs-mise), he giddily celebrated a survey that shows declining trust in FOX News...without mentioning that MSNBC's trustworthiness rating in the same survey is way worse.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Time for Joe Scarborough to brush up on the Sermon on the Mount?

On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough gloated at length over survey results indicating that the public's trust in Fox News has declined and that PBS is the only network that more people trust than distrust. But he conveniently failed to mention that Fox News remains the network that more people trust than any other . . . and that his own MSNBC trails way—way!—behind Fox News in public trust.

Here is the official release (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_206.pdf) from Public Policy Polling, which conducted the survey. In its headline, left-leaning PPP also touts Fox News's decline, but can't get away from the hard facts: at 34%, Fox News remains the network more people trust more than any other. MSNBC comes in at a paltry 8%. And while by a margin of 46-41% more people distrust FNC than trust it, the corresponding numbers for MSNBC are 35-44%. So Scarborough's network trails Fox News by wide margins in trust categories. But Scarborough conveniently lets that slide.

Doesn't this just contribute to our lack of trust in MSNBC, Joe?

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/119840" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Hahaha, love that last line. The irony!

[rivergator]

Fox News remains the network more people trust more than any other. MSNBC comes in at a paltry 8%

I think that speaks pretty clearly to the two audiences. Looking at MSNBC and Fox as two very partisan sides of the coin. One side recognizes MSNBC as such, the other believes Fox over all others.

[vangator1]

The press is known as the "fourth estate" with the implication of independence.

"In old days men had the rack. Now they have the Press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralizing. Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism." - Oscar Wilde

[Minister_of_Information]

I think that speaks pretty clearly to the two audiences. Looking at MSNBC and Fox as two very partisan sides of the coin. One side recognizes MSNBC as such, the other believes Fox over all others.

The difference is, Fox attempts to be balanced and often fails, while MSNBC attempts to be biased and usually (though not always) succeeds.

[rivergator]

The difference is, Fox attempts to be balanced and often fails, while MSNBC attempts to be biased and usually (though not always) succeeds.

yes, that's it.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Minister_of_Information]

yes, that's it.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You have to distinguish between misguided incompetence and open cynicism. MSNBC is a much more journalistically skilled news organization than Fox, but it is using those powers malignantly and in a spirit of rancor. I think MSNBC as an institution despises the average American, and the ratings success of Fox is the reason.

[MastaG8r]

I think that speaks pretty clearly to the two audiences. Looking at MSNBC and Fox as two very partisan sides of the coin. One side recognizes MSNBC as such, the other believes Fox over all others.LMAO! Good one.

Uhhh...you were being tongue-in-cheek with that comment, right? PLEASE tell us that was a satirical and not a serious post.

[rivergator]

LMAO! Good one.

Uhhh...you were being tongue-in-cheek with that comment, right? PLEASE tell us that was a satirical and not a serious post.

No joke. Liberals apparently recognize MSNBC has a very partisan agenda and cannot be trusted. Conservatives do not recognize that with Fox.

[Minister_of_Information]

Again, there is a textural difference between attempting to be trustworthy and failing and having a deliberate slant. That said, I probably watch as much MSNBC as I do Fox, but neither one can touch CNBC.

[MastaG8r]

No joke. Liberals apparently recognize MSNBC has a very partisan agenda and cannot be trusted. Conservatives do not recognize that with Fox.I just...I don't...I can't even...

Oh my goodness.

Really???

[MastaG8r]

Just adding the latest episode to this thread compiling example after example after example of MSNBC airing video clips deliberately edited to create false impressions.

In this one (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2013/02/27/msnbc-s-rachel-maddow-gleefully-admits-using-edited-video-smear-gop) John McCain is talking to a constituent at some sort of town hall forum and they cut down his answer to make it look like he was being overly blunt and insensitive. After showing it Rachel Maddow admitted it was edited in a way that was "not fair" to McCain but didn't apologize and didn't really seem to see anything wrong with it. I'm sure some of our friends on the Left feel the same way.

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/120212" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[dangolegators]

So you're upset that she didn't apologize to McCain because some local TV station might have edited the clip to make McCain look bad?

Does Hannity apologize to liberals when he himself edits video out of context to make them look bad? Does Hannity even admit, as Maddow did, that the video is edited?

[BobK89]

So if Fox does it, it excuses MSNBC? Good to know.

The lack of real journalism in this country is appalling.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

[rivergator]

So if Fox does it, it excuses MSNBC? Good to know.





No, it absolutely doesn't. But it's also silly to claim that it's limited to Fox.

The lack of real journalism in this country is appalling.

There's some good journalism out there. But I wouldn't look to Fox or MSNBC for it.

[secgator]

I just...I don't...I can't even...

Oh my goodness.

Really???

Yes Masta....the libs really DO believe those things to be true.

Unfathomable and arrogant I know, but we have to accept them for the way they are.

And offer up some sympathy as well---for it surely must be an affliction they can't control.

[MastaG8r]

So you're upset that she didn't apologize to McCain because some local TV station might have edited the clip to make McCain look bad?

Does Hannity apologize to liberals when he himself edits video out of context to make them look bad? Does Hannity even admit, as Maddow did, that the video is edited?Upset? I can promise you then when an insufferable snark peddler like Rachel Maddow presents a gift-wrapped opportunity to goof on her, I'm the opposite of upset.

Maddow aired a video clip for the sole purpose of making a single point - that John McCain was rude and insensitive to a constituent who was the mother of a shooting victim. However the clip was edited in a misleading way to falsely create that impression. Maddow admitted that after showing the clip...but without conceding the point. What the......:huh:

Should she have apologized for showing the clip? Well, I guess not. Obviously it wouldn't be sincere since she wasn't sorry for doing it. No, I suppose what she should have done...if she was an honest broadcaster...was not show the video in the first place, and not make an invalid point based on phony evidence.

I'm not sure what Sean Hannity has to do with the price of tea in China. This is a thread about MSNBC. And as you already stated in post #55, you agree with the central thesis of it.

I agree with Masta. MSNBC sucks.

[dangolegators]

Yes, I am no fan of MSNBC. But given that Fox has been extensively discussed in this thread, Sean Hannity has plenty to do with 'the price of tea in China' (god that's a dumb cliche). So why don't you go ahead and answer the question about Hannity rather than evade it.

[wygator]

One thing you consistently see on the Fox evening commentary shows is legitimate debate between liberals and conservatives, Dems and Pubs, however you want to say it.

Fox puts liberals on for one and one debates with their hosts and always includes them in panels.

MSNBC is an echo chamber that rarely interviews conservatives on their shows. I think that's the main reason Fox is more trusted, though they lean right.

Fox's primary newscaster, Shepard Smith, is considered liberal while host Geraldo Rivera is liberal and John Stossel is libertarian. How many genuine conservative hosts does MSNBC have?

[rivergator]

One thing you consistently see on the Fox evening commentary shows is legitimate debate between liberals and conservatives, Dems and Pubs, however you want to say it.

Fox puts liberals on for one and one debates with their hosts and always includes them in panels.

MSNBC is an echo chamber that rarely interviews conservatives on their shows. I think that's the main reason Fox is more trusted, though they lean right.

Fox's primary newscaster, Shepard Smith, is considered liberal while host Geraldo Rivera is liberal and John Stossel is libertarian. How many genuine conservative hosts does MSNBC have?

That's simply absurd. Pretty much every point there.

[secgator]

That's simply absurd. Pretty much every point there.

Explain how that is absurd river. How would you know since it is a network you don't like or ever acknowledge as being accurate on pretty much any topic or level?

Do you even watch FOX....ever? Shep is most definitely a left leaner--Geraldo is without question a lib...and John Stossel is indeed a libertarian. Take to the time to watch sometimes and see that FOX does bring on liberals in many of their discussions, whereas MSNBC is almost full on nutjob leaning.

If you don't want to watch FOX, I understand. If you don't trust wygator's comments you can always ask one of your own--fred. He is obsessed with Bush, wealth, and FOX news so maybe you can get some insight from him for verification.:laugh:

[MastaG8r]

Yes, I am no fan of MSNBC. But given that Fox has been extensively discussed in this thread, Sean Hannity has plenty to do with 'the price of tea in China' (god that's a dumb cliche). So why don't you go ahead and answer the question about Hannity rather than evade it.I don't care if Hannity has been discussed or not, I'm not obligated to participate in anybody's thread hijacking. This is a thread about the false misleading tactics of your Liberal pals at MSNBC. As you said, they suck. Thanks for acknowledging the validity of the point of the thread. Feel free to start your own thread listing all the deliberately-misleading threads Hannity has aired, or the whole FOX Network for that matter. You got a lot of catching up to do so run along and get busy.

[MastaG8r]

That's simply absurd. Pretty much every point therePretty much, huh? So which point was not absurd then? Pretty much is something less than all.

[dangolegators]

I don't care if Hannity has been discussed or not, I'm not obligated to participate in anybody's thread hijacking. This is a thread about the false misleading tactics of your Liberal pals at MSNBC. As you said, they suck. Thanks for acknowledging the validity of the point of the thread. Feel free to start your own thread listing all the deliberately-misleading threads Hannity has aired, or the whole FOX Network for that matter. You got a lot of catching up to do so run along and get busy.

Well earlier in the thread you said this:

No I will not admit it. I don't know that to be true. Obviously Media Matters is constantly complaining about FOX's Right-Wing spin on everything but I am not aware that within the past few years - because we're talking about the present state of things - FOX has been accused of as many as five different occurrences of the MSNBC-type shenanigans documented in this thread. If you've got recent examples of FOX running a misleading video followed by critical commentary about the phony, trumped-up controversial issue, by all means bust em' out and I'll admit that FOX does it too.

So if anyone hijacked your thread, you did, by asking us to post examples of Fox running misleading video. Rather than start my own thread, I'm going to go ahead and do what you asked for in this one.

So let's start with this one. Hannity took a clip of Obama where he said “Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year, for everybody. By the way, this was by design.”

Hannity edited out all of it except for 'taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year'.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/12/kurtz-calls-hannity-deceptive-editing/

What do you think? Is this "misleading video followed (and preceded) by critical commentary"?

[MastaG8r]

Well earlier in the thread you said this:



So if anyone hijacked your thread, you did, by asking us to post examples of Fox running misleading video. Rather than start my own thread, I'm going to go ahead and do what you asked for in this one.

So let's start with this one. Hannity took a clip of Obama where he said “Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year, for everybody. By the way, this was by design.”

Hannity edited out all of it except for 'taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year'.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/12/kurtz-calls-hannity-deceptive-editing/

What do you think? Is this "misleading video followed (and preceded) by critical commentary"?
Yes it is, that's a pretty good example of it. And from the link it appears that even CNN called Hannity out for it. So since CNN is an objective, non-biased news organization and they called out Hannity for airing a misleadingly-edited video, I'm sure you'll have no trouble producing links to CNN calling out MSNBC for doing it numerous times as well.

When you're done with that your next assignment is to find some more examples of it from FOX. I changed my mind - I forbid you from starting a new thread about it. You may only post them here. Then we can keep a running tally of who does it most. Understand? Good. Now carry out my orders.

[dangolegators]

Ok, so here's the one where Hannity used crowd footage from a different demonstration to make Michelle Bachmann's rally look like more people were there.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/jon-stewart-totally-busts-sean-hanni

[rivergator]

Ok, so here's the one where Hannity used crowd footage from a different demonstration to make Michelle Bachmann's rally look like more people were there.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/jon-stewart-totally-busts-sean-hanni

Fox also used 2008 campaign footage to claim Palin was still drawing huge crowds a year later.

And to show how bad the protests were in Russia, Fox used video of much worse riots ... in Greece.

It showed a video of Obama speaking to the cadets at West Point, but edited out their applause.

[DaveFla]

Or, at the very least, so says MediaMatters...

[rivergator]

Or, at the very least, so says MediaMatters...

which one do you want to challenge? go ahead, pick one and let's see if I can illustrate it without Media Matters.
My guess is that you won't, because you know I can.

[MastaG8r]

which one do you want to challenge? go ahead, pick one and let's see if I can illustrate it without Media Matters.
My guess is that you won't, because you know I can.I'm not "challenging" your claim but you need to post the links so we can keep track of which network has done this the most. Nobody is going to take anybody's word for it.

There are five or maybe six linked examples in this thread of MSNBC airing video clips that were edited to create a false impression, and one where Hannity on FOX cut off part of a comment 0bama made which would've given more context. So far MSNBC is losing the contest badly so get busy.

[rivergator]

I'm not "challenging" your claim but you need to post the links so we can keep track of which network has done this the most. Nobody is going to take anybody's word for it.

There are five or maybe six linked examples in this thread of MSNBC airing video clips that were edited to create a false impression, and one where Hannity on FOX cut off part of a comment 0bama made which would've given more context. So far MSNBC is losing the contest badly so get busy.

that's assuming you ignore all the others that Hannity has done.

[MastaG8r]

Ok, so here's the one where Hannity used crowd footage from a different demonstration to make Michelle Bachmann's rally look like more people were there.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/jon-stewart-totally-busts-sean-hanniYep, that's a pretty good one too. Looks like Hannity mixed in footage from a very, very well-attended Tea Party rally while discussing a smaller healthcare reform rally that Bachmann was involved in, creating the impression that her rally had big huge crowds like the Tea Party one did. Fair to declare shenanigans on Hannity for that one. However MSNBC is still winning the most-misleading cable news network contest in both quality and quantity, so get back to work and bring us some more.

[MastaG8r]

that's assuming you ignore all the others that Hannity has done.I haven't ignored anything anyone has posted yet, as long as it had a link to back it up. Sorry but when you post a comment like, "That's simply absurd. Pretty much every point there," as you did in response to wygator's post, and then fail to back up your accusation when challenged to do so, you demonstrate that you're not the kind of poster who deserves the benefit of the doubt. Links, please.

[rivergator]

I haven't ignored anything anyone has posted yet, as long as it had a link to back it up. Sorry but when you post a comment like, "That's simply absurd. Pretty much every point there," as you did in response to wygator's post, and then fail to back up your accusation when challenged to do so, you demonstrate that you're not the kind of poster who deserves the benefit of the doubt. Links, please.


so the one with the link about Hannity switching the footage on the protest doesn't count? let me guess why? Umm, you're pretending it didn't happen?

[MastaG8r]

so the one with the link about Hannity switching the footage on the protest doesn't count? let me guess why? Umm, you're pretending it didn't happen?Wow you made yourself look pretty stupid with that post, didn't you? :yes: Check post #97. I accept your anticipated apology.

[dangolegators]

Yep, that's a pretty good one too. Looks like Hannity mixed in footage from a very, very well-attended Tea Party rally while discussing a smaller healthcare reform rally that Bachmann was involved in, creating the impression that her rally had big huge crowds like the Tea Party one did. Fair to declare shenanigans on Hannity for that one. However MSNBC is still winning the most-misleading cable news network contest in both quality and quantity, so get back to work and bring us some more.

Yeah, I'll bring them to you one at a time. This one is the most egregious one yet. Here Hannity actually edits Obama's response in the middle of what he said. It's not a case of omitting something that was said before or after the clip (though they did that too), they literally cut out a sentence in the middle of the clip.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/07/08/hannity-again-crops-obamas-comments-abroad-in-o/151841

[MastaG8r]

Yeah, I'll bring them to you one at a time. This one is the most egregious one yet. Here Hannity actually edits Obama's response in the middle of what he said. It's not a case of omitting something that was said before or after the clip (though they did that too), they literally cut out a sentence in the middle of the clip.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/07/08/hannity-again-crops-obamas-comments-abroad-in-o/151841No, sorry, I am trying to be fair here but I can't really award you points for that one. The edited portions didn't really change the point that Hannity was making, which was that 0bama should've straight up acknowledged that the United States of America defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. As is 0bama's anti-American wont, he diminished our role and tried to portray it as some sort of international accomplishment. Even the additional portions of his comments from the unedited version weren't enough to set the record straight.

Others are invited to weigh in but personally I award no points for this example, which is not nearly as good as the two earlier ones you posted.

Speaking of which, I'm starting to notice a pattern. Whereas the six examples of MSNBC's deceptive editing in this thread come from across the whole spectrum of the network, all the FOX examples posted so far are from the same show, Hannity. We are going for MSNBC vs. FOX here, not MSNBC vs. Sean Hannity, so try to diversify your examples, please. If you can.

Oh and by the way, you forgot part of your assignment. Earlier you posted CNN calling out Hannity for deceptive editing. Unless you'd like to admit that CNN has a Liberal bias too, albeit one not as egregious as MSNBC's, I'd like to see an example of CNN calling out MSNBC for doing the same thing Hannity did. Fair is fair.

[dangolegators]

No, sorry, I am trying to be fair here but I can't really award you points for that one. The edited portions didn't really change the point that Hannity was making, which was that 0bama should've straight up acknowledged that the United States of America defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. As his anti-American wont, he diminished our role and tried to portray it as some sort of international accomplishment. Even the additional, edited portions of his comments weren't enough to set the record straight.

Others are invited to weigh in but personally I award no points for this example, which is not nearly as good as the two earlier ones you posted. Speaking of which, I'm starting to notice a pattern. Whereas the six examples of MSNBC's deceptive editing in this thread come from across the whole spectrum of the network, all the FOX examples posted so far are from the same show, Hannity. We are going for MSNBC vs. FOX here, not MSNBC vs. Sean Hannity, so try to diversify your examples, please. If you can.

Oh and by the way, you forgot part of your assignment. Earlier you posted CNN calling out Hannity for deceptive editing. Unless you'd like to admit that CNN has a Liberal bias too, albeit one not as egregious as MSNBC's, I'd like to see an example of CNN calling out MSNBC for doing the same thing Hannity did. Fair is fair.

Ah yes, I should have known the Reagan worship would come into play here. As I said, this is actually the most egregious example of deceptive video editing yet. Why would they go through the trouble to remove that one sentence, cutting it so it's hard to tell a sentence was removed? The question the interviewer asked was:

Mr. President, are the Russian sensitivities so fragile that you can't say the Cold War was won, the West won it, and it was led by a combination of Democratic and Republican American presidents?

Obama answers the question:

Well, listen, the -- I think that you just cut out Lech Walesa and the Poles. You just cut out Havel and the Czechs. There were a whole bunch of people throughout Eastern Europe who showed enormous courage.

And I think that it is very important in this part of the world to acknowledge the degree to which people struggled for their own freedom. I'm very proud of the traditions of Democratic and Republican presidents to lift the Iron Curtain.

But, you know, we don't have to diminish other people in order to recognize our role in that history.

But they cut out the part where he gives US presidents credit. And then Hannity criticizes Obama for not giving Reagan credit. The interviewer didn't ask about Reagan specifically, just US presidents. And you don't think that's deceptive editing?

[MastaG8r]

Ah yes, I should have known the Reagan worship would come into play here. As I said, this is actually the most egregious example of deceptive video editing yet. Why would they go through the trouble to remove that one sentence, cutting it so it's hard to tell a sentence was removed? The question the interviewer asked was:



Obama answers the question:



But they cut out the part where he gives US presidents credit. And then Hannity criticizes Obama for not giving Reagan credit. The interviewer didn't ask about Reagan specifically, just US presidents. And you don't think that's deceptive editing?No, I don't. It is editing but it's not really deceptive because it doesn't change Hannity's point, which is that the U.S. deserves way more credit than 0bama was giving us, even with his weak acknowledgment of the "traditions" of U.S. presidents, whatever that means. Maybe he meant contributions? Maybe Joe Biden was wrong about how surprisingly "articulate" 0bama is.

Again thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it but I invite the, um, traditions of others who want to weigh in.

[dangolegators]

No, I don't. It is editing but it's not really deceptive because it doesn't change Hannity's point, which is that the U.S. deserves way more credit than 0bama was giving us, even with his weak acknowledgment of the "traditions" of U.S. presidents, whatever that means. Maybe he meant contributions? Maybe Joe Biden was wrong about how surprisingly "articulate" 0bama is.

Again thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it but I invite the, um, traditions of others who want to weigh in.

I'll ask you again. Why would they have edited out that sentence?

[MastaG8r]

I'll ask you again. Why would they have edited out that sentence?I don't know but it doesn't matter because if they had left it in it wouldn't have mattered, so there's no deception there in my opinion.

[Wormwood56]

I don't watch him, but from what I've read he can swing both ways. As I said, he certainly gushed over Bush, claiming "Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs ..." at a time when the polls showed the majority of Americans with a negative opinion of him.
Or claiming that Bush "glimmers ... with a kind of sunny nobility."
I'm not sure Hannity or Rush would do that with Obama. What do you think? Who on Fox would say that kind of thing about Obama?

The difference is that Mathews, who was once a great journalist, still deems himself to be an objective journalist, something he discarded over a decade ago. He may have 'gushed" over Bush in 2001, but he has veered hard Left since then?

Why? Payola. The only chance he has to break Fox's stranglehold on the ratings is to be the same, except at the other extreme. But compared to Maddow and Fat Ed Schultz, Matthews could be considered somewhat moderate. The only equivalent in pure partisanship to either Maddow or Schultz is Hannity. O'Reilly is more of a libertarian conservative than a doctrinaire right winger.

I watch Morning Joe at the gym every morning, and of all the folks they have on there, Scarborough is the ONLY one who hammers his own party when the need arises. Mika Brezinski never, EVER criticizes Obama, and rarely says anything about even the most extreme leftists in the Democratic Party.

[dangolegators]

I don't know but it doesn't matter because if they had left it in it wouldn't have mattered, so there's no deception there in my opinion.

Of course it would have mattered. This is an obvious case of deceptive editing.

[MastaG8r]

Of course it would have mattered. This is an obvious case of deceptive editing.So you say. I don't see anyone else agreeing with you.

Sean Hannity was arguing that American presidents, and especially Ronald Reagan of course, deserve major if not exclusive credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union. 0bama obviously disagrees. Even in the full, unedited version of his remarks, he downplays the role that U.S. presidents played and emphasizes that of the people of Eastern Europe in bringing about the downfall of the USSR. Even if you don't side with Hannity in his point of disagreement with 0bama, the edited portions of 0bama's remarks don't change the nature of the disagreement.

[MastaG8r]

Just came across another example of good ol' MSNBC's deceptive broadcasting that happened during the election campaign, and tucked inside the article about that one was a mention of yet another example I hadn't heard about before.

First, this item from Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/video/msnbc-caught-doctoring-clip-from-romney-ryan-rally) talked about how MSNBC aired video on Morning Joe and again on Martin Bashir which showed a crowd at a Romney rally chanting, "Ryan, Ryan"...or so said the MSNBC on-screen caption under the video. Evidently after airing the clip, Scarborough, Brzezinski and Bashir insinuated that it meant Ryan was overshadowing Romney on the campaign trail.

In reality, however, the crowds were not chanting, "Ryan, Ryan." They were chanting "Romney-Ryan," and they were doing it at Romney's request.

Beckett Adams wrote that MSNBC's Martin Bashir also used the clip, claiming that Ryan "overshadows" Romney. According to Adams, if one listens closely to the video, "it’s obvious the audio in the clip has been adjusted," which Adams says is not unusual.

"However, where the controversy comes in is in the caption on the screen quoting the audience as chanting 'Ryan!' Why is that controversial? Because people who attended the event say that’s not what happened, and that the MSNBC video grossly misrepresents what actually occurred," he added.
...
Even the New York Times confirmed the accounts of those who attended the rally.

"After Mr. Ryan whooped up the crowd in Vandalia on Tuesday, Mr. Romney moved to the front of the stage. As the crowd began chanting “Romney! Romney!” he cut them off. “Wait a second,” Mr. Romney said, instructing the audience to cheer for 'Romney-Ryan! Romney-Ryan!' They did," the Times reported.

Here's the video:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4lyEOLtUhCM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In the same Examiner.com article they mentioned a couple earlier examples of this false-editing practice at MSNBC. One of them has already been mentioned in this thread but the other one has not. Also from Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/nbc-caught-selectively-editing-audio-to-attack-mitt-romney):

MSNBC host Martin Bashir used heavily edited audio to imply GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney dodged a question on his religion.

According to an article at MSNBC, Romney engaged Bret Hatch, described as a 28-year-old Ron Paul supporter, who "haltingly attempted to quote a passage from Mormon scripture which dealt with race, before being prodded by Romney to ask an actual question."

Newsbusters' Jeffrey Meyer posted a transcript of the exchange:

BRET HATCH: In the Mormon book it says there were a blackness cast upon all the children --

MITT ROMNEY: I’m sorry, we’re just not going to have a discussion about religion in my view, but if you have a question, I’ll be happy to answer your question.”

HATCH: I guess my question is, do you believe it’s a sin for a white man to marry and procreate with a black?”

ROMNEY: No. Next question.

But that's not what Bashir played for his audience. Instead of showing the actual exchange between the two men, he chose to show only a small part of it in order to portray Romney in a negative light.

Meyer posted the transcript of what Bashir chose to air in his interview with political strategist Krystal Ball:

MARTIN BASHIR, host: Krystal, I want to play you a clip [from] just a few moments ago. It’s Mitt Romney taking questions at a campaign event. Listen to this.

BRET HATCH: In the Mormon book it says there were a blackness cast upon all the children of Canaan--

MITT ROMNEY: I'm sorry. We ‘re just not going to have a discussion about religion.

BASHIR: Can I ask you how it is that people are allowed to impugn the president's religion, but when Mitt Romney faces a polite question on the contents of his faith, he refuses to answer?

KRYSTAL BALL, political strategist: It’s a double standard. And one thing that’s going to be really interesting to see down the road is there's no question that Mitt Romney is going to have that same moment that John McCain had where someone stands up at his rally and says something that is patently false and offensive about the president. How is he going to respond in that circumstance? Will he, as John McCain did, courageously call that person out and say that's not acceptable, or is he going to --

BASHIR: Copy Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum:

BALL: And Rick Santorum

BASHIR: Who allow people to say these kinds of things.

Unfortunately I haven't yet been able to find video of Bashir's segment where he played only part of the exchange between Romney and the audience questioner, but the transcript of the segment is here (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2012/04/02/once-again-nbc-selectively-edits-audio-tape-political-means) and the unedited video of the exchange is here (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/02/romney-fields-hostile-question-on-mormonism/).

I do believe that brings us up to eight examples linked in this thread of MSNBC airing video that is deliberately edited or doctored to create a misleading impression.

[dangolegators]

So you say. I don't see anyone else agreeing with you.

Sean Hannity was arguing that American presidents, and especially Ronald Reagan of course, deserve major if not exclusive credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union. 0bama obviously disagrees. Even in the full, unedited version of his remarks, he downplays the role that U.S. presidents played and emphasizes that of the people of Eastern Europe in bringing about the downfall of the USSR. Even if you don't side with Hannity in his point of disagreement with 0bama, the edited portions of 0bama's remarks don't change the nature of the disagreement.

So Sean Hannity is arguing that Obama isn't giving American presidents credit. Then he edits out the part where Obama gives American presidents credit.

And you are saying this isn't a case of deceptive editing? This is actually the most egregious case yet. All I can do is point out the obvious. I can't make people like you rational. A rational person would clearly see this as a case of deceptive editing.

[dangolegators]

As for the Romney Ryan video, I've listened to 2 different versions of the video, and it's pretty clear the crowd starts chanting 'Ryan, Ryan...'. Romney stops them to get them to include 'Romney' in the chant. This was one of the funnier moments of the campaign and gave me a good chuckle at the time.

Unless you have proof that MSNBC edited the audio to make it sound like they were chanting 'Romney' rather than 'Ryan', this one does not qualify as any kind of deception.

[g8orbill]

Masta- you are wasting your time- they rhink their president is the greatest thing since sliced bread and msnbc is gospel

[MastaG8r]

So Sean Hannity is arguing that Obama isn't giving American presidents credit. Then he edits out the part where Obama gives American presidents credit.

And you are saying this isn't a case of deceptive editing? This is actually the most egregious case yet. All I can do is point out the obvious. I can't make people like you rational. A rational person would clearly see this as a case of deceptive editing.No, because Hannity clearly feels that American presidents deserve all the credit, whereas 0bama believes credit should be shared and that, "we don't have to diminish other people in order to recognize our role in that history." Uhhh, yes we do, kinda. Truth was the Eastern Europeans didn't do jack diddly squat to liberate themselves from the USSR until it was economically crippled by the military spending war of attrition waged against it by the U.S. Or that's the argument, anyway.

The respective positions of Hannity vs. 0bama on this issue remain the same regardless of whether you're defining 0bama's position by the edited or unedited version of his remarks on it.

In any event do you think this is "actually the most egregious case yet" of deceptive editing by either network, or just of FOX doing it?

[dangolegators]

No, because Hannity clearly feels that American presidents deserve all the credit, whereas 0bama believes credit should be shared and that, "we don't have to diminish other people in order to recognize our role in that history." Uhhh, yes we do, kinda. Truth was the Eastern Europeans didn't do jack diddly squat to liberate themselves from the USSR until it was economically crippled by the military spending war of attrition waged against it by the U.S. Or that's the argument, anyway.

The respective positions of Hannity vs. 0bama on this issue remain the same regardless of whether you're defining 0bama's position by the edited or unedited version of his remarks on it.

In any event do you think this is "actually the most egregious case yet" of deceptive editing by either network, or just of FOX doing it?

Well it's far worse than the Maddow clip of McCain, which wasn't that bad, plus Maddow admitted that the local TV station edited. I haven't bothered to look at the other MSNBC examples so I don't know about those.

But there's no way I am going to be able to make you look at the Hannity clip in a rational way. This is clearly deceptive editing and it goes into the Fox column.

[MastaG8r]

As for the Romney Ryan video, I've listened to 2 different versions of the video, and it's pretty clear the crowd starts chanting 'Ryan, Ryan...'. Romney stops them to get them to include 'Romney' in the chant. This was one of the funnier moments of the campaign and gave me a good chuckle at the time.

Unless you have proof that MSNBC edited the audio to make it sound like they were chanting 'Romney' rather than 'Ryan', this one does not qualify as any kind of deception.Uh huh. Riiiiiight. The New York Times reported it differently but I wish I had better proof than that since we both can agree that they're not a credible source, right?

Since you claim to have seen two different versions of the video, explain to us why it supports the position taken by the MSNBC anchors, which was that Ryan was upstaging or overshadowing Romney on the campaign trail. Even if we buy your version of events, that they were chanting "Ryan," do you think that might have anything to do with the fact that Ryan had just finished speaking?

In other words, there are two possibilities.

One, as reported by the New York Times, as Ryan finished speaking and passed the microphone to Romney the crowd chanted, "Romney, Romney," and Romney told them to say both names.

Two, as claimed by you, as Ryan finished speaking and passed the microphone to Romney the crowd chanted, "Ryan, Ryan," and Romney told them to say both names.

EITHER WAY, under the circumstances this particular episode should not have been used by the MSNBC anchors as support for their thesis that Ryan was overshadowing Romney to Romney's detriment. It's not as if Romney was all by himself at a rally and the crowd was chanting for Ryan instead of him.

What's really going on is that I questioned one of the examples you posted so now you're arbitrarily going to question one of mine. Grow up.

Still waiting for a clip from CNN calling out MSNBC the same way they called out Sean Hannity. Also waiting for clips of anyone else in addition to Sean Hannity doing this sort of crap on FOX.

[dangolegators]

Uh huh. Riiiiiight. The New York Times reported it differently but I wish I had better proof than that since we both can agree that they're not a credible source, right?

Since you claim to have seen two different versions of the video, explain to us why it supports the position taken by the MSNBC anchors, which was that Ryan was upstaging or overshadowing Romney on the campaign trail. Even if we buy your version of events, that they were chanting "Ryan," do you think that might have anything to do with the fact that Ryan had just finished speaking?

In other words, there are two possibilities.

One, as reported by the New York Times, as Ryan finished speaking and passed the microphone to Romney the crowd chanted, "Romney, Romney," and Romney told them to include his name.

Two, as claimed by you, as Ryan finished speaking and passed the microphone to Romney the crowd chanted, "Ryan, Ryan," and Romney told them to include his name.

EITHER WAY, under the circumstances this particular episode should not have been used by the MSNBC anchors as support for their thesis that Ryan was overshadowing Romney to Romney's detriment. It's not as if Romney was all by himself at a rally and the crowd was chanting for Ryan instead of him.

What's really going on is that I questioned one of the examples you posted so now you're arbitrarily going to question one of mine. Grow up.

Still waiting for a clip from CNN calling out MSNBC the same way they called out Sean Hannity. Also waiting for clips of anyone else in addition to Sean Hannity doing this sort of crap on FOX.

No what's really going on is there is no evidence that the audio in the clip was altered to change what the crowd was chanting. I sounds like they are chanting 'Ryan', and it looks like Romney embarrassingly asked them to say 'Romney, Ryan' instead. Go ahead and present any further evidence you might have, but until you do, you have no case here.

[MastaG8r]

No what's really going on is there is no evidence that the audio in the clip was altered to change what the crowd was chanting. I sounds like they are chanting 'Ryan', and it looks like Romney embarrassingly asked them to say 'Romney, Ryan' instead. Go ahead and present any further evidence you might have, but until you do, you have no case here.So you're not going to answer, then? IF the crowd was chanting "Ryan," would that be so unusual given the fact that Ryan had just finished speaking? Under those circumstances was it legitimate for the MSNBC anchors to use that particular clip to illustrate their allegation that Romney wasn't generating any excitement on the campaign trail and Ryan was upstaging him?

No, it wasn't. It was a deceptive use of the video regardless of whether the sound on the clip was doctored or not.

[MastaG8r]

Masta- you are wasting your time- they rhink their president is the greatest thing since sliced bread and msnbc is gospelbill, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to convince people of something here. Far from it, buddy. Just illustrating a truth that we all recognize but only half of us are willing to admit. It's all in good fun. For me, anyways. :wink:

[dangolegators]

So you're not going to answer, then? IF the crowd was chanting "Ryan," would that be so unusual given the fact that Ryan had just finished speaking? Under those circumstances was it legitimate for the MSNBC anchors to use that particular clip to illustrate their allegation that Romney wasn't generating any excitement on the campaign trail and Ryan was upstaging him?

No, it wasn't. It was a deceptive use of the video regardless of whether the sound on the clip was doctored or not.

So are we changing the criteria? Is it now deceptive to air an embarrassing moment that was of the subjects own doing? MSNBC's point was that Romney wasn't generating much excitement. Then they show a clip that reinforces the point. I'm guessing they mostly showed because it was funny as hell, but there was also a point to it. And as we know, Romney didn't generate much excitement amongst Republicans. We kept hearing about how motivated the Repubs were this year, but on election day, turnout for Romney was underwhelming, crushing your hopes.

It's your prerogative to claim this was deceptive and the Hannity thing with Obama wasn't. But why would any rational person agree with you?

[MastaG8r]

So are we changing the criteria? Is it now deceptive to air an embarrassing moment that was of the subjects own doing? MSNBC's point was that Romney wasn't generating much excitement. Then they show a clip that reinforces the point. I'm guessing they mostly showed because it was funny as hell, but there was also a point to it. And as we know, Romney didn't generate much excitement amongst Republicans. We kept hearing about how motivated the Repubs were this year, but on election day, turnout for Romney was underwhelming, crushing your hopes.

It's your prerogative to claim this was deceptive and the Hannity thing with Obama wasn't. But why would any rational person agree with you?I have not changed the criteria except to acknowledge the obvious fact that even a non-doctored video can be used in a deceptive way. That is what MSNBC did in this case if - IF - we accept your version of what happened at the rally.

Meanwhile, you didn't answer my question. Again. Because you can't.

You say, "MSNBC's point was that Romney wasn't generating much excitement. Then they show a clip that reinforces the point."

How does that clip reinforce that point, even if we accept your version of what happened rather than the New York Times version?

Turn down the sound on the video and watch what's happening for yourself. According to you the crowd was chanting "Ryan, Ryan"...but as you can see on the screen Ryan had just wrapped up his speech to them. So IF they were chanting "Ryan, Ryan" in that circumstance, how would that reinforce MSNBC's point "that Romney wasn't generating much excitement"?

It's like claiming that Rihanna isn't generating much excitement because her opening act A$AP Rocky got a standing ovation after his set.

[dangolegators]

The Romney/Ryan clip isn't deceptive. It just shows an embarrassing moment on the Romney campaign trail. It relates to what they were talking about before the clip. Given that you are trying to claim this obvious non-deceptive example in your column, I'm going to have to take a look at the other 6 examples you claim. The only one I've looked at is the Maddow/McCain one, which is pretty minor. The Hannity/Obama clip is clearly deceptive editing. You claim it isn't. Either you don't understand what is and is not deceptive, or you do, but you apply very different standards depending on which channel it is on. I'm guessing it's the latter.

[MastaG8r]

The Romney/Ryan clip isn't deceptive. It just shows an embarrassing moment on the Romney campaign trail. It relates to what they were talking about before the clip. Given that you are trying to claim this obvious non-deceptive example in your column, I'm going to have to take a look at the other 6 examples you claim. The only one I've looked at is the Maddow/McCain one, which is pretty minor. The Hannity/Obama clip is clearly deceptive editing. You claim it isn't. Either you don't understand what is and is not deceptive, or you do, but you apply very different standards depending on which channel it is on. I'm guessing it's the latter.Only in the biased, blindly-partisan minds of you and the lying Liberals at MSNBC was that "an embarrassing moment on the Romney campaign trail."

The concert analogy was spot on, if I do say so myself. An enthusiastic reception for the opening act has no bearing on the level of enthusiasm for the headliner.

I've asked you three or four times now and you cannot explain why it should've been "embarrassing" for Romney if the crowd chanted Ryan's name as he - Ryan! - finished speaking, IF that is indeed what happened as you say. How does that "reinforce the point" that "Romney wasn't generating much excitement"? You refuse to answer. And now after that demonstration of your total lack of credibility and integrity we're supposed to take seriously your evaluation of all the other videos? Yeah right. :roll:

Hey by the way, while you're reviewing the thread check out your hero rivergator's performance in post #99, for which he has yet to apologize. You two are some pair. :laugh:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uP-_iJJNWQs/TlhpxzG3soI/AAAAAAAAAXY/Vr1Cc3lV2nI/s400/don-quijote-de-la-mancha-433950%255B1%255D.jpg

[MastaG8r]

http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012/Obama's%20Lap%20Dogs.gif

LMAO!

[MastaG8r]

Hodari P.T. Brown has a bone to pick with MSNBC, too. Brownstown Township is NOT Detroit! Get your facts right, MSNBC! lol

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aMzTtOUovPw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[dangolegators]

Try not to get too frustrated Masta. You are attempting to argue points that are very difficult to defend in any rational way. But trashing the thread up with cute little cartoons and petty insults doesn't help either. It just makes it worse and makes you look even less rational.

[MastaG8r]

Try not to get too frustrated Masta. You are attempting to argue points that are very difficult to defend in any rational way. But trashing the thread up with cute little cartoons and petty insults doesn't help either. It just makes it worse and makes you look even less rational.Makes me look less rational to who? You!?! LMAO! Haven't you ever heard the expression, "it takes one to know one"? So then...how would you know if I'm a rational person or not? :huh:

What happened to your promised evaluation of the other MSNBC clips? Which ones are you going to defend, by this network which you've already candidly admitted "sucks"? In other words, you actually agree with the premise of the thread but continue debating it anyway because you're obsessed with trying - vainly, as everyone can see - to show up the great American Gator who posted it.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/1109/9-11.tributes/images/florida_gators.jpg

By the way, I've insulted no one and therefore accept in advance your apology for your false accusation to that effect, just as I will accept river's for post #99 if and when he eventually mans up and offers it. Like I always say, I'm a compassionate Conservative! :happy:

[MastaG8r]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5ujmxhxCb1rqx2xao1_500.png (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/19/NBC-News-Covers-Up-Romney-Edit)

[MastaG8r]

Oopsie! Looks like the last word (http://thelastword.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/26/14115834-truth-v-satire?lite) from Lawrence O'Donnell, host of MSNBC's "The Last Word," is.....

sorry?

Roger Simon at Politico included a few lines of satire in his latest column titled "Paul Ryan vs. The Stench" and some of his satirical anecdotes were so subtle that many, including The Last Word staff, missed the joke.

We tried to book Roger Simon yesterday to discuss his piece but he was unavailable. Had he been a guest on the show, it obviously would have been clear that his piece was not meant to be taken literally. We regret and apologize for presenting some of the quotes in Roger Simon’s piece the way we did.

An explanation from MediaIte.com (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/blog-for-msnbcs-last-word-apologizes-for-lawrence-odonnell-reporting-satire-as-truth/):

One of the unfortunate things about the written word is that sometimes you are incapable of detecting sarcasm. This was the case when Lawrence O’Donnell, along with others in the media, erroneously reported as truth the few lines in Roger Simon‘s piece for POLITICO that Paul Ryan‘s nickname for Mitt Romney was “The Stench.” Last night, the blog for O’Donnell’s show posted an apology for the misreporting.


On the blog for The Last Word, it’s revealed that the show tried to book Simon for his segment, but he did not come on. They apologized for the mistake.

MSNBC: Long on crap. Short on facts. God forbid someone from this national news organization could've called the guy for verification of what he meant.

[dangolegators]

Makes me look less rational to who? You!?! LMAO! Haven't you ever heard the expression, "it takes one to know one"? So then...how would you know if I'm a rational person or not? :huh:

What happened to your promised evaluation of the other MSNBC clips? Which ones are you going to defend, by this network which you've already candidly admitted "sucks"? In other words, you actually agree with the premise of the thread but continue debating it anyway because you're obsessed with trying - vainly, as everyone can see - to show up the great American Gator who posted it.

By the way, I've insulted no one and therefore accept in advance your apology for your false accusation to that effect, just as I will accept river's if and when he eventually offers it. Like I always say, I'm a compassionate Conservative! :happy:

Yes, I have stated a few times now that I am no fan of MSNBC. They do tend to stoop to Fox's level. You are saying they are worse than Fox, which is what I disagree with. I'll get around to checking the other claims, but I've got a lot of work to do today, so you're going to have to settle down and show a little patience.

[neisgator]

Yes, I have stated a few times now that I am no fan of MSNBC. They do tend to stoop to Fox's level. You are saying they are worse than Fox, which is what I disagree with. I'll get around to checking the other claims, but I've got a lot of work to do today, so you're going to have to settle down and show a little patience.

Shocking that you don't pay attention. MSNB HEE HAW has more bias before 6am than Fox does all day

[MastaG8r]

I'll get around to checking the other claims, but I've got a lot of work to do today, so you're going to have to settle down and show a little patience. A right-click on your username reveals that your "lot of work" didn't preclude you from posting about 15 times after this one yesterday. However we're still on the edge of our seats awaiting the results of your investigation into the other examples of MSNBC's misleading broadcasting.

Meanwhile, sorry to add to your workload but here's yet another example of it to consider, from just yesterday:

MSNBC's Roberts Offers Misleading History on Plame Affair in Interview with Former CIA Operative (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/03/06/msnbcs-roberts-offers-misleading-history-plame-affair-interview-former)

"As we talk about history, today marks the 6-year anniversary that Scooter Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing in the leak investigation which led to your cover as a covert CIA operative being blown," MSNBC's Thomas Roberts noted at the close of his March 6 MSNBC Live interview with Valerie Plame. "We're getting word now that he has had his voting rights restored," the MSNBC anchor added. "How do you feel, as you look back, hindsight being 20/20, about what that moment in time did to your life, where you are today?"

Plame answered that she and her husband Joe Wilson "worked really hard to rebuild our lives" and that they "wish that there had been further repercussions," because, "The whole episode is just a small example of a larger pattern of behavior that we saw under the Bush administration."

But alas, speaking of history, this short exchange was a bit misleading for viewers as it was Colin Powell confidante Richard Armitage who had leaked Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak, albeit inadvertently.

From CNN.com on September 8, 2006 (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html):

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage acknowledged Thursday that he was the source who first revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak back in 2003, touching off a federal investigation.

Armitage told the CBS Evening News that he did so inadvertently.

"I feel terrible," Armitage said. "Every day, I think, I let down the president. I let down the secretary of state. I let down my department, my family, and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson."

In a column published on July 14, 2003, Novak, citing two senior administration officials, noted that Plame was a CIA operative. The column was primarily about Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, a former career diplomat and critic of the intelligence underlying the invasion of Iraq.
...

Armitage was not indicted by the federal grand jury that investigated the disclosure of Plame's name to Novak and other journalists. He told CBS that the special counsel investigating the leak, Patrick Fitzgerald, "asked me not to discuss this, and I honored his request."

Of course, Armitage was no booster of the Iraq War (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2006/10/20/8188/armitage-iraq-withdrawal/), which undercuts the whole faulty history that pins blame for the Plame outing on vindictive Bush administration war hawks. As to Scooter Libby's trial, the matter of Plame's covert status was not an issue at all, according to NBC News producer Joel Seidman in a May 29, 2007 post (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18924679/#.UTehmVeGNHs):

WASHINGTON — An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.
...

No one was ever charged with the leak of Plame's name itself, which would have been a crime only if someone knowingly gave out information about someone covered by a specific law protecting the identities of covert agents.

From the misleading way MSNBC's Thomas Roberts framed his comment and question to Plame, one would get the impression that Libby was the one who outed her as an agent and was jailed for doing it. Why no mention of Armitage's role? Because as noted by the author of the column above:

Armitage was no booster of the Iraq War (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2006/10/20/8188/armitage-iraq-withdrawal/), which undercuts the whole faulty history that pins blame for the Plame outing on vindictive Bush administration war hawks.

:roll: :no:

[dangolegators]

A right-click on your username reveals that your "lot of work" didn't preclude you from posting about 15 times after this one yesterday. However we're still on the edge of our seats awaiting the results of your investigation into the other examples of MSNBC's misleading broadcasting.


This is getting a little weird. Have I overtaken River as your greatest obsession here?

[rivergator]

This is getting a little weird. Have I overtaken River as your greatest obsession here?

good luck with that. it does get a little creepy.

[MastaG8r]

This is getting a little weird. Have I overtaken River as your greatest obsession here?Now that's rich. You follow me around from thread to thread, so determined to get my attention that you will argue with me even when I'm making a point that you agree with, and when I respond to your posts I am the one who's obsessed? LMAO! :laugh:

I am not the topic of this thread. The topic is, "MSNBC sucks."

I agree with Masta. MSNBC sucks.

Anything else to say about the topic, or is it going to be nothing but your obsessive personal invective from here on out? I'm not interested in giving any of the Mods a reason to lock the thread. Stick to the topic or bow out. I'd say bow out gracefully but obviously it's a little late for that.

[MastaG8r]

good luck with that. it does get a little creepy.Same goes for you. Stick to the topic or move along.

[dangolegators]

Masta, how many posts have I made so far today? I've lost track and since I know you keep up with these things, I thought I'd ask you.

[MastaG8r]

Masta, how many posts have I made so far today? I've lost track and since I know you keep up with these things, I thought I'd ask you.I don't know what your grand total is but in this thread, that's two in a row that are off-topic and purely personal in nature. Back in the day I received bannings for less. It's good to know that times have changed, I've always been in favor of loosening the rules against that sort of thing. :happy:

Anything else to say about the topic of the thread? You said earlier that you were going to review the other examples of MSNBC's misleading broadcasting. I think we are up to nine so far, or maybe ten?

[dangolegators]

From the misleading way MSNBC's Thomas Roberts framed his comment and question to Plame, one would get the impression that Libby was the one who outed her as an agent and was jailed for doing it. Why no mention of Armitage's role? Because as noted by the author of the column above:


You actually think this meets the criteria?

[vertigo0923]

i've always said:

< = msnbc
fox = >


why is this a surprise?

[MastaG8r]

You actually think this meets the criteria?Wellllllll actually when I came across that item yesterday and posted it, I sort of forgot that in this thread we'd been focusing on MSNBC'S deceptive use of video clips. So okay, it doesn't qualify as that. We'll file it under the broader category of deceptive or misleading broadcasting, but I'll grant you that it's not on par with the other examples posted here of doctored or misused video clips.

[Gator_Tom66]

You seriously won't acknowledge that Chris Matthews is biased and favors the Liberal viewpoint on nearly every political issue, if not every?


Of course Matthews is a flaming liberal and has been for some time now. A good comment or two about W or Rudy does nothing to diminish his hard left leanings.

[fredsanford]

. Of course Matthews is a flaming liberal and has been for some time now. A good comment or two about W or Rudy does nothing to diminish his hard left leanings.

Feel free to counter with anything a Fox host that is on the air after 4pm has said about Obama or any other prominent Dem.

So what if MSNBC is lib after dark? At least they are not a 24 hour opposition attack machine like Fox is during their day parts.

[Gator_Tom66]

Feel free to counter with anything a Fox host that is on the air after 4pm has said about Obama or any other prominent Dem.

So what if MSNBC is lib after dark? At least they are not a 24 hour opposition attack machine like Fox is during their day parts.

Fox leans right
MSNBC leans left
:laugh:

[MastaG8r]

Feel free to counter with anything a Fox host that is on the air after 4pm has said about Obama or any other prominent Dem.Ask and ye shall receive.

Bill O'Reilly is a FOX host who comes on the air every weeknight at 8 P.M.

Here are some things he had to say about Barack 0bama (http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=24183) after his first interview of him during the 2008 campaign:

Like him or not, you have to give Barack Obama credit for waging a smart, focused campaign. Destroying the Clinton machine was a major achievement and so was putting together a successful convention in Denver. Obama is now firmly a part of U.S. history, no matter what happens in the presidential election.
...

The Barack Obama I witnessed is self-confident, determined and driven. He was acutely aware of his surroundings from the moment he entered the room. He looks you in the eye and touches your shoulder. He understands how to connect one-on-one.
...

On the foreign policy front, Obama has convinced me that he is tough but cautious. He rose up quickly because he vehemently opposed the Iraq war. But now I see a man who understands the victory that has taken place in Iraq. I don't believe he wants to screw that up. I could be wrong.

After going mano-a-mano with Obama on television, I am also persuaded that he is a sincere guy-that he wants the best for all Americans. He's an ideologue, but not a blind one. He understands that his story is incredible, and, I have come to believe, he is grateful to the American system for allowing it happen.

It is true that we don't know whether Senator Obama has the ability to solve complex problems, but you can say that about all presidential contenders. Like most politicians, Obama has used guile and good luck to accumulate his power. He can be ruthless, kind, unfair, and generous. In short, he's a real person trying to achieve an unreal position-that of the most powerful person in the world. God help him.

Well? As Mr. O'Reilly would say...what say you, shabadoo?

[neisgator]

Ask and ye shall receive.

Bill O'Reilly is a FOX host who comes on the air every weeknight at 8 P.M.

Here are some things he had to say about Barack 0bama (http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=24183) after his first interview of him during the 2008 campaign:

Well? As Mr. O'Reilly would say...what say you, shabadoo?

You have a phone that calls outside of planet earth...??

[rivergator]

If you're looking for distortions. Anyone want to guess whether March last year was burning hot and this year freezing cold? The Fox graphic:


http://mediamatters.org/static/images/countyfair/fnc-cavuto-20130322-map.jpg

[DaveFla]

Huh?

[rivergator]

Huh?

Fox used two completely different types of maps. The one on the right shows the minimum temperature. You really figure that last March was over 100 degrees over much of the country?
The map on the left showed where temperatures were above average.
Showing two different types of maps makes it look like we just entered the ice age compared to last year so global warming must not be happening, right?


http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/dailywxmap/htmlimages/colormaxmin_20130320.gif

[oaklandroadie]

Meanwhile, on MSNBC's Morning Joe yesterday, host Al Sharpton and contributor Mike Barnicle openly stated opposition to Mayor Bloomberg's nanny state policies was due to anti-semitism on the right.

[citygator]

I work in a retail business that is entirely weather driven. I can tell you with certainty that the last two winters were very warm and dry as was last spring. This spring was much cooler. Three winters ago was one of the coldest and snowiest. What I have learned in over 20+ years of weather reliant business.... It is never an average season and always unpredictable. Anyone who interprets a year/season as a trend is crazy.

[rivergator]

Meanwhile, on MSNBC's Morning Joe yesterday, host Al Sharpton and contributor Mike Barnicle openly stated opposition to Mayor Bloomberg's nanny state policies was due to anti-semitism on the right.

That's not an opinion I would agree with. But the subject on this thread is more about distortion of fact, not opinions we disagree with.

[DaveFla]

Fox used two completely different types of maps. The one on the right shows the minimum temperature. You really figure that last March was over 100 degrees over much of the country?
The map on the left showed where temperatures were above average.
Showing two different types of maps makes it look like we just entered the ice age compared to last year so global warming must not be happening, right?


http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/dailywxmap/htmlimages/colormaxmin_20130320.gif

Again, Huh?

[DaveFla]

I saw no reference to ANY actual temperatures referred to in the FOX News screenshot you originally posted...

Looks like you are, again, trying to make something out of nothing...

[rivergator]

I saw no reference to ANY actual temperatures referred to in the FOX News screenshot you originally posted...

Looks like you are, again, trying to make something out of nothing...

The map on the right shows minimum temperatures for the month.

[DaveFla]

And?

[rivergator]

And?

you really need it explained again? in order to exaggerate the difference between this month and last March, Fox used two maps that reflected entirely different things.

If it ran the same kind of map for last year, it would have been this one. But that wouldn't have look as radically different. So it used one that didn't show minimum temperature, it used that showed other data.

http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/dailywxmap/htmlimages/colormaxmin_20120325.gif

[DaveFla]

you really need it explained again? in order to exaggerate the difference between this month and last March, Fox used two maps that reflected entirely different things.

If it ran the same kind of map for last year, it would have been this one. But that wouldn't have look as radically different. So it used one that didn't show minimum temperature, it used that showed other data.

http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/dailywxmap/htmlimages/colormaxmin_20120325.gif

That's a different chart then the one you originally bitched about...

Perhaps you should just provide me with the link to the MediaMatters story from which you received your marching orders? It seems that you may well have confused the issue...

[rivergator]

That's a different chart then the one you originally bitched about...

Perhaps you should just provide me with the link to the MediaMatters story from which you received your marching orders? It seems that you may well have confused the issue...

Yes, Dave. If you use a map for March 25 2012 using the same data as the one from March 25 2013, you will get a different map than the one Fox used.That's kind of the point.

[DaveFla]

Sounds like your beef is with the FOX graphics department... Or NOAA.

[DaveFla]

Ahhh, yes... Now HOW did I know this?

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/countyfair/fnc-cavuto-20130322-map.jpg

River... What makes you better/worse than the Faux Noise viewers you seem to be complaining about?

[rivergator]

Ahhh, yes... Now HOW did I know this?

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/countyfair/fnc-cavuto-20130322-map.jpg

River... What makes you better/worse than the Faux Noise viewers you seem to be complaining about?

that I can tell the two maps use completely different data and therefore are not comparable.

[rivergator]

And it just keeps rolling. Fox claims that gas guzzlers are leading the way in auto sales.

When news broke Tuesday that sales of full-sized truck were surging, Fox News seized the moment to conclude that Americans don't really care about fuel economy.

Stuart Varney of Fox Business asked if it was "time for Uncle Sam, maybe, to slam the brakes on those green car incentives." He said recent high gas prices could push people "into fuel-efficient cars, but they're not. They're going for gas guzzlers."

Varney's guest, Marc Morano, founder of ClimateDepot.com, piled on. "Despite the best efforts of the environmentalists, of government mandates and subsidies and discounts and tax breaks, the SUV and the gas guzzlers reign supreme in the American auto market. Which just says one simple thing: The Federal government, as all powerful as it likes to think, cannot mandate consumer choice."

There’s just one problem with this.

.link (http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-fox-business-gas-guzzlers-20130403,0,6024762.story)