When does 2+2=4 become debatable? When it's politics, stupid!

There was another interesting conversation on muchedumbre.com the other day. It started when a poster accidentally slipped into the politikal section, a section usually avoided by most because it’s a cesspool of insults,misinformation and retardation (which I say with love in my heart since I am swimming around in that cesspool with the rest of them). Upon realizing his error, he looked around and said..

“Yeah, I don’t understand how to play here yet.”

This was met with the humorous , yet essential, advice of…

You have to throw in the occassional [sic] Fuck Off! and then I think you’ll have it..



Anyone who is part of a community like ours, may  find the words crude, but they know the advice is integral.  It doesn’t matter how civil a debate starts, when two opposing figures meet, if one is bound by political party doctrine to ‘deny at all cost’, to live the motto of just say Hell No!’ it doesn’t matter if the other figure is is bound by the same codes as Tibetan Monks, there’s going to eventually be a ‘fuck you’ thrown into the debate.

It was this ‘field guide’ that brought about an insightful reply from Chuck, and I put it here because of the debate it produced. It is probably the most childish,ridiculous and asinine  debate ever held by adults, but once again.. when the party of ‘Hell NO!” meets anyone saying “uh, yes”  intelligence, logic, and reason is soon lost as you will soon see.

Quote from: uselesslegs on March 31, 2010, 02:40:42 PM

Maybe I can explain it a little bit with some other happenings around the U.S.  Though they may seem very direct and to the point and not as “left to interpretation”…well…let’s start.

Item One.

Recently Scott Brown, newly elected Senator from Mass, has said and suggested that MSNBC host Rachael Maddow is going to run against him during reelections.  Through sources on his end, he’s said that she’s “secretly” gathering up steam and will file and run.  Maddow has stated on her show she is not running, has no intention of it.

End of story right?  Nopey.

Scott Brown was asked on a radio show, following Maddow’s statement,  what he thought of her statement that she wasn’t going to run.  He replied, without ever saying, “well, I guess that changes things, har har”, and instead replied, “mumble mumble….bring it on.”  Implying that he still believed she was indeed going to run and that he was ready for her.

Next Maddow, with her own money, took out a front page ad (in the area of interests) newspaper calling Scott Brown a liar and that she was definitely, emphatically, not running.  She had/has no desire to run and that this was getting silly and to quit saying or implying she was running and using her name to collect campaign donations from individuals, with a lie.

His reply?  He said her front page newspaper statement looked like it came straight from one of the writers at the DNC and that he thought Maddow would make an interesting candidate.  Thus never admitting that he (Mr. Brown) was in error and making sure to twice “imply” through his choice of words, that Ms. Maddow was and STILL IS a candidate.

Item two.

Nine members of a Michigan Militia group were arrested and charged with plotting to kill a law enforcement officer and then many others with homemade bombs, in hopes of starting an uprising against the Government…oh and to battle with the anti-christ.

You would think across the Blogosphere and forums alike, we’d see the individuals involved being denounced…but not so fast mister fancy pants…they’re being defended.  Not by seemingly other milita groups or like minded individuals…but rather…by individuals who are making sure to note that anything this current Government/Administration does is to be suspect and dubious.

You’d think something like this would be pretty cut and dry.  Wanna kill law enforcement officers, check.  Wanna kill many more people with homemade bombs, check.  Wanna be prepared and kill the anti-christ, check.  What is our governments REAL agenda here, che…what?

What you will find, in your journey here, will be two sides to the same coin, almost constantly at odds.  Oft times from political stances.  Oft times from personal interpretations…or both.

It’s the only place in the universe where 2+2 is debatable.

Welcome aboard, you poor fucker.


More than just being explanatory of today’s political world and how truth is ignored for rhetoric and whatever can incite the masses against any opposition, one part of that sticks out as so true it’s scary.

It’s the only place in the universe where 2+2 is debatable.


You would think adults all across the political spectrum could agree on that elementary concept, but they don’t. Because one side of the political spectrum has made it their goal for at least 4 years, to oppose anything coming from the current administration, 2+2 does not equal 4 if this administration or anyone speaking in favor of this administration is the one saying it. The Maddow/Brown debate is a perfect instances in a long, long list of other equally amazing 2+2 does not equal 4 examples. The fact that Ms. Maddow has said on her show, said in interviews, taken out a full page add to alert the world of the simple fact that unequivocally and emphatically she is not running against Scott Brown doesn’t matter to the party of “Hell NO!” because to them, 2+2 is not 4 and it is Scott Brown’s 2+2=3 equation that is the fundamental truth here.

The argument that this ‘2+2=4’ statement caused, ended up twisting logic until it no longer resembled its former self.  Some where along the way ‘fact’ became, and  is now, interchangeable with opinion,rumor and gossip.

Here’s an example

Keith Olbermann is biased and does slant opinions against the Right. But that does not mean he is making the news up and reporting his ‘rumor’ as fact. He may not focus on an issue like when a Democrat is caught having an affair with his mistress but he will spend 1/2 his show telling you about a Republican getting caught having an affair with his chief of staffs wife. Slanted, yes! but it is still based on the fact that the Republican did sleep with his chief of staffs wife. That nugget is truthful and not an opinion to be batted around until it becomes a truth in the eyes of the viewers[insert Obama not of US birth] .  Keith Olbermann, no matter how biased he is, is still telling you the truth when he’s telling you the Republican slept with his COS wife.

2+2=4

This goes unnoticed because those who want to de-legitimize everything even remotely ‘Left’, stick to their guns with the idea that since Olbermann is truthful in his bias , then so is Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck who made the opinionated allegation, without a basis in fact, that this President was an white-hating racist, is telling the truth and is delivering a fact because Olbermann reported more on the Republican than he did the Democrat. What’s worse, Beck has spent so much time repeating this concept that it’s believed by 31% of those polled. They can’t differentiate the difference in a “liberal news show’ talking more about a factual Republican scandal is not on the same untruthful level as another show presenting their opinions as facts until they become believed as the almighty truth. It is a ‘tit for tat’ that they just don’t get. Sure the Liberals and Democrats opposed George Bush, but when you look at why it’s not like they were wrong for opposing him. The US just does not torture or we just don’t preemptively  invade countries.. These are real,honest,valid and acceptable differences to have. Not liking the amount of time President Obama uses a teleprompter is just as valid of a complaint, saying he is therefore  unable to run the country, is not!

And yet, like everything else, that statement is somehow debatable…

So, back to my fundamental question, what is the arguement [sic] to believe 1 biased source but not another?


Fox news,most of the GOP,Sarah Palin and followers,Tea-party members along with the most if not all of the rest of the people trying to de-legitimize the other side of the aisle, have decided that their opinions and allegations are just as reliable as being truthful as actual facts given by an ‘enemy source’ whether that be MSNBC,Jon Stewart,President Obama,any Democrat leader or any left-leaning person out there.
When anyone tries to point this inaccuracy out, either they really can’t understand the concept that opinion is not fact and fact is not fiction if it’s told by liberal, or they just don’t care because their hate knows no bounds. Either way  they revert back to the concept of

You deem you are the ultimate say so on who is saying 1+1 = 2. And, incidentally enough, all the people you like get it right, and all the people you don’t like don’t get it right.

You are trying to process all this inside your own bias.

Your main problem, is you refuse to believe the bias of the broadcasters

Only when you understand that can you even begin to answer my question: How can we believe the truth when it comes from a biased source?


In order for me to understand, I need to believe Glenn Becks opinion that Obama is a white-hating racist.. when I accept this as truth, then I can see that  fact given by a biased reporter and opinion given by Fox News are the same thing.

2+2 =4 is now debatable and depending on where you ‘lean’ is what your answer is. Keith Olbermann, because he is biased and gives more time to Republican scandals, is not factually correct when he tells you the answer is 4 unless you also recognize that Glenn Beck telling you the answer is 3 is also correct because they are both biased. So either both are to be believed or neither are.

I told you this was going to be childish,ridiculous and asinine.

This argument of ‘slant and bias’ not affecting the actual truth is a fair point though.  You can have a conservative explain  a factual event and a liberal  explain  the same event and while the reasoning behind the event may be slanted and bias, that doesn’t change the facts of the event.  2 maybe a sissy-boy who liked to play with dolls growing up to the conservatives or 2 might have been a devoted pet-lover with a deep seeded love for parrots, but when added together 2 +2 is still going to equal 4.

It’s not that I am deeming only those I agree with as being ‘factual’ or that I disbelieve the other broadcasters, say Fox News, because of their bias.  It’s just that I deem those reporting  actual truths as being better than those reporting opinion as truth and that is the slight, but albeit glaring difference here.

Fox News is in the habit of reporting an opinion in a way that by the end of the day you can barely distinguish where opinion stops and fact starts and thus the opinion they started off with becomes as commonly accepted as the factual concept of gravity. For example, remember the ‘Czars’ Fox News went apoplectic on?

Obama’s Czars Spark Concerns Among Some Lawmakers

Although former U.S. attorney Alan Bersin and the late Russian ruler Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov appear to have nothing in common, thanks to President Obama, they now share a title.

The slant of the headline and first paragraph, makes it seem like the 1st time a head of a department was ever called ‘Czar’ was under President Obama.  Then there is the slant of the story itself

Czardom does not sit well with Sen. Robert Byrd. Though slowed by age, the West Virginia Democrat remains vigorous in his defense of the powers ceded to the Congress by the Constitution. He said he believes czars are a slick way of governing without having to answer to Congress.

There is no constitutional requirement that czars undergo those pesky Senate confirmation hearings.

Yes, those ‘pesky’ Senate confirmations.

If you watched Fox News during this “Fox News made up conspiracy” you would have thought Red Dawn was no longer fiction and we had been invaded by Russians, and with good reason! Glenn Beck let us know that President Obama, just a few short months into his 1st year, had 19 Czars and counting, compared to only 4 Czars in all of George Bush’s time. A month later, Greta Van Susteren  let us know that number had climbed to 30, she also raised the number of George Bush’s number of Czars from Beck’s 4 to 12. Who wouldn’t look at that and wonder, after being told how Communist President Obama was, what the hell was going on. The problem is, by most counts George Bush has 36 Czars filled by 46 different people. That’s a grand difference than Beck’s 4 and Greta’s 12. But this bad information was propagated day and night throughout the Fox News  “Fair and Balanced” 24 hour rotations.

If you had listened to Fox and Friends during the run up to the election,  you would have heard how then Senator Obama had tired of being asked whether or not he was Muslim and had said “Enough already. There’s nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but I have been a Christian for two decades now. Enough!”

When in fact, what he said was that he had been a Christian his entire life.

Does anyone remember the ‘indoctrinating our youth’ hoopla made up by Fox News?

Critics Decry Obama’s ‘Indoctrination’ Plan for Students

Which of course led to Fox’s next big question

Will You Keep Your Kids Home the Day Obama Speaks to Schools?”



That was answered with a “yes, yes we will”. But why wouldn’t they, here is a former Muslim, who is turning this country communist, all you have to do is look at his ‘Czar’ list to see that… This “Unprecedented’…  ‘First time ever’ talk to school children is something all parents should fear.

Except it was not ‘unprecedented’. It was not the first time it’s been done, Republican Presidents have done it before.

What about this symbol?

Missle Defense Agencys Web site featires a new red,white and blue logo-described as scarily similar to Obamas campaign logo, as well as the symbol of Islam

Missile Defense Agency's Web site features a new red,white and blue logo-described as 'scarily' similar to Obama's campaign logo, as well as the symbol of Islam

Fox didn’t let the fact that this symbol was chosen more than 3 years ago interfere with informing you of how Islam was coming for America, while Rachael Maddow spent her time thoroughly de-bunking this myth before it could make it into another Fox-made rumor turned into fact. Unfortunately it made it’s way throughout the blog-sphere anyway, even with the original blogger retracting his accusation .

At 2200 words I realize that I could spend ten times that amount just on examples of this idea  that Fox News takes rumor and allegation and reports them like they are fact until they become unquestionable fact, but those who would read it all already agree and those who don’t agree wouldn’t care if I spent 1 million words and 10 times a many examples.

Those of us who do agree  don’t just ‘deem worthy’ those who are speaking for our political side, we deem worthy those who speak the truth instead of made up rumors. That is the difference,  we chose to believe the ones who tell us 2+2=4,  because  they’re telling us fact. We chose them over those telling us 2+2=7 because they don’t like the ‘lame stream media’, liberals and this President saying otherwise.

You don’t have to take my opinion that Fox news has a problem with facts. (R) James Coburn echoed the same sentiment the other day. At a town hall meeting he said..

Sen. Coburn: “I want to tell you, I do a lot or reading every say and I”m disturbed that we get things like what this lady said [a women had questioned him on people being jailed for not having healthcare, which he flatly denied and said it made good TV on Fox to say this, but it just wasn’t true] and others have said on other issues that are so disconnected from what I know to the facts. And that comes from somebody who has an agenda that’s other than the best interest of our country. And so please balance and be careful


He implored people to not to be biased by Fox news.

And what we have to have is make sure we have a debate in this country so that you can see what’s going on and make the determination yourself. So, don’t catch yourself being biased by Fox News that somebody’s no good.

David Frum, he’s a pretty big deal in the land of conservatives, said a few weeks ago,

Frum: “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox.”

He was called into the bosses office the next morning and fired, but he says it wasn’t because of what he said.  Frum also posted a blog saying…

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead.

Just the other day, Frum said

“Fox, like [Rush] Limbaugh has been pushing the Republicans to the margins, making people angry,…”




The agenda for Fox News is not the agenda of the United States, but the viewers have been lead by Fox news and others like them to believe that it is. Fox News is the business to get ratings which equals money, to do this they must stand out above all the other news programs, to do that they have to have a ‘shtick’ and they do. They ask a question or comment a rumor, they revert back to that ‘rumor’  throughout the day until the opposition is asked about said rumor, and their denial of the rumor is aired, and that’s when the rumor turns into fact.

Example

I heard the Seth Nobody liked to play with dolls when he was a little boy” a commentator on the early morning says.

“Is that so?” says the co-host? “Well Bob, drop that doll and tell us what the weather’s like outside”

Later in the day, on another gossip labeled “News”  show on the same network this rumor pops up again,

“I don’t know where I heard this, but you know Seth Nobody played with barbies as a boy”

to which the co-host replies

“Well that would explain why he dresses so good.”

Before 24 hour news, that might go on for a day or so.. but now, it only takes hours until  you will get a “journalist” from the same network asking someone in charge, or even another reporter on his show.. “People are saying Seth played with girls dolls as a child, do you think he should really be in charge of the more manly dolls like GI Joe?”

Now that this ‘rumor’ is gaining interest, because we all like the salacious more than the mundane.. other, more reputable news outlet being to report,

“Today Seth Nobody denied he liked to play with dolls as a child”

and viola.. Seth, who supported single payer insurance, started off his morning as a normal guy with just a different political view; but by the end of the day he became a ratings horse for a money and political power-hungry gossip labeled “News” network. Poor Seth is now a freak who played with dolls. This is planted and replanted throughout the cycle until it spreads through the viewers and becomes  a known fact to them.Normal, upstanding liberal political leader Seth is just a queer-bait who cross-dresses at night when he’s home alone. You don’t want to vote with him do you?

You can see this process in action here..

Ignoring all the other examples in this interview, when the interviewer gets to the question about VP Biden’s comment of how the US will be tested under OBama, look at the bias that brings an utter falsehood into the world of facts as we know them today…

“..are you forewarning Americans that nothing will be done and that America’s days as the world’s leading power are over?”

Well, no.. no he isn’t. That’s just your biased making things up and unfortunately getting too many people to believe you.

Of course we go back to the other ‘fear’ rumor which has made into a ‘fact’ that too many in this country believe as God’s honest truth.. Socialism

“What do you say to the people who say Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?”

The only people who were saying that was that interviewer, Fox News who wants rating and candidates who want power. It started as a fear technique to scare people out of voting for him, then it was passed around by the gossiping hens on Fox News, then their ‘journalists’ reported that all important  “People are asking….” it became not just news, but fact. William Randolph Hearst did this and it worked to make him rich just like it’s making Murdoch,Beck,Palin, Hannity and many others filthy stinking rich. Don’t believe me? Do you know what Rush Limbaugh gets for telling you these things?$400 million dollars!

Nah, he has no motive to make his show more interesting and keep his numbers up.

How about if they tell you themselves it’s all about the money, and controversy means cash.. would that change anyone’s perspective that they aren’t hearing truths, but what will make the person speaking more money?

With a deadpan, Beck insists that he is not political: “I could give a flying crap about the political process.” Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. “We’re an entertainment company,” Beck says. He has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth.

They are an ‘entertainment company’, and yet they’ve been able to convince most of the viewing population that they are the most trusted name in news. How is that even possible? Their goal is new entertainment and ratings.

As I said a few hundred words ago, I could go on and on, I could provide 1000’s of examples.. but those who would read it all already agree and those who don’t agree wouldn’t care if I spent 1 million words and 10 times a many examples, but in my quest.. I found an interesting ‘beginning’. Yes, the seeds were already there.. one only had to follow the 2008 campaign trail to see it, but something about this struck me like an “AHA! Here is where it really started to become true!” Because I think that up until that point, even with those at the town-meetings believing the rhetoric, it was still mainly a rumor. Until this broadcast sealed the rumor as truth forever. I found it on a blog called JOTMAN.COM. On this is site ‘Jotman’  has 3 videos shot the night of President Obama’s election win. One video is actually from Fox news the following morning showing a crowd of people at the gates of the White House, the broadcaster comments that they are probably drunk, her opinion of course,  and then she draws your attention to the flag someone in the crowd raises, it is the Russian  Communist flag. The Broadcaster is of course curious and wants this watched because ‘what does it mean?”, is it a sign?, do we need to fear this newly elected President or something just as ridiculous.

The second video is reportedly shot from inside the White House that same night, it’s the same crowd cheering at the gates, the man in the video sees the cheering and the flag and he is scared. As he says these  are  people coming out for Obama and cheering the fact that this country is going to change.. he just can’t believe what he is seeing. There is pushing and shoving, look there is the communist flag again, and torches! they’re all over the place it’s so ominous … it’s chaos!

Until you watch the video from the street.

The third video shows the crowd laughing,cheering,smiling and yes.. Chanting.

For the land of  the free….. and the home of the… Braaaaavvveeee!!!

Not to mention USA!USA!USA!USA!USA!

The horror!

Yes, there is the commie flag.. but instead of asking what the flag meant Fox News decided it meant communism was here and they must fight it every step of the way. Fox news knew that morning, like the mornings after every election there was bound to be some pretty pissed off people and they were going to stir up that emotion and bank it. That story was the perfect one to drop the ‘Hearst’ seed and watch it grow. It was  visual proof and with just the right question put to it, maybe another mention of it later, until finally reporting on as a fact in the later broadcasts, President Obama becomes an elected Communist .There was no need for anyone to hear the crowd, the silent view of it  with the added speculation would serve quit nicely. Those watching Fox that segment wouldn’t hear the glee and love for their country coming from that crowd, instead they would see a possibly drunken presence cheering the fact that communism has now come to America when she elected an Communist, Marxist, Socialist the night before. Before long Glen Beck would confirm their other fear, the fear that this  new president also hated white people.

We’ll never know what the flag meant one way or the other, we have video of the overwhelming happiness and pride in the country though, so to me it reinforces the rules of any political debate and that is  …It doesn’t matter how civil a debate starts, when two opposing figures meet no matter if the figures are bound by the same codes as Tibetan Monks there is going to eventually be a ‘fuck you’ thrown into the debate and to me, this was just a big Fuck you along with a cheerful  goodbye to the despotic  way the country was run for 8 very long years!

Of course this all just my opinion, not a fact and it’s because I know the difference that I deem others who also know the difference to be more worthy of my trust that those who don’t.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Advertisements

14 responses to “When does 2+2=4 become debatable? When it's politics, stupid!

  • Howey

    By far your best blog yet, ekg! Congratulations!

    There’s a few simple differences between those who watch Fox “News”, Rush, Beck, and on a far lower level, WFTV’s personal pruneface, Barbara West (who’s husband, I understand, used to be a Republican community organizer).

    When we watch MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, or Keith Olberman we listen. Then we make an intelligent choice based upon what we hear. We don’t need them to tell us what to think, what to believe, or what 2+2 equals. We’re smart enough to come to that conclusion on our own.

    The other guys? Those who watch Fox “News”, Rush, Beck, Matlin, et al?

    They lack the intelligence to cohesively formulate their own conclusion and therefore rely on the disinformation furnished to them and mimic those they listen to.

  • ekg

    There is some truth to that Howie.. Some people need the story and the opinion given to them because they want to be a part of the ‘conversation’ only they don’t know how to feel about this,that, or the other.

    But the problem we’re seeing.. is that they aren’t getting ‘news’ chopped up and fed to them in easy to understand points.. they are getting an opinion fed to them that is back up by a made up rumor or fear-message that’s being called ‘news’ and they simply don’t know the difference..

  • uselesslegs

    People seem to think, purposely or otherwise, that there’s a “same difference”. “Well, you’re side does it too!”, with regards to opinion spun into presentable fact/’s.

    I think there’s a major difference, of the most obvious kind, when one news sources *inaccuracies* lead to apologies for a name mispronunciation…or correctly re-stating the source that originally provided the material for the story as opposed to…

    …NOT correcting or apologizing…for say…continuous stories that deal directly with a video tape and it’s producer that shows the corruption of an organization…that in reality turns out to be heavily edited. Nor acknowledging that the producer blatantly lied about their participation in making said expose’. Said news outlet might indeed have been mislead, but not to make amends to it’s viewers, via apologies and corrections concerning the new revelations, but rather to completely ignore the item that they spent SO MUCH TIME ON (ungodly amounts of time) and NOT have the candor to acknowledge the new turn of events, demonstrates a purposeful level of complicity towards an end that the *news source* has in mind.

    Or say misrepresenting a defense missile shield emblems new design as *possibly* having other ties/meanings than what is actually presented…and when called on it…moving quickly past *the story* without so much as an honest correction to the piece.

    Integrity it seems, takes a back seat to agendas.

    The truly sad thing is that there are more examples of this kind of *reporting* and *stories* than should be tolerated by any organization or outlet that is suppose to report *news* to it’s audience.

    To say, “well, there’s obviously a want for this type of broadcasting or it wouldn’t exist”, doesn’t excuse the purposeful misconduct of individuals and organizations who are EXPECTED, because of the hat they wear, to deliver unbiased “facts” period. There is no harm in having a slant, a lean. Most individuals have one way or another that they view the world, via politics, religion, personal upbringing, lifestyle…we’re a very opinionated species and we tend to gravitate towards those and things that best share our conceptions/reality.

    But when that lean is specifically catered to, to such an extent, as to intentionally skewer facts, whether by not presenting ALL the facts or offering up opinions proceeding a story you intend to do later so that by the time you present the piece the *opinion* is as much a part of the story as the fact and NOW has a purposeful anticipated affect on the *facts*…it’s a real slap to and maligning of what journalism is suppose to represent.

    Facts are boring, I get that. Facts, in and of themselves, are neutral in their delivery and don’t always cater to ones view or stance. But just because they are often not flavored in the way we’d prefer, does not and should not mean it becomes completely acceptable to drown them in the opinion/’s of choice, to make them more palatable.

    Msnbc may be hype. They’re definitely left leaning, but, I defy ANYONE to show me where they have ever purposely or knowingly presented MAJOR news gaffs or even minor to work in tandem with their more democratic stance.

    See, here’s the difference. They deliver the news (facts) and then talk about it. They do not impose their opinions OVER the facts, to *change* the facts. The facts remain the same, whether to their liking or their disdain. They may try to find a lean while talking about something that doesn’t benefit their stance or preference, but I have yet to ever catch them *change facts* to support their talk show hosts opinions.

    So while they may be, to some, a dirt footed hippie socialist loving network, I again defy ANYONE to show me where they purposely or knowingly deliver skewed facts to support a preferred opinion. You can’t do it. Whether you like them or hate them. You cannot show purposeful intent to bastardize *facts* to favor talking points.

    Oh and when they mispronounce a name? They apologize, they don’t giggle and spout, “yuck yuck, or however you say it…who has a name like that anyway? yuck yuck.” Classy.

  • Sam

    OK Chuck, challenge accepted.

    How about this, MSNBC runs a story about ‘white people showing up with guns” outside an Obama rally in Arizona. Emphasis on “white people”

    The problem is, they show a gun with a assault rifle.

    OMG, a guy with a Machine gun! He must be someone there to Hurt the President. They even mention hate groups!

    The accompanying story is about the ‘racial overtones’ of this.

    “Here you have a man of color as the President and white people showing up with guns”

    Emphasis on “white people showing up with gun”

    There is a big problem. They only ever show 1 man with a gun. And, turns out, the man carrying the gun… is black.

    In fact, I would argue, they purposely don’t show the man skim and mention “white people with guns”. The only thing a logical person could conclude is that they just showed a white person with a gun. Actually guns plural.

    Here is more video of our assault carrying gunmen, and showing he is obviously a black man.

    Unless I’ve missed MSNBC apologizing and recanting the story, this is 2 + 2 = 5.

    I’ve never argued 2 + 2 = 4 was wrong, I’ve only ever said MSNBC tells you 2 + 2 = 5.

    The lady who misleads you is Contessa Brewer

    According to MSNBC’s bio, she is a veteran television journalist, Contessa Brewer is a widely-recognized anchor on msnbc.

    MSNBC News Ancor: “2 + 2 = 5”

  • ekg

    who are you saying made it all up? MSNBC or the AP

    http://ktar.com/?sid=1200460&nid=6

    Man carries assault rifle at Obama protest
    by Associated Press (August 17th, 2009 @ 12:58pm)
    PHOENIX – About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday – the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

    seems like there were people carrying guns.. maybe you just don’t get the idea that reporting someone carrying a gun, when they are carrying a gun.. is true..

    and I’m reading the MSNBC headline on that youtube and it says MAN BRINGS ASSAULT RIFLE TO RALLY OUTSIDE PRESIDENT SPEECH

    did he? uh yeah..

    the accompanying story on black vs white is opinion, but the fact remains people did bring guns and a man did bring an assault gun..

    so what apology do you want? you were told the truth.. 9 seconds into the video..

    A man at pro-health care reform rally…”

    not a ‘black man’..

    the next ‘spliced in’ (btw, ironic that you’re debating this using obviously edit for slant news, I know you did it on purpose to prove your point and you just hoped no one would notice, but I did) msnbc clip is talking about the fact that people showed up with guns.. which is backed by AP and the secret service.. and then they talk about the race card..

    there were guns at some rallies.. and whites were bringing them..

    and the President is black..

    and since they didn’t do it when the President was white.. the obvious Race question will be asked..

    so nice try.. but you fail. you weren’t lied to until you believed someone else’s spliced,diced and edited coverage

  • Sam

    MSNBC didn’t talk about a white man, and show a video of a black man (that conspicuously didn’t show any skin) to make it appear that black man was white?

    Did white people show up with guns to protest? Sure.

    Was the guy in the MSNBC video a black man and refereed to as “white people”?

    Absolutely.

    I’m not discussing if white people brought guns to rallies. That wasn’t my point. The topic isn’t racial issue and guns at protest, the topic is truth in reporting.

    I’m proving a very specific example of where MSNBC was not exactly being honest and skewing the video to further their agenda.

    The broader context of whites with guns at rallies is irrelevant to the question of if MSNBC was truthful in the presentation of the video.

    To me, Dan Rather style [the facts are real even if the report was a reprint] proves my point.

    What’s my point? MSNBC as a news organization has a bias and does in fact provide 2 + 2 = 5.

    The video I provided (context aside) is an example of purposeful smearing of facts.

    I’m not hear to debate with you. If you think what I posted wasn’t real, there isn’t much I can do about it.

    That’s all I got. I’ll read your rebuttal (I’m sure it’s coming) and allow everyone to make their minds up from the information supplied.

    In your rebuttal, hopefully you’ll answer a few questions:

    1. Does the MSNBC video ever imply that “white people” show up with guns and does it ever mention that a black man did too?

    2. Did MSNBC ever disclose that the person shown in the video (from the protest) was black?

    3. Why doesn’t MSNBC show the complete person (skin color and all)

    Thanks for your time.

  • uselesslegs

    Easy enough Sam. There was a slant, I never said in my comments that Msnbc or others are devoid of such. You’d have to be blind to miss it.

    Which story would you like me to address? The snippet of the guy in Rhode Island with a gun at a health gathering…or the story edited into the same clip addressing the multiple people at a health gathering in Arizona,
    with guns, and one of those individuals is black?

  • Howey

    Gosh…considering the MSNBC video didn’t show the man’s face or anything…maybe the folks in the newsroom didn’t know the guy was a black Teabagger?

    If anything, it’s a simple error on the newcaster’s part, not another big conspiracy.

    But thanks for trying to play with the elites, Sam!

  • ekg

    Did white people show up with guns to protest? Sure.

    then you weren’t lied to..

    and show me the unedited version of that news.. because a cpl days before that incident, in New Hampshire there was a white man at another ally (pic’s already been given).. were they talking about the New Hampshire person AND the dozen Arizona gun totters in combination? you don’t know do you? Why not? Because the clip is edited and spliced together to make something it’s not..

    Christ, just because I clip together 100 GWB clips and make him say “I’m a homosexual who plays with dolls” doesn’t make it true.. and that’s what your clip is doing…your clip is the smear and using it a some kind of proof is dishonest..

  • uselesslegs

    Excuse me, I meant New Hampshire, not Rhode Island.

  • uselesslegs

    How come it always seem that when a Democrat is in office (President) we’re all unsafe and only a minority of people are true, patriotic Americans…

    …And when a Republican is in office, it’s the same mentality, but more civil?

    I might add, it was the Republicans who championed the rights of slaves to be free and many other progressive stanced, corporate controlling mechanisms to the protest of the Democrats.

    My…how times have changed.

  • Bat Boy journalism and Fox News.. | The Velvet StraitJacket

    […] I said in the blog,  ‘When does 2+2=4 become debatable? When it’s politics, stupid!” ,  Fox News adds 2+2 and comes up with 7. As if that wasn’t bad enough they get people to […]

add to the dis-order

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: