Michelle Malkin caught telling an untruth

Nova Land

/
Tagger
N
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
6,015
Location
Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Taylor Marsh has an interesting blog entry about Michelle Malkin being careless with the facts regarding a Hillary Clinton speech.

Marsh quotes Malkin as saying:

We've captured and posted the video of Hillary getting booed as she asks progressives to support the troops...
Click to expand...
And she quotes Bryan Preston (aka "Hot Air") as saying:

Plus, the lefties can’t hear, either. Because Hillary did get booed when she said we need to support the troops. You fellas can spin it all you want, but it’s on the tape.
Click to expand...
Except, according to Marsh, that is not what is on the actual tape of the speech.

In the speech, Hillary says: "I do not think it is a smart strategy ... for the President to continue with his open-ended commitment ... nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain.” At this point, members of the audience begin heckling her ("Why not?) and booing loudly. Hillary continues speaking, calling for people to support our troops in Iraq, but her voice is largely drowned out by the booing.

Hot Air spins this as " Hillary! says we should support our troops…and the leftwingers in the audience boo her", and Michelle Malkin echoes this distortion of the facts in her blog. But the booing is in response to Hillary's opposition to setting a timetable for withdrawal -- not in response to her call to support the troops.

I haven't read much of Taylor Marsh, so don't know what her own record for avoiding spin is, but this entry in her blog puts her on my list of people to check out when time permits. Just as it is important for skeptics to help point out paranormalist spin, and to promote straight speaking on claims of the paranormal, so it is importants for skeptics to point out political spin and to promote straightforward reporting on political matters.

It should not matter whether a speaker or writer agrees with us and is promoting a cause we support or disagrees with us and is promoting a cause we oppose. As skeptics, we need to encourage people to hold politicians and pundits to a higher standard than our society is currently tolerating.
 
Nova Land said:
In the speech, Hillary says: "I do not think it is a smart strategy ... for the President to continue with his open-ended commitment ... nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain.” At this point, members of the audience begin heckling her ("Why not?) and booing loudly. Hillary continues speaking, calling for people to support our troops in Iraq, but her voice is largely drowned out by the booing.

Hot Air spins this as " Hillary! says we should support our troops…and the leftwingers in the audience boo her", and Michelle Malkin echoes this distortion of the facts in her blog. But the booing is in response to Hillary's opposition to setting a timetable for withdrawal -- not in response to her call to support the troops.
Click to expand...
Italics mine. Wouldn't you agree that it would be fairer to say that the booing started in response to her opposition to setting a timetable, and increased in intensity when she called on people to support the troops?
 
BPSCG said:
Italics mine. Wouldn't you agree that it would be fairer to say that the booing started in response to her opposition to setting a timetable, and increased in intensity when she called on people to support the troops?
Click to expand...
Not what it says.
 
Last edited:
The tape clearly shows that the booing started when Clinton asserted that setting a date for withdrawal is not stragically smart AND continued as she called for support of the troops. Whether the booing increased or not really isn't relevant. There are two possibilities: Either the booing continued because the booers, in there zeal to express their cut and run position, could not hear Clinton's request to support the troops OR they actually were booing her request to support the troops. Neither choice, IMO, makes them look particularly good. It makes the Dems look divided, which they are, and it makes them look very uncivil. They can't even keep their rudeness in check long enough to allow their own potential candidate for President to speak.

To say though, that Malkin's description of this incident is an untruth is, also IMO, a stretch.
 
BPSCG said:
Italics mine. Wouldn't you agree that it would be fairer to say that the booing started in response to her opposition to setting a timetable, and increased in intensity when she called on people to support the troops?
Click to expand...


No! I have to ask what you are smoking? There are TWO clips on her web site. Support the troops gets a call of "Bring them home", and the no timetable statment gets booed. One did not follow the other.


You can watch the whole boring thing here

http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/..._06/TBA_Hillary_Clinton_06_13_06.wmv/play.asx

Daredelvis
 
DaChew said:
The tape clearly shows that the booing started when Clinton asserted that setting a date for withdrawal is not stragically smart AND continued as she called for support of the troops. Whether the booing increased or not really isn't relevant. There are two possibilities: Either the booing continued because the booers, in there zeal to express their cut and run position, could not hear Clinton's request to support the troops OR they actually were booing her request to support the troops. Neither choice, IMO, makes them look particularly good. It makes the Dems look divided, which they are, and it makes them look very uncivil. They can't even keep their rudeness in check long enough to allow their own potential candidate for President to speak.

To say though, that Malkin's description of this incident is an untruth is, also IMO, a stretch.
Click to expand...



You did not watch the clips.

Daredelvis
 
daredelvis said:
No! I have to ask what you are smoking?
Click to expand...
I only heard a brief clip on the car radio yesterday and frankly didn't pay much attention to specifically what level of booing accompanied which statement. My earlier post was in response to the OP, which strongly suggested heckling started when she said she opposed setting a withdrawal date, and got louder, drowning her out, when she said we should support the troops. I'll listen to "the whole boring thing" when I get a chance.
You can watch the whole boring thing here

http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/lnk/va90win15107/blog_channel/june_06/TBA_Hillary_Clinton_06_13_06.wmv/play.asx
Click to expand...
Not at work I can't.
 
daredelvis said:
You did not watch the clips.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...

In fact I have seen the clips. That was my impression of the incident. If you have evidence that I have not seen the clips I suggest you present it both here and the JREF as proof that you are psychic.
 
BPSCG said:
I only heard a brief clip on the car radio yesterday and frankly didn't pay much attention to specifically what level of booing accompanied which statement. My earlier post was in response to the OP, which strongly suggested heckling started when she said she opposed setting a withdrawal date, and got louder, drowning her out, when she said we should support the troops. I'll listen to "the whole boring thing" when I get a chance.
Not at work I can't.
Click to expand...
I understand. The OP was about the Malkin spin on the event. I can safely say that if you get a chance to see it you will agree that her take is total B.S..

Sorry if I was a little out of line with the "smoking" comment. I just react a little strongly to the suggestion that those on the left, or those aginst the war are "against the troops".

Daredelvis
 
DaChew said:
In fact I have seen the clips. That was my impression of the incident. If you have evidence that I have not seen the clips I suggest you present it both here and the JREF as proof that you are psychic.
Click to expand...
Your description of what the tape "clearly shows" is all the proof that I need.

Daredelvis
 
From what I've seen in the video, Malkin got it wrong.

However, when Hillary made the comment about supporting the troops you could hear a pin drop in that place. imo, their silence spoke louder than any boos possibly could have.
 
Typical hit rhetoric.

Malkin, Coulter, Crush Bimbo, Rover ....
 
DaChew said:
The tape clearly shows that the booing started when Clinton asserted that setting a date for withdrawal is not stragically smart AND continued as she called for support of the troops. Whether the booing increased or not really isn't relevant. There are two possibilities: Either the booing continued because the booers, in there zeal to express their cut and run position, could not hear Clinton's request to support the troops OR they actually were booing her request to support the troops. Neither choice, IMO, makes them look particularly good.
Click to expand...

I don't see why. Supporting the troops isn't an intrinsically good thing.

They can't even keep their rudeness in check long enough to allow their own potential candidate for President to speak.
Click to expand...

Why is it rudeness to show dislike for a politician?
 
Last edited:
booing isn't respectful for an elected official. No matter whom that official is

But then again, booing is another reason that anyone that runs and serves in an office gets at least a level of courtesy from me.
 
Alright, I listened to the whole 30 minute speech and couldn’t find any booing anywhere. I rewound it back to the area I remembered Hillary talking about the troops, and still couldn’t hear any booing. Then I went to Michelle Malkin’s website and listened to her little 30 second clip (had I started with this I could have saved myself a half-hour) and listened to that, and did hear someone in the audience make a sound, but it’s impossible to tell what they were trying to say, and it didn’t sound anything at all like booing.

I’m with Nova Land on this one. Michelle Malkin is clearly wrong, but given that she makes the evidence so readily available on her website, it’s unlikely she believes she’s wrong. It’s more likely her strong opinions are making her perceive the event as something other than what it actually is.
 
daredelvis said:
Sorry if I was a little out of line with the "smoking" comment. I just react a little strongly to the suggestion that those on the left, or those aginst the war are "against the troops".
Click to expand...
Huh? Who did this? I'm probably missing a quote. Thanks.
 
Mycroft said:
Alright, I listened to the whole 30 minute speech and couldn’t find any booing anywhere. I rewound it back to the area I remembered Hillary talking about the troops, and still couldn’t hear any booing. Then I went to Michelle Malkin’s website and listened to her little 30 second clip (had I started with this I could have saved myself a half-hour) and listened to that, and did hear someone in the audience make a sound, but it’s impossible to tell what they were trying to say, and it didn’t sound anything at all like booing.

I’m with Nova Land on this one. Michelle Malkin is clearly wrong, but given that she makes the evidence so readily available on her website, it’s unlikely she believes she’s wrong. It’s more likely her strong opinions are making her perceive the event as something other than what it actually is.
Click to expand...
FWIW, it was reported that she was "booed".

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/28-06132006-669707.html

I agree that it doesn't sound like that to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom