Manufacturing racist charges to cover up racism

[GreNME]

So you don't have any evidence.

Ok.

ETA:
I'm very annoyed at your response here, Lefty.
Do you honestly think such an answer would fly on a skeptic forum?

Dude, you're on the politics subforum of the forum. I have yet to see a thread here where one political side or the other (or both) haven't displayed gross amounts of selection and confirmation bias in order to press their ideological stance.

So, yes: I think answers like that fly all the time when political issues or ideologies are concerned, skeptics or not.

 

[Lurker]

O'Reilly apologized for a rush to judgement on his show last night. But a couple of times he alluded to there being more to the story. At the end he promised that today he would have more and I got the impression that he would be going after Sherrod.

Hannity, instead of admitting error and exonerating Sherrod, seems to have doubled down on her being a racist.

 

[leftysergeant]

Hannity, instead of admitting error and exonerating Sherrod, seems to have doubled down on her being a racist.

Sounds to me as though Hannity is too emotionally vested in Breitbart as a reliable news source. Hannity was all over the pimp and ho videos like they were proof of something. Thus, he would have to admit that he was wrong that time, too for accepting Breitbart's slime.

There's also the fact that Hannity has only limited ability to reason his way iut of a wet paper bag.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

there may be a new attack comming along

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180969

 

[Cicero]

These creeps don't care who gets hurt, as long as Obama can be made to look bad.

Like any other POTUS, Obama does not need assistance to "look bad."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The difference is that Dan Rather was supposed to be a unbiased respected news anchor who put objectivity in front of bias. Everyone already knows Breitbart is a right-wing activist.

Except none of this would be an issue if "Fair and Balanced" Fox hadn't promoted the video clip.

Imagine, for a moment, that the Bush administration fired a non-political appointee based on what Rachel Maddow said without verifying Maddow's sources/story. People would be justifiably angry at Bush as well as Maddow.

Is there a point in this fallacious analogy?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oddly enough, the White House insisted that she be fired before Glenn Beck aired the story on his show. He was the first person on Fox to air it. And even then, Glenn Beck defending her.

Oddly enough, this is speculation masquerading as fact.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Except none of this would be an issue if "Fair and Balanced" Fox hadn't promoted the video clip.

The Obama Administration forced Sherrod to resign before Fox News even aired the video. So it would still be an issue.

Could you please get your timeline on this thing correct? You're having quite a bit of problems getting the basic facts down.

Is there a point in this fallacious analogy?

Is there a reason why you call an analogy fallacious when it is not? ", I don't like that, I better say it's illogical without providing a reason why!" The point, since you're unable to grasp it, is that the administration of one party should always be skeptical of what the opposition is claiming and should independently verify what is claimed before throwing people under the bus.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

O'Reilly apologized for a rush to judgement on his show last night. But a couple of times he alluded to there being more to the story. At the end he promised that today he would have more and I got the impression that he would be going after Sherrod.

That was an interesting twist to the story here.

While O'Reilly admitted his error and defended on that grounds, other people who made the same error, he went on to suggest the charges against Sherrod were true, nonetheless.

Considering the woman's record of having grown up in the midst of significant bigotry, having had her father murdered by the KKK, and having spoke to the NAACP about overcoming her own experience to go on to work for the civil rights of poor farmers, both white and black, it's really unfortunate that in order to make Obama look bad, and to promote the original lie about Sherrod in spite of what's been revealed about it, there are still going to be right wingers attacking Sherrod.

Hannity, instead of admitting error and exonerating Sherrod, seems to have doubled down on her being a racist.

Fox pundits clearly recognize they can make a false charge stick by simply repeating it often enough.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Oddly enough, this is speculation masquerading as fact.

Things that happened in the past can hardly be described as speculation. Perhaps you should look up when Fox News originally aired the video. Maybe you meant to use another word?

 

[dudalb]

I have a low opinion of Fox News..particuarly since they hired Glenn Beck and his crazy...but I find that after nearly Ten Years some on the left are still in eternal outrage over FOXNEWS being biased amusing. Time to accept that as a given and move on.
Of course the continual phony outrage that some on the right have the "Liberal Media" is just as amusing.
Of course the real outrage in both cases is because anybody is allowed to have an opinion that differs from The Correct One.

 

[Cicero]

Oddly enough, this is speculation masquerading as fact.

When the facts do not substantiate your entrenched ideology they are speculation? One more time, the Obama Administration fired Shirley before the Breitbart video ever flickered over the FOX News cable waves.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/

Fox pundits clearly recognize they can make a false charge stick by simply repeating it often enough.

They must be graduates of the Skeptic Ginger school of reporting.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Obama Administration forced Sherrod to resign before Fox News even aired the video. So it would still be an issue.

Could you please get your timeline on this thing correct? You're having quite a bit of problems getting the basic facts down.

I know the timeline. You haven't posted any evidence the White House was more involved in the decision than just being informed of it.

Sherrod said something about the Obama admin directing her to resign immediately because of the Glenn Beck coverage of the story, but that could have been her or her supervisor's interpretation of Vilsack's direction. It wasn't evidence Obama ordered any firing.

Unless you have evidence of direct orders from the White House, you are repeating speculation as if it were a fact.

Is there a reason why you call an analogy fallacious when it is not? ", I don't like that, I better say it's illogical without providing a reason why!"

In case you weren't aware, "fallacious analogy" is "why". But if you need more information why your analogy, ("Imagine, for a moment, that the Bush administration fired a non-political appointee based on what Rachel Maddow said without verifying Maddow's sources/story. People would be justifiably angry at Bush as well as Maddow.") is false, it's because Obama is no Bush and Maddow is no Breitbart.

The point, since you're unable to grasp it, is that the administration of one party should always be skeptical of what the opposition is claiming and should independently verify what is claimed before throwing people under the bus.

So the point I've already said I agreed with, I'm unable to grasp?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Things that happened in the past can hardly be described as speculation. Perhaps you should look up when Fox News originally aired the video. Maybe you meant to use another word?

Which part of, "you have no evidence", are you having trouble with?

 

[A'isha]

The Obama Administration forced Sherrod to resign before Fox News even aired the video. So it would still be an issue.

Could you please get your timeline on this thing correct? You're having quite a bit of problems getting the basic facts down.

Sherrod said her "superior" called her and demanded that she resign before Glenn Beck got a hold of the story, though she did say that the superior did so at the urging of the White House (EDIT: This article says it was USDA Deputy Undersecretary Cheryl Cook that made the call and who Sherrod says told her it was because the White House wanted it). The White House and Vilsack both say the decision was all Vilsack's doing, without Obama's influence (though the White House did say that they supported Vilsack's decision).

So, while it's technically correct to say that "the Obama Administration" forced her to resign (insofar as Secretary Vilsack is a member of said Administration), your earlier statement that "The White House insisted that she be fired before Glenn Beck aired the story on his show" appears to be, at the least, in dispute.

As for the Fox News thing, this LA Times blog entry says that Bill O'Reilly taped his show (in which he repeated Breitbart's initial allegations that Sherrod was racist) before Sherrod's resignation, though it aired after the announcement of the resignation had been made. This article posted on Fox News' website states "The Agriculture Department announced Monday, shortly after FoxNews.com published its initial report on the video, that Sherrod had resigned" (ie, after Sherrod had actually resigned, but before anyone else knew about it).

So, it's indeed true that Fox News didn't start reporting on and repeat Breitbart's false allegations until after Vilsack forced Sherrod to resign. But they were not only prepared to repeat Breitbart's falsehoods before they heard about the resignation, but even after reporting the news of the resignation they were uncritically pushing Breitbart's version of the speech (as the linked Fox News article above shows).

 

[Cicero]

I have a low opinion of Fox News..particuarly since they hired Glenn Beck and his crazy...but I find that after nearly Ten Years some on the left are still in eternal outrage over FOXNEWS being biased amusing. Time to accept that as a given and move on.
Of course the continual phony outrage that some on the right have the "Liberal Media" is just as amusing.
Of course the real outrage in both cases is because anybody is allowed to have an opinion that differs from The Correct One.

More pontification from Mt. dudalb. What do you use to treat your hemorrhoids from all your fence straddling?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have a low opinion of Fox News..particuarly since they hired Glenn Beck and his crazy...but I find that after nearly Ten Years some on the left are still in eternal outrage over FOXNEWS being biased amusing. Time to accept that as a given and move on.
Of course the continual phony outrage that some on the right have the "Liberal Media" is just as amusing.
Of course the real outrage in both cases is because anybody is allowed to have an opinion that differs from The Correct One.

There is a difference between reporting on different points of view and a 24 hour propaganda news station with a mission to mislead. And if you think Fox news isn't dangerous or isn't influencing a significant segment of the public to believe false things and to act on those false beliefs, I would hope you would reconsider that conclusion.

The JREF should be an anti-Fox news organization. Fox promotes uncritical thinking, the very thing the JREF is out to combat.

 

[Cicero]

So, it's indeed true that Fox News didn't start reporting on and repeat Breitbart's false allegations until after Vilsack forced Sherrod to resign.

Do you think Skeptic Ginger will finally admit to this when it is presented from someone simpatico to her POV?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When the facts do not substantiate your entrenched ideology they are speculation? One more time, the Obama Administration fired Shirley before the Breitbart video ever flickered over the FOX News cable waves.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/
...

"Top Chef" is your evidence Obama directed Vilsack to fire Sherrod?

 

[A'isha]

Do you think Skeptic Ginger will finally admit to this when it is presented from someone simpatico to her POV?

She's done it before.

Though that also doesn't change the fact that, whatever jumping the gun that the White House and/or Vilsack may have done in forcing Sherrod out, it's still true that Fox News uncritically repeated Breitbart's false allegations against her in both news reports on TV and on its website, and in its "opinion" shows. and it continued to repeat them long after that, making no attempt whatsoever to examine the veracity of the evidence, simply because it played to their prejudices and the prejudices of their audience. You know, like Dan Rather got in trouble for doing.