Manufacturing racist charges to cover up racism

[Cicero]

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

Someone should introduce you to the scroll feature on your keyboard. This comes in handy when clicking on a link that has more than one story. However, for the technically challenged:


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sho...hirley-sherrod-for-not-doing-my-homework.html

 

[A'isha]

Someone should introduce you to the scroll feature on your keyboard. This comes in handy when clicking on a link that has more than one story. However, for the technically challenged:


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sho...hirley-sherrod-for-not-doing-my-homework.html

That article doesn't say a single thing about whether Sharrod was fired at the behest of the White House or not.

It does contain the following interesting tidbits, though:

Michael Clemente, senior vice president of news editorial, said the network’s news programs reported the story with caution. “When I heard about this Monday morning and saw it on Breitbart’s website, I said, ‘OK, could be a story, let’s check it out,’ ” Clemente said. “We did the normal fact-finding we would do on any story.”

At an afternoon editorial meeting Monday, Clemente urged the staff to first get the facts and obtain comment from Sherrod before going on air, according to internal notes from the meeting that were provided to The Times. “Let’s make sure we do this right,” he said.

A claim that is at odds with not just the revelation that Breitbart's video wasn't at all what he presented it as, but also at odds with the network's own behavior:

The first reported piece on Fox News, by correspondent James Rosen, aired on Tuesday morning, and included a second video clip that added context to Sherrod’s comments.

But Fox’s commentators showed less restraint. O’Reilly continued to condemn Sherrod’s comments on his show Tuesday night, saying she made a mistake, even after it had emerged that her words had been misrepresented.

Apparently, Fox News was so diligent about "do[ing] this right" that they kept on repeating Bretibart's edited video...despite having shown right there on their own network that it was fraudulently presented!

I eagerly await your condemnation of Fox News for this blatantly dishonest and unjournalistic action, Cicero.

 

[Lurker]

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.

Opinion difference is fine. Opinion masquerading as news is not as fine. Equivalencing the level of bias on FoxNews to that on ABC, CBS or NBS is ridiculous.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. The "Obama Administration" isn't just Obama or even just the people in the White House. It also includes his high level appointees. Thus, Vilsack is a member of the Obama administration.

"Barack Obama announced Vilsack's selection to be the United States Secretary of Agriculture under his administration on December 17, 2008. Vilsack's nomination was confirmed by the United States Senate by unanimous consent on January 20, 2009."

 

[Cicero]

Opinion difference is fine. Opinion masquerading as news is not as fine. Equivalencing the level of bias on FoxNews to that on ABC, CBS or NBS is ridiculous.

Please. The reason why FOX news is so successful is because ABC, CBS, NBC, and other media outlets are slanted to the left. But perhaps you could cite examples of the FOX News anchors, not the pundit hosts, reporting opinion masquerading as news?

 

[SezMe]

The reason why FOX news is so successful ...

Success (or lack thereof) is not a valid measure of reporting accuracy.

 

[Cicero]

I eagerly await your condemnation of Fox News for this blatantly dishonest and unjournalistic action, Cicero.

Condemnation recorded. Of course FOX News screwed the pooch on this and other stories. Name a news media organization that hasn't? On O'Reilly's The Factor, Major Garret, FOX News White House reporter, said Fox should be held accountable just as any other news outlet should...and that in general there's a tendency to report anything ASAP.

But Shirley's comment about FOX News:

"they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person."

is of course benighted and foolhardy.

 

[Cicero]

Success (or lack thereof) is not a valid measure of reporting accuracy.

Who said it was? It's success is proof of the demand for a news outlet that dared offer a conservative tilt to the news. That is why MSNBC cannot compete with their ratings since their bias is already on display at the major networks, only without all the frothiness of K.O., Maddow and Matthews.

 

[Lurker]

Please. The reason why FOX news is so successful is because ABC, CBS, NBC, and other media outlets are slanted to the left. But perhaps you could cite examples of the FOX News anchors, not the pundit hosts, reporting opinion masquerading as news?

Sure. Megyn Kelly, news anchor, got her preferred slant in when she reported how Palin twittered about the NY mosque being steps from Ground Zero (steps=two blocks?). Kelly summarized what critics of the mosque are saying and Palin's agreement with those critics. She had on pro and anti mosque reps and fired at the pro-mosque, "why stir up the controversy when you see that it’s causing such heartache to a city that’s had more than their fair share? Why bother?" That is a very biased question there, eh? I mean, it assumes a lot in how it is phrased.

Or how about all the Megyn Kelly and the NBP stories? No, no agenda there! LOL.

Or how about Brit Hume's old Grapevine segment? That was clearly biased.

Or how about when Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier revelaed how they knew Kagan was a liberal - she was from NY's Upper West Side. No, no bias there. LOL

Do I need to go on? I predict a closing of eyes.

 

[headscratcher4]

"Liberal" CBS (and I don't accept the premise which is cant not fact) fired Dan Rather, if under pressure. One wonders whether Fox will ever go to the Breitbart well again. My bet is on yes.

 

[Cicero]

Sure. Megyn Kelly, news anchor, got her preferred slant in when she reported how Palin twittered about the NY mosque being steps from Ground Zero (steps=two blocks?). Kelly summarized what critics of the mosque are saying and Palin's agreement with those critics. She had on pro and anti mosque reps and fired at the pro-mosque, "why stir up the controversy when you see that it’s causing such heartache to a city that’s had more than their fair share? Why bother?" That is a very biased question there, eh? I mean, it assumes a lot in how it is phrased.

Or how about all the Megyn Kelly and the NBP stories? No, no agenda there! LOL.

Megyn hosts "America Live." Shepherd Smith is the FOX News anchor of "The Fox report." But where is Hume reporting "opinion masquerading as news?

Or how about Brit Hume's old Grapevine segment? That was clearly biased.

Did you object to Cronkite's personal bias when he ended the newscast with opinion or commentary? But where is he reporting opinion masquerading as news?

Or how about when Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier revelaed how they knew Kagan was a liberal - she was from NY's Upper West Side. No, no bias there. LOL

If Kagan were not in fact a liberal, you might be on to something.

Do I need to go on? I predict a closing of eyes.

Please do. You might accidently come up an example of "opinion masquerading as news."

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Who said it was? It's success is proof of the demand for a news outlet that dared offer a conservative tilt to the news.

But wait....I thought they were "fair and balanced"???

 

[Cicero]

But wait....I thought they were "fair and balanced"???

They offer the liberal POV as well. If you actually watched FOX News, this would be painfully obvious. Check out these FOX News libs.

Geraldo
Dr.Marc Lamont Hill,
Dr. Michael Eric Dyson,
Jane Fleming,
Mora Liasson,
Jane Hall,
Geraldo,
Kirsten Powers,
Ellis Henican,
Marvin Kalb,
Al Sharpton,
Lanny Davis,
Amy Stoddard,
Flavia Colvin,
Mort Kondracke,
Juan Williams,
Rachel Sklar,
Geraldine Ferraro
Susan Estrich


I know. You didn't read the list.

 

[bynmdsue]

Geraldo
Dr.Marc Lamont Hill,
Dr. Michael Eric Dyson,
Jane Fleming,
Mora Liasson,
Jane Hall,
Geraldo,
Kirsten Powers,
Ellis Henican,
Marvin Kalb,
Al Sharpton,
Lanny Davis,
Amy Stoddard,
Flavia Colvin,
Mort Kondracke,
Juan Williams,
Rachel Sklar,
Geraldine Ferraro
Susan Estrich

Geraldo! So Liberal he must be listed twice,Geraldo!

 

[Cicero]

Geraldo! So Liberal he must be listed twice,Geraldo!

You would have actually had to read the list to catch that. The Central Scrutinizer would not have noticed.

 

[Juniversal]

Racism is human nature. I don't think that something being part of human nature is enough to give it a pass.

Magnum, have any scientific evidence that racism is human nature?

While I don't agree with Magnum's overall comments, I do think one need not look far to find the human nature component that at least contributes to racism. People have an innate sense of 'us' and 'them' which you see time and time again contributing to wars and ethnic conflict.

About this if I can go off topic for a second. I'll pretty much expound on what Skeptic Ginger said. I don't think "racism" is human nature. Mind you I define racism as "having a deep seated and irrational hatred for another racial group or groups". But I do believe xenophobia and prejudice is human nature (we're tribal and territorial by nature) and I do believe racism is an expression of the xenophobia and prejudice innate in all of us.

Racism seems to be tribalism in it's purest and most primitive form. But no doubt those who you percieve to be part of your "tribe" can be broad and include members of different races.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Someone should introduce you to the scroll feature on your keyboard. This comes in handy when clicking on a link that has more than one story. However, for the technically challenged:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sho...hirley-sherrod-for-not-doing-my-homework.html

I see that you've now learned how to link to a specific story instead of lazily linking to a dozen at a time.


So, how does the timeline and/or your link provide evidence that Obama directed Sherrod's firing since that is the unsupported speculation I was referring to in my exchange with Newtons Bit. You are just repeating what he said, the timeline supposedly proves Obama directed the firing. It clearly doesn't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

A claim that is at odds with not just the revelation that Breitbart's video wasn't at all what he presented it as, but also at odds with the network's own behavior:...

It's a mind-bogglingly incredible claim, isn't it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please. The reason why FOX news is so successful is because ABC, CBS, NBC, and other media outlets are slanted to the left. But perhaps you could cite examples of the FOX News anchors, not the pundit hosts, reporting opinion masquerading as news?

Jon Stewart on the Daily Show exposed this myth long ago juxtaposing opinion from pundits with the exact same words from reporters during the "news" hours.

The reason Fox is successful is they market their distortions, sadly, to a large segment of the population that likes what they hear.

The trend Fox news has followed with a slew of recently fabricated outrages has been to generate scary black folk stories (two black guys in front of a single polling place, blaming Obama when Bush appointees dropped the charges), black folk out to take things from whites (Sherrod), and dangerous minorities perpetrating election fraud (ACORN). There is only one possible target market for these stories and that is white racists.

Now that doesn't mean everyone who prefers Fox news is a white racist, but it also doesn't negate the fact of the market these particular stories are aimed at attracting.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I see that you've now learned how to link to a specific story instead of lazily linking to a dozen at a time.


So, how does the timeline and/or your link provide evidence that Obama directed Sherrod's firing since that is the unsupported speculation I was referring to in my exchange with Newtons Bit. You are just repeating what he said, the timeline supposedly proves Obama directed the firing. It clearly doesn't.

An incredibly biased timeline showing that Fox News first AIRED the story after Sherrod resigned. I call it biased as it leaves out Glenn Beck's (sorta) defense of Sherrod. The next morning, CNN and MSNBC were talking about the story (but not that Sherrod was innocent).

The fact that FoxNews.com published the story not long after Breitbart did is where the real story is. Them two are just a bit too close.