NationStates Jolt Archive

San Francisco Chronicle questions* Obama's campaign over harsh internet video attack on Hillary, Obama's campaign people deny any responsibility...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/18/MNGHNONEPS1.DTL&feed=rss.news

Anti-Hillary Video @ YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

My thoughts: IF the Democrats continue to attack each other like this, with or without Obama's blessings, then some unexpected Republican is going to sideswipe them because they will have torn each other apart in the eyes of the public by then.


Your thoughts?


(*edited the word "accused" for "questions" - as noted for it's inaccuracy)

The First Rule of Obama: Do No Harm.

His entire campaign depends on him staying away from the mudslinging. So, for his sake and for the sake of his candidacy, I really, really hope he's not even tangentially involved with this.

San Francisco Chronicle accuses Obama of harsh internet video attack, even though Obama's campaign people deny any responsibility

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/18/MNGHNONEPS1.DTL&feed=rss.news

Anti-Hillary Video @ YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

My thoughts: IF the Democrats continue to attack each other like this, with or without Obama's blessings, then some unexpected Republican is going to sideswipe them because they will have torn each other apart in the eyes of the public by then.


Your thoughts?

Too early to say. If they're still trying to disembowel each other around June or July of next year, yeah, someone will have to make them play nice. What really matters is how bad it gets and whether the one who doesn't get the nomination is big enough to rally wholeheartedly behind the one who does.

Vast right wing conspiracy, anyone?


Anyone?

Well, I'll throw in the obligatory conspiracy theory: What makes you think it isn't Republicans making those videos in the first place? It's perfect strategy - they attack one candidate, make the other candidate look responsible, and sit back and watch the infighting. Meanwhile the Republicans run an amicable and clean primary that sticks to the issues... Hm, something doesn't quite add up there. Not sure where, though. :p

Vast right wing conspiracy, anyone?


Anyone?

Not today, thanks.

San Francisco Chronicle accuses Obama of harsh internet video attack, even though Obama's campaign people deny any responsibility

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/18/MNGHNONEPS1.DTL&feed=rss.news

Anti-Hillary Video @ YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

My thoughts: IF the Democrats continue to attack each other like this, with or without Obama's blessings, then some unexpected Republican is going to sideswipe them because they will have torn each other apart in the eyes of the public by then.


Your thoughts?

Just wait until the Republicans get after each other and you see the Rudy in drag video a thousand times a day. There's a guy raising money for a John "Manchurian Candidate" McCain ad buy who was one of the Swift Boat fuckers, and Romney will be hit with the "he's not a real christian" tag more times than you can say "holy jeebus." Even if Obama and Hillary wear each other out with attacks--which I think is unlikely--I still like the Democrats' chances in 2008.

Well, I'll throw in the obligatory conspiracy theory: What makes you think it isn't Republicans making those videos in the first place? It's perfect strategy - they attack one candidate, make the other candidate look responsible, and sit back and watch the infighting. Meanwhile the Republicans run an amicable and clean primary that sticks to the issues... Hm, something doesn't quite add up there. Not sure where, though. :p

Even though I suggested it first, it's doubtful. But can't you trace the funding and find out that it was Obama, or not?

San Francisco Chronicle accuses Obama of harsh internet video attack

no it doesn't

Just wait until the Republicans get after each other and you see the Rudy in drag video a thousand times a day. There's a guy raising money for a John "Manchurian Candidate" McCain ad buy who was one of the Swift Boat fuckers, and Romney will be hit with the "he's not a real christian" tag more times than you can say "holy jeebus." Even if Obama and Hillary wear each other out with attacks--which I think is unlikely--I still like the Democrats' chances in 2008.

I don't feel like starting a new thread for this, but I've heard that Fred Thompson is considering a run. He'd be just about perfect. Well spoken, plays the part of a responsible person on TV, has some real experience...

The First Rule of Obama: Do No Harm.

His entire campaign depends on him staying away from the mudslinging. So, for his sake and for the sake of his candidacy, I really, really hope he's not even tangentially involved with this.

Hillary's campaign was behind the 'Obama=muslim' thingy. She is desperate to stop his campaign and soon. The longer it takes, the more unelectable she will get. Her only hope is to eliminate all big challengers quickly.

Even though I suggested it first, it's doubtful. But can't you trace the funding and find out that it was Obama, or not?

Doesn't matter if you can prove it was Obama or not. Once someone says it was Obama, then others will continue to repeat that fact even if it's disproven. That's how politics works in the era of Fox Noise: Throw all the dirt you can invent at somebody, and see what sticks.

However, I actually don't think it's an organized Republican conspiracy. I also don't think this was organized by the Obama campaign. I suspect it's somebody acting independently of any of the campaigns. Who the responsible people actually support is anyone's guess.

The First Rule of Obama: Do No Harm.

His entire campaign depends on him staying away from the mudslinging. So, for his sake and for the sake of his candidacy, I really, really hope he's not even tangentially involved with this.

He's trying to prosecute an electoral campaign without attacking his opponents? How sodding tedious and pi is that? Machiavelli would be turning in his grave.

Hillary's campaign was behind the 'Obama=muslim' thingy. She is desperate to stop his campaign and soon. The longer it takes, the more unelectable she will get. Her only hope is to eliminate all big challengers quickly.
Actually, Faux News and Insight Magazine were behind the story, and they then tried to pin responsibility on Hillary in order to drag her into the muck, a la the conspiracy theory described by Dishonorable Scum.

Note than I am not a Hillary fan. But it's pretty plain to see that blame for the hype lies squarely on Fox's shoulders.

He's trying to prosecute an electoral campaign without attacking his opponents? How sodding tedious and pi is that? Machiavelli would be turning in his grave.
Precisely why I love the guy.

Doesn't matter if you can prove it was Obama or not. Once someone says it was Obama, then others will continue to repeat that fact even if it's disproven. That's how politics works in the era of Fox Noise: Throw all the dirt you can invent at somebody, and see what sticks.

However, I actually don't think it's an organized Republican conspiracy. I also don't think this was organized by the Obama campaign. I suspect it's somebody acting independently of any of the campaigns. Who the responsible people actually support is anyone's guess.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the "Big Lie" tactic has predated Fox by at least a hundred years and probably a lot more than that.

What makes them think this video was edited, and not original footage?

:p

Hillary's campaign was behind the 'Obama=muslim' thingy.

according to a 'magazine' run by the moonies.

the original article itself doesn't even have a listed author - it's an anonymous author allegedly paraphrasing anonymous sources - it might as well be a strange piece of performance art.

I forgot - according to some people around here, anything that makes the Democrats look bad is obviously a secret plot by young Republicans.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the "Big Lie" tactic has predated Fox by at least a hundred years and probably a lot more than that.

Wasn't claiming that Fox invented the tactic. They simply use it more blatantly than anyone else does at the moment.

Wasn't claiming that Fox invented the tactic. They simply use it more blatantly than anyone else does at the moment.

Really? :rolleyes:

I forgot - according to some people around here, anything that makes the Democrats look bad is obviously a secret plot by young Republicans.
So... what do you call it when an obviously biased right-wing news networks takes an utterly unsubstantiated piece of gossip on a Democratic candidate and proceeds to blare it over the airwaves, without the slightest bit of fact-checking or background research?

So... what do you call it when an obviously biased right-wing news networks takes an utterly unsubstantiated piece of gossip on a Democratic candidate and proceeds to blare it over the airwaves, without the slightest bit of fact-checking or background research?

I've seen the video.

Are you going to say that young Republicans made the video?

So... what do you call it when an obviously biased right-wing news networks takes an utterly unsubstantiated piece of gossip on a Democratic candidate and proceeds to blare it over the airwaves, without the slightest bit of fact-checking or background research?

Fox is less biased than ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC.

In Soviet Russia you attack ads!

I've seen the video.

Are you going to say that young Republicans made the video?
I'm not talking about the video, I'm talking about the madrassa story. It may not be at the level of conspiracy yet, but I think it's pretty clear that there is some organized effort on the part of the more disreputable media outlets to smear the Democrats to the benefit of the Republicans.

I'm not talking about the video, I'm talking about the madrassa story. It may not be at the level of conspiracy yet, but I think it's pretty clear that there is some organized effort on the part of the more disreputable media outlets to smear the Democrats to the benefit of the Republicans.

We want to know who made the video. Obama's camp ostensibly made the video, but didn't "approve" of it. But somehow, it got out.

You're going to assert that Fox, or Republicans somehow did it, right?

no it doesn't

What do you know, it doesn't. Even the guy that comes close to it doesn't, he just states:
But Jaye predicted such efforts are bound to become attractive tools for political campaigns, which will "orchestrate these videos on the down low to communicate negative messages -- without having to own them in public."

Jaye noted that Obama's campaign -- even as it insists it has no connection to the production -- reaps a clear benefit from the mashup video: "They get to call Hillary Clinton a pabulum-spewing pseudo-fascist, without having to own it."

and that's as close as the article gets.

It has dramatized a brave new world in which passionate activists outside the structure of traditional campaigns have the power to shape the message -- even for a presidential candidate.

The ad is proof that "anybody can do powerful emotional ads ... and the campaigns are no longer in control," Rosenberg said. "It will no longer be a top-down candidate message; that's a 20th century broadcast model."

It also dramatizes that today, political activists with the Internet as their ammunition have gone from being "just donors to the cause," he said, "to being partners in the fight. And they don't have to wait for permission."

...

And he says the individual viral video efforts popping up on the Internet, however creative, come with risk for political campaigns -- especially presidential runs, where nuance and caution usually win out over edginess when it comes to shaping messages that appeal to wide swaths of voters

"They tend to be more entertaining -- but they tend to be nastier. You used to have a series of apologies for what campaign bloggers said. Now you have to have a series of apologies for what people with a video camera and software editing and a laptop do."

Still, Jaye said, there's a clear benefit in the energy such efforts create.

"If people take the time to make a campaign ad, it helps generate more excitement, more laughs. It's fresher," he said. "But it also generates more issues. You have people making ads you don't authorize."

Seems to me the article actually cations that what the OP just did might happen.

Man, it has been a while since a linked story hasn't been misrepresented. It's like Red Arrow was split into fragments and imbedded in posters...

I've seen the video.

Are you going to say that young Republicans made the video?

Anyone with a laptop could have made that video.

I forgot - according to some people around here, anything that makes the Democrats look bad is obviously a secret plot by young Republicans.

After so often blaming Republican foibles on 'over enthusiastic staffers' we were all left to assume that those intreped lads actually run things while the talking heads light cigars and chortle.

Anyone with a laptop could have made that video.

And that proves to you that Republicans made it... :rolleyes:

i thought the point of the article was that ads are no longer under the control of the party or the candidate. anyone can now make a cool ad, put it in youtube and make their own statement.

as more and more of these things get made, the question is going to be what can the candidate DO about them? should obama repudiate it, ignore it, or thank god that someone likes him this much?

And that proves to you that Republicans made it... :rolleyes:

Where did I say that? Please provide that quote from me.

i thought the point of the article was that ads are no longer under the control of the party or the candidate. anyone can now make a cool ad, put it in youtube and make their own statement.

as more and more of these things get made, the question is going to be what can the candidate DO about them? should obama repudiate it, ignore it, or thank god that someone likes him this much?

Apparently, Obama has seen it, well before it got on the Internet, and did not "approve" it.

Doesn't mean it didn't come from an Obama supporter, it just means he didn't approve it.

Apparently, Obama has seen it, well before it got on the Internet, and did not "approve" it.

Doesn't mean it didn't come from an Obama supporter, it just means he didn't approve it.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, said he is aware of the "Hillary 1984" video and has gotten calls from reporters on it
I don't see where he was aware of it before it hit YouTube. Please provide that source.

Apparently, Obama has seen it, well before it got on the Internet, and did not "approve" it.

Doesn't mean it didn't come from an Obama supporter, it just means he didn't approve it.

i cant watch video but it sounded to me like an obama supporter. it sounds like a really cool ad.

as the months go by there will be more and more ads by amateurs on youtube. some will be clever, some will be libellous crap. there isnt much either party will be able to do to stop it.

and it will come from all sides. and there WILL be some double-agenting.

before the start of the primary season the parties will have someone whose job it is to watch ads on youtube and subtly promote those that have a message that is useful to them.

Man, it has been a while since a linked story hasn't been misrepresented.

maybe they're having some sort of contest that we aren't in on?

Fox is less biased than ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC.

LOL You know, no matter how often I hear that, it never stops being funny.

LOL You know, no matter how often I hear that, it never stops being funny.
And every time I read this, I can't help but to wonder where you missed the class on how to tell the difference between commentary and news.

And every time I read this, I can't help but to wonder where you missed the class on how to tell the difference between commentary and news.

I'm well aware that Fox is mostly commentary. That was my point.

maybe they're having some sort of contest that we aren't in on?

Okay fine. Even though I read it as an accusatory article, cutting itself short of making accusations it can't back up for fear of libel... You guys are right, I edited the OP to say "questions" instead of accuses.

My bad.

Okay fine. Even though I read it as an accusatory article, cutting itself short of making accusations it can't back up for fear of libel... You guys are right, I edited the OP to say "questions" instead of accuses.

My bad.

I read it as a delightful coming of age romp set in rural turn of the century England...

Doesn't change the fact that it actually focuses on viral unauthorized videos and the effect on campaigns as now supporters can make messages independent of the campaigns themselves.

I don't feel like starting a new thread for this, but I've heard that Fred Thompson is considering a run. He'd be just about perfect. Well spoken, plays the part of a responsible person on TV, has some real experience...
Well, he was in The Hunt for Red October so he must be perfect.:p

I read it as a delightful coming of age romp set in rural turn of the century England...

Doesn't change the fact that it actually focuses on viral unauthorized videos and the effect on campaigns as now supporters can make messages independent of the campaigns themselves.


So you read it as a: "How can we make great big assumptions and plausible excuses so that the add gets viewed by lots of people and our buddy Obama doesn't get blamed for any of it... and we can even install the thought in the reader's minds that this is really a 'grass-roots' movement, and yet we will only interview Obama's campaign people and not Hillary's campaign people"... Interesting.

So you read it as a: "How can we make great big assumptions and plausible excuses so that the add gets viewed by lots of people and our buddy Obama doesn't get blamed for any of it... and we can even install the thought in the reader's minds that this is really a 'grass-roots' movement, and yet we will only interview Obama's campaign people and not Hillary's campaign people"... Interesting.

no.

but anyways, why would they ask clinton's people anything? what could they have to say of relevance? do you think they ingeniously put the thing out themselves in some sort of super-double-secret-triple-cross?

And every time I read this, I can't help but to wonder where you missed the class on how to tell the difference between commentary and news.

Watch some of what they consider some of the straight news sometimes--especially anything with an interview. There's news, and then there's what Fox does, and never the twain shall meet.

I'm well aware that Fox is mostly commentary. That was my point.

I don't know what MSNBC fills it's 24 hours with, but ABC, NBC, and CBS are mostly entertainment. Does that mean that the whiny gang at Survivor represent the network opinion on a topic? At least Fox gives you something that stimulates critical thought -- except when Geraldo is on, or when I'm distracted by Laurie Dhue.

Watch some of what they consider some of the straight news sometimes--especially anything with an interview. There's news, and then there's what Fox does, and never the twain shall meet.

I do. I usually catch the last half hour of John Gibson, then watch Britt Hume. I don't see anything controversial in the news segments of either. And after watching the poor Marine lambasted on 60 minutes last night, I'm not sure anyone could do a more biased and bullying interview than that.

I've made the request before to point out one single episode of bias on a Fox News news program, and what I usually see in return is how Britt Hume hates his son, how Bill O'Reilly does whatever and how Alan Colmes is overmatched by Sean Hannity. How about something fresh? Like a real instance of bias on a show that really purports to be news.

I don't know what MSNBC fills it's 24 hours with, but ABC, NBC, and CBS are mostly entertainment. Does that mean that the whiny gang at Survivor represent the network opinion on a topic? At least Fox gives you something that stimulates critical thought -- except when Geraldo is on, or when I'm distracted by Laurie Dhue.

from http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/networks/foxnews/foxnews.html
Method #2: Conceptual Name Calling. A news story about global warming is titled "Junk Science." The first line of the newscast says: "The global warming treaty known as the Kyoto protocol is politically dead in the U.S. But the treaty's left-leaning environmental extremist supporters haven't given up their fantasy of creating a socialist global economy through controls on energy use." This report includes no scientific evidence of global warming and ends with the comment that "the junk science-fueled Kyoto protocol would be an economic suicide capsule." (June 4, 2004)

# Method #5: Skewed Statistics. Fox News' anchor Brit Hume said in a report that "Two hundred seventy-seven U.S. soldiers have now died in Iraq, which means that statistically speaking U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California, which is roughly the same geographical size. The most recent statistics indicate California has more than 2300 homicides each year, which means about 6.6 murders each day. Meanwhile, U.S. troops have been in Iraq for 160 days, which means they're incurring about 1.7 deaths, including illness and accidents each day." Not only is this report silly and illogical, but does not take into account the populations of California versus U.S. soldiers in Iraq. On a per capita basis, these statistics make no sense. (August 27, 2003)

Charles Krauthammer, on FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume, on May 26: "It looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again." Mark R. Levin, as a guest on FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes on May 26: "And half the country thinks he's [Al Gore is] a mental patient. ... They think he should go back to the dayroom he came out of." Linda Vester, host of FOX News Channel's DaySide with Linda Vester, on May 27: "Some pundits have said they thought he went off his meds." Oliver North, as a guest on FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes that evening: "Somebody needs to check this guy's medication. This guy has got a problem." In fairness, I linked over to C-SPAN.com and watched the Gore speech. It was well written and passionate speech. However, in the world of Fox News, Gore's passion is insanity.

Smells like bullshit to me...

Like a real instance of bias on a show that really purports to be news.
That's part of the problem--on Fox, the line between news and commentary isn't just blurred--it's practically erased. Is Fox and Friends in the morning supposed to be commentary or news? Because Doocy is practically taking his dick out most mornings and telling liberals to suck it.

I can give you an example of reverse bias--the uncritical piece that Fox aired in the interview with the soldier that Eve Online posted as "evidence" that anti-war protesters were spitting on soldiers. Not a single question of the soldier's credibility. How is that journalism? How is that unbiased? That's video stenography.

from http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/networks/foxnews/foxnews.html


Method #2: Conceptual Name Calling. A news story about global warming is titled "Junk Science." The first line of the newscast says: "The global warming treaty known as the Kyoto protocol is politically dead in the U.S. But the treaty's left-leaning environmental extremist supporters haven't given up their fantasy of creating a socialist global economy through controls on energy use." This report includes no scientific evidence of global warming and ends with the comment that "the junk science-fueled Kyoto protocol would be an economic suicide capsule." (June 4, 2004)

left-leaning is no better or worse than the excessive use of right-wing by other media outlets. But, you don't show which 'newscast' did the broadcast. I'd like to see the name, so I can go back to the transcript. Mainly, I doubt this was during any straight news segment. See last included quote.

# Method #5: Skewed Statistics. Fox News' anchor Brit Hume said in a report that "Two hundred seventy-seven U.S. soldiers have now died in Iraq, which means that statistically speaking U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California, which is roughly the same geographical size. The most recent statistics indicate California has more than 2300 homicides each year, which means about 6.6 murders each day. Meanwhile, U.S. troops have been in Iraq for 160 days, which means they're incurring about 1.7 deaths, including illness and accidents each day." Not only is this report silly and illogical, but does not take into account the populations of California versus U.S. soldiers in Iraq. On a per capita basis, these statistics make no sense. (August 27, 2003)

I'm not going to argue statistics, which are indeed a way to compare per capita numbers. But, was this uttered during the news portion of his show, or during the roundtable discussion? I can't go back to 2003 in their archives, so it's a draw. When we look at the raw numbers, though, more people have been murdered during the last four years in California than have troops been killed in Iraq. Considering the relative danger in Iraq compared to California, I'd say Arnold has some explaining to do.


Charles Krauthammer, on FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume, on May 26: "It looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium again." Mark R. Levin, as a guest on FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes on May 26: "And half the country thinks he's [Al Gore is] a mental patient. ... They think he should go back to the dayroom he came out of." Linda Vester, host of FOX News Channel's DaySide with Linda Vester, on May 27: "Some pundits have said they thought he went off his meds." Oliver North, as a guest on FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes that evening: "Somebody needs to check this guy's medication. This guy has got a problem." In fairness, I linked over to C-SPAN.com and watched the Gore speech. It was well written and passionate speech. However, in the world of Fox News, Gore's passion is insanity.

Krauthammer only appears during the round table discussions -- no cigar, those are opinion, or commentary segments.
Smells like bullshit to me...

Conclusion? Public schools are failing if you can't tell the difference between news and commentary. Nazz, I don't count Fox and Friends as anything but Crap with a capital 'C'. The only thing it's good for is ... nothing.

I blame Gravel, Kucinich and Scooter.

I don't think he's responsible for it, but he should denounce such attacks anyway. They're not good, attacking people within the party makes things too negative. Gives the other side ammunition.

Conclusion? Public schools are failing if you can't tell the difference between news and commentary. Nazz, I don't count Fox and Friends as anything but Crap with a capital 'C'. The only thing it's good for is ... nothing.

But you consider Hume to be straight news, right? So what about number 5 above?

But you consider Hume to be straight news, right? So what about number 5 above?
It's unclear. Half his show is commentary and opinion, half is news. After the Grapevine segment, I usually go do something else, anyway. I tried to look at the archives, but they only go back to 2005. So we have one alleged incident since 2003? Even then, it's an argument about statistical probability. And not such a bad one at that. The point is...well, I pointed it out in my reply. How about it Arnold? How come almost 10,000 people have been murdered in your state since 2003?

I don't know what MSNBC fills it's 24 hours with, but ABC, NBC, and CBS are mostly entertainment. Does that mean that the whiny gang at Survivor represent the network opinion on a topic? At least Fox gives you something that stimulates critical thought -- except when Geraldo is on, or when I'm distracted by Laurie Dhue.

Fox is crappy commentary masquerading as news. The other networks are largely sensationalistic crap masquerading as news. Fox is no more thought provoking than they are, the just approach it from the other end of the political spectrum, but they are not at all a "serious" news network. There is no such thing.

It's unclear. Half his show is commentary and opinion, half is news. After the Grapevine segment, I usually go do something else, anyway. I tried to look at the archives, but they only go back to 2005. So we have one alleged incident since 2003? Even then, it's an argument about statistical probability. And not such a bad one at that. The point is...well, I pointed it out in my reply. How about it Arnold? How come almost 10,000 people have been murdered in your state since 2003?

But that's a false comparison--total numbers of deaths in the two regions would be a fairer comparison, as would one looking at a ratio of deaths per thousand people, for instance. There are a fuckload more California citizens than there are soldiers in Iraq, after all, so to compare raw numbers is, frankly, dishonest.

Edit: I imagine I could find others simply by searching Media Matters, but that one was handy, which is why I asked about it.

But that's a false comparison--total numbers of deaths in the two regions would be a fairer comparison, as would one looking at a ratio of deaths per thousand people, for instance. There are a fuckload more California citizens than there are soldiers in Iraq, after all, so to compare raw numbers is, frankly, dishonest.

Edit: I imagine I could find others simply by searching Media Matters, but that one was handy, which is why I asked about it.

There are more than 32 million people in California. That's 32,000,000+

There are a couple hundred thousand US troops in Iraq at most. Thus, that is correct, comparing raw numbers is pretty ridiculous and dishonest.

But that's a false comparison--total numbers of deaths in the two regions would be a fairer comparison, as would one looking at a ratio of deaths per thousand people, for instance. There are a fuckload more California citizens than there are soldiers in Iraq, after all, so to compare raw numbers is, frankly, dishonest.

Edit: I imagine I could find others simply by searching Media Matters, but that one was handy, which is why I asked about it.
Sam Clemens had the best comment about statistics. My wife just refuses to listen to them. I think that's the smart approach, unless you can see the methodology used in the collection and processing, anyway.

As far as MediaMatters, goes, I find it overloaded with references to the Grapevine, O'Reilly and Hannity stuff, as well as some comments that Fox just isn't a legitimate news network. As far as the last bit goes, it's every bit as legitimate as CNN and the other also-rans in the ratings.

*edit*
I like to use the Media Research Center for my examples of bias because they are much more clear on what is commentary and what is news. For instance, the Plame hearings featured a woman in a bright pink shirt that read "Impeach Bush" Not only should that have been edited out, but she never should have been allowed in a hearing wearing that shirt. I also note that in appearances on five major morning shows the AG, A.G., was asked repeatedly about his firings of the 8 attorneys and whether he would resign. Not one of the reporters that asked a total of 42 questions thought that it was important to mention that Clinton fired all the US attorneys when the Whitewater investigations heated up.

I can play, too. There's more than enough examples of mass media bias to prove the point.

San Francisco Chronicle questions* Obama's campaign over harsh internet video attack on Hillary, Obama's campaign people deny any responsibility...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/18/MNGHNONEPS1.DTL&feed=rss.news

Anti-Hillary Video @ YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

My thoughts: IF the Democrats continue to attack each other like this, with or without Obama's blessings, then some unexpected Republican is going to sideswipe them because they will have torn each other apart in the eyes of the public by then.


Your thoughts?


(*edited the word "accused" for "questions" - as noted for it's inaccuracy)

Heh. Strange.

Obama didn't make it. The whole issue is being invented by Hillary to try to stick him with it.

And I love the Ad. When I first saw it, I went, "Yeah! That's exactly how Hillary makes me feel."

So you read it as a: "How can we make great big assumptions and plausible excuses so that the add gets viewed by lots of people and our buddy Obama doesn't get blamed for any of it... and we can even install the thought in the reader's minds that this is really a 'grass-roots' movement, and yet we will only interview Obama's campaign people and not Hillary's campaign people"... Interesting.

You really don't read so well.

Obama didn't make it. The whole issue is being invented by Hillary to try to stick him with it.

And I love the Ad. When I first saw it, I went, "Yeah! That's exactly how Hillary makes me feel."
There's one thing that makes me sure that the Obama campaign didn't make the ad -- That's the confidence that Apple will sue the shit out of whoever stole their commercial and logo.

I like to use the Media Research Center for my examples of bias because they are much more clear on what is commentary and what is news. For instance, the Plame hearings featured a woman in a bright pink shirt that read "Impeach Bush" Not only should that have been edited out, but she never should have been allowed in a hearing wearing that shirt. I also note that in appearances on five major morning shows the AG, A.G., was asked repeatedly about his firings of the 8 attorneys and whether he would resign. Not one of the reporters that asked a total of 42 questions thought that it was important to mention that Clinton fired all the US attorneys when the Whitewater investigations heated up.

I can play, too. There's more than enough examples of mass media bias to prove the point.

Well, play is a good word for it, since you're comparing apples to oranges when you bring Clinton into the mix. Why not mention that both Bushes did precisely the same thing Clinton did while you're at it? Because they all did the same thing at the beginning of their terms. This is unusual, letting 8 of them go after a midterm election in the second term.

As is usual here, the problem wasn't the original action so much as it was the response. If Gonzales had just come out and said we fired them because we wanted to put other people in the slot, there might have been some grumbling, but it would have died. But no--they lied about why they fired them, and now it's looking like in Carol Lam's case, they were worried about the levels to which she was pursuing the Duke Cunningham case.

Fox is less biased than ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC.

Your strings are showing.

Your strings are showing.


That's disgusting. People should be more careful during their time of the month.

That's disgusting. People should be more careful during their time of the month.

Man, that is a place where few people dare to go. I phear you.

Man, that is a place where few people dare to go. I phear you.

yay someone phears me! w00t!

I love to say things that make people cringe or do a doubletake.

I told a friend that I had sex with a cancer patient (meaning my wife - this joke cracked her up), and he didn't know what to say and just looked at me in disbelief.

Man, that is a place where few people dare to go. I phear you.

Of all the possible interpretations, his is the one I was expecting least.

Really? :rolleyes:

Obama = evil Muslim is one of the most recent and blatant ones. They didn't even bother to verify the story. How does that make them any better than a tabloid magazine?

/kill Hilary Clinton

Well, play is a good word for it, since you're comparing apples to oranges when you bring Clinton into the mix. Why not mention that both Bushes did precisely the same thing Clinton did while you're at it? Because they all did the same thing at the beginning of their terms. This is unusual, letting 8 of them go after a midterm election in the second term.

As is usual here, the problem wasn't the original action so much as it was the response. If Gonzales had just come out and said we fired them because we wanted to put other people in the slot, there might have been some grumbling, but it would have died. But no--they lied about why they fired them, and now it's looking like in Carol Lam's case, they were worried about the levels to which she was pursuing the Duke Cunningham case.
The whole AG thing has been done to death elsewhere. He's incompetent and should probably resign for that reason. My point is that there are arguable examples of bias that fit the definition a whole lot better than pointing fingers at an opinion show on Fox. None of the posted examples from your darling MediaMatters was clearly a hit against a straight news show, whereas we can go to my darling Media Research and find any number of arguable examples against the major network news shows. I think we're into the 'did not', 'did too' territory, so take the last shot.

The whole AG thing has been done to death elsewhere. He's incompetent and should probably resign for that reason. My point is that there are arguable examples of bias that fit the definition a whole lot better than pointing fingers at an opinion show on Fox. None of the posted examples from your darling MediaMatters was clearly a hit against a straight news show, whereas we can go to my darling Media Research and find any number of arguable examples against the major network news shows. I think we're into the 'did not', 'did too' territory, so take the last shot.

Nah. I'll pass.

There's one thing that makes me sure that the Obama campaign didn't make the ad -- That's the confidence that Apple will sue the shit out of whoever stole their commercial and logo.

lucky for the video makers that parody is protected speech eh?

You haven't seen that before? It's just an old apple ad. Someone has just edited clinton into it.

It looks like Obama's people are more concerned with Iraq and the positive position he takes on Iraq than they are concerned with attacking Hillary. Today I received an email from the Obama campaign releasing a new action campaign about Iraq.

So much for that conspiracy/gotcha moment.

lucky for the video makers that parody is protected speech eh?
Since it's clearly a parody, yes. But if it had been a serious campaign ad, we'd see the headlines -- maybe in the Tech section -- about how Apple is now suing the Obama campaign. Apple is just that way.

Since it's clearly a parody, yes. But if it had been a serious campaign ad, we'd see the headlines -- maybe in the Tech section -- about how Apple is now suing the Obama campaign. Apple is just that way.

Yeah, apple gets rather pissy with their brand name, although can't really say I blame em.

Yeah, apple gets rather pissy with their brand name, although can't really say I blame em.

Makes it kinda weird when the Beatles publisher goes after them for the name.

Makes it kinda weird when the Beatles publisher goes after them for the name.

If I recall correctly, they had a deal in place for a long time that came into question because of something to do with iTunes. Apple Computers was encroaching on Apple Music's turf, they claimed.