Fox News caught red-handed (again) doctoring video
November 18, 2009 5:54 pm ET by Matt Gertz
UPDATE: For photographic proof that one of the rallies Fox News presented as being from Palin's book tour actually took place last year on the campaign trail, go here.
As the folks over at Think Progress note, Fox News's Gregg Jarrett today used old stock footage of a McCain-Palin rally from last year to illustrate how Sarah Palin is "continuing to draw huge crowds" during her book tour. He was apparently not tipped off by the McCain campaign "Country First" sign in one of the shots, nor did he wonder why Palin would be using a teleprompter to plug her book.
This is the second time in ten days Fox News has been caught deceptively using video to advance a misleading storyline - and that's just the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg. Maybe now Howard Kurtz will admit that there's a larger cultural problem with Fox News?
It's called Constructive Editing, a process of putting People of the Left in the worst possible Lumination.
Fox News, Where the Truth is Considered Taboo.
Where their Standard Bearer is Glenn Beck in some circles also known as Mr. Magoo.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Well, we can hope.
Ask them to please stop?
Randy
For you guys to pretend that it wasn't blatantly obvious that the background was from a rally and that Fox was trying to fool its audience that way is preposterous. In now way does anything about that footage look like a booksigning. Why would Palin be standing up on a podium with a microphone at a freaking book-signing.
You guys seriously are in need of a real life, unless you come here just for the entertainment value as a break from the monotony.
Oh, and I do come over here for the entertainment value . . . I get to laugh at Foxbots like you.
It's an insult to both sides of the political spectrum.
First of all, it's "Fox." Do you think that putting it in all caps gives it legitimacy? Quite the reverse, in my book; every e-mail I get with the subject in all caps gets deleted instantly.
Second, MMFA doesn't "obsess" over Fox, they report when Fox breaks the basic rules of journalism in a way that downgrades the left and/or elevates the right. Why do you see so much of Fox here? Because MMFA has an obsession with legitimate journalism.
it's like you guys act you're all Sherlock Holmes's
I wish you could act like a writer.
all it was was a simple editing mistake that was obvious for anyone to see.
Except that Fox has a long history of making "simple mistakes" that always benefit the far right. It was purposeful and planned, and only someone wedded to the neocon ideals could disagree.
It's an insult to both sides of the political spectrum.
What a bizarre conclusion. If it was a "simple editing mistake," how is it an insult to anyone? Moreover, how can anything in this topic be construed as an insult to both sides?
I have to wonder if you're capable of being any more vacuous than that.
MMFA's charge here of willful intent is a weak one and that in itself is an insult to both sides. To the Fox audience that they're implying are too stupid not to think a summertime video of an obvious political rally was a book signing in a cold place right now like Grand Rapids. And to the Fox haters not to address that inconvenient truth in their accusation. You can't have it both ways with Fox. You want them to be sneaky intelligent when you need that as part of the equation to make the case that they tried to pass off footage of a bigger crowd than it was. And you want them to be dumb as box of rocks to have chosen summertime video in order to fool people. Fool people like you and MMFA and Think Progress that constantly monitor them.
Your argument has more holes in it than a pound of Swiss cheese. And no one has addressed the seasonality discrepancy on here yet, as if it doesn't matter.
"...This is the second time in ten days Fox News has been caught deceptively using video to advance a misleading storyline - and that's just the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg. Maybe now Howard Kurtz will admit that there's a larger cultural problem with Fox News?"
I'm saying that is not true and I've made a case for it that you call distraction, but in which I maintain blows the deception charge and implication of guilt clear out of the water. There is just no way in the world anyone trying to be deceptive would've chosen that footage from a hot summer day to try to pass off as Michigan in November.
Address the question, you say? Fox addressed both instances already. They admitted their mistakes in both. This instance you claim as deception was a production error.
You all pretend you have them dead to rights, but you can't explain this huge flaw in your logic.
Um... to fool people? The most obvious reason is that they want to prop up Palin's popularity.
Hint: Hoosed your so far behind in the race it only looks like your ahead. You've been lapped 3x.
One would think someone claiming to have lapped me 3 times would have no problem circling the square of why people would use summertime footage when the low temperatures yesterday morning were in the mid-twenties to low-thirties.
C'mon, get real.
That was early fall vs. barely mid-fall in the same town with the background monuments being identical, which is where the eye goes.
These videos are summertime in Florida vs. almost winter in Michigan. Quite a bit more stark contrast. And they were clearly from at least two different rallies with Palin wearing different clothes. Was this all by design or something, mikehuck1976. Palin changed clothes at the same book signing?
C'mon. The gig is up on this topic.
What strikes me about your argument, though, is that if the obvious nature of the discrepancy is supposed to convince us that it was an honest mistake, then why did Jarrett or some producer not notice it? Jarrett's commenting on the appearance of the size of the crowd while there's a teleprompter and a campaign sign in view. Even if he didn't notice it, why didn't one of the production staff call attention to it immediately, so that Jarrett could say "it's been brought to my attention that this is not footage of today's appearance..."? The more that you argue that it couldn't be intended to fool anyone, the stranger it is that it fooled the supposed professionals broadcasting it.
You're all over the place.
That is, unless I'm using the term too strictly, of course. I've never heard it for this sort of thing before, though.
FOX NEWS
We Distort, You're Deceived
Matt Gertz has no idea how television works.
He was obviously teasing the story with what is called B Roll -- A phrase none of you morons recognoze -- and thought the real video was being shown.
I am sure they had some real video and pictures from today -- as the story link below does -- can Gertz or the liars at Think Progress post the video form after the break?
Plus Gertz' little story here is an outright attempt at deception making it seem like FOX ran video of the Florida rally. If they did we'd see it here in its entirety.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2009-11-18-Palin-book-tour_N.htm
Gregg Jarrette's own words were...
Do you have the clip of the whole story which sounds like was aired after a commercial?
What about MMFA blatantly distorting the facts on this post by showing photos of a 2008 campiagn rally as if that was the video shown in the actual story. Certainly we would see that entire story of that were true.
Again, MMFA is not an organization to be taken seriously
It just happens to often for folks at MMfA to be forgiving at this point.
Until Gregg Jarrett corrects his "mistake," which I am quite sure he will do, then it still stands as a deception on the part of Fox news and is fair game to its opposition. When he does, I am sure that MMfA will post a video of him doing so and have various links to the other apologies that Fox has made for these kinds of mistakes.
You got burned, and you must explicitly own it before we go any further.
It was a mistake.
UPDATE
This is what you guys live for. This will be declared a victory on here on the order of Lou Dobbs' departure from CNN.
Give yourselves a golf clap, for today FOX had to issue a statement admitting they got the wrong footage mixed up with the copy going to the announcer.
As if a Sarah Palin book signing is going to have people in the background waving 'Country First' signs a year and a half after he campaign. Not to mention that was John McCain's slogan.
Real American Geniuses here.
They do these sorts of things CONSTANTLY. Open your eyes and your mind. The fact that YOU believe this was a mistake shows your total lack of objectivity. I guarantee you that the majority of Fox viewers who saw the video footage yesterday didn't catch that it was from 2008 . . . it was on Fox . . . Fox doesn't make mistakes, it's "fair and balanced."
Why is it the mistakes ALWAYS tilt in favor of the Republicans? I never saw "Rep. William Jefferson, R-LA caught with money in freezer" or anything like that. Why would that be, Brainy Smurf?
Wonder why that would be? Thinking.........
What was there about the picture and the footage that resembled a book signing? How many book signings have you seen with the author standing at a podium and people yelling and screaming? Would that Sarah Palin was thinking this was the best way to sign everyone's book, go out into a mob of people and sign them one by one.
Have fun with this, but if you choose to act like idiots and claim this was intentional and that the bulk of Fox's audience is so stupid to believe that was footage from a book signing, then don't act indignant at being called on it.
You're both being ridiculous.
Further, if I were to see any news outlet make these "mistakes" time and time and time again, I would stop watching for the sole reason that they are clearly unprofessional. In much the same way I don't read the National Enquirer nor consider it a "news"paper.
How credible do you think the portrayal of this as Fox trying to be sly is, tbone?
You guys are all super sleuth wannabe's. It's comical.
This site and the commenters here have made a serious charge, yet no one can explain why Fox would use summertime footage if they were trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.
It blows a hole a mile wide in your allegations, that's why. You guys are being 9/11 truthers on this. Andrew Sullivan Trig truthers.
The fact is that Fox News is trying to sell a narrative and they fit whatever they can have into that preconceived narrative regardless of the actual reality. This is how these inadvertent mistakes happen, because the editors and producers know what the expected story is supposed to be.
If they changed their mind, that means they intended at one point in time to show it. Why? Why show campaign video at all?
But today's 'apology' says that they never meant to show that video. Both can't be true. What seems obvious is that NEITHER excuse is true!
And for all your talk about how MMfA is not a "serious" organization, maybe you can explain how that is the case. The mission of the organization is to find and highlight conservative misinformation in the media. Seems like that is what has been done here, and Fox does seem to regularly make these sorts of mistakes (Any Congressman undergoing any sort of scandal will automatically be D, including David Vitter, Mark Foley and Mark Sanford.), wouldn't you say? If anything, you should be arguing that Fox News cannot be taken as a serious organization, since they either intentionally or unintentionally make these errors over and over again. How hard is it to type "Sarah Palin book tour video" when searching for digital images? Unless you are too stupid to even tag the stuff correctly, which again goes to Fox being a ridiculous excuse for a "news organization".
I'm sure you won't respond to this beyond going off on a tangent about "typical libs", so I'm not sure why I bothered posting it. I'm always stupidly optimistic, I suppose.
Then why is the name of the website not Liberal Media Matters for America? This site's domain name is very misleading. Not once have they shown any liberal in a negative light.
I'm not sure why you bothered posting it either.
It's the same reason Fox calls itself "News."
It would be just as stupid of an argument, but at least you'd be consistent.
Does that look anything like a book signing to you.
Good grief, one idiotic liberal blog is even requesting people to complain to the FCC and to be sure to use the word 'Hoax' because it's a word they respond to.
Sad state of affairs in the nutroots today. This gives them purpose.
Obviously, you are a Foxbot . . . open your eyes.
Like it's some kind of an 'Aha-gotcha' moment. the people in the background are wearing shorts and short-sleeves outdoors, and it's supposed to be a book signing in Grand Rapids, MI. I'm sorry, binxt, people aren't that stupid that they wouldn't be able to recognize that. What doesn't make sense here, and even the amateur forensics enthusiasts here ought to be able to recognize it right away, is that if you think Fox is so sly, why did they choose footage from the summertime? Why not find one from late Oct. of 2008 to look more in season with mid-November in Michigan.
You're embarrassing yourself.
And do you really think this rises to the level of having people write in complaints to the FCC like another prominent left-wing loon blog is encouraging its fans to do? This is what activism is all about today when the economy is just about on death's door?
Maybe you could explain why they chose footage from a hot summer day to try to fool the masses into thinking it was frigid mid-November Grand Rapids, MI.
Enlighten us with your theory on that.
I see mistakes on chryons all the time on Fox. I've seem them spell Palin's book wrong about ten times, actually, as "Going Rouge". Now, since that's them name of the opposition book coming out against her, why would they do that? That's really no different than mistaking an R for a D.
Very poor legal example, Wildcat.
Please take a stab at the seasonal discrepancy that is so glaring as to make this thread a complete joke.
Now that I have addressed that, maybe you can explain why the Chryon "mistakes" ALWAYS go from R to D when the subject is Foley, Sanford, Vitter, etc. and NEVER the other way? Because since this thread remarks (and in the headline along with the body) about Fox having a history of doing so, the history is certainly relevant, despite your argument.
I mean this in all sincerity: please call up Alan Colmes on his radio show, or email him, and ask him what he knows about this since he's no longer a regular on H&C. Find someone who knows something.
You've never explained why in the world this is an effective strategy. Do you thing the people in Foley's, Vitter's or Sanford's voting districts don't know their political affiliation? Vitter and Sanford were not even close to being up for election anyway. And do you think Fox doesn't know the entire liberal blogosphere is watching their every move, their every sentence, even their facial twitches and eye rolls. You can never address these sorts of things- you are a bunch of 9/11 and Trig truthers.
What makes no sense is when anyone shows Fox's cable rating every liberal says its only 3 million people at the most, which is only 1% of the population. But you're claiming that the strategy of showing Vitter or Sanford or Foley as Dems on the chyron one time each would affect elections in other states because it sway some voters opinions against Democrats in general. This doesn't even take into account the fact that places like this send this mistake out to all the other lib blogs and Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and David Shuster do their best to get it mainstreamed.
It's a ridiculous assertion to say this is part of an overall strategy on the part of Fox. It's the typical conspiracy theory truther crap. No one that swears it's true can follow up and explain it to a logical conclusion.
The effects of a one-time political party mis-identification by Fox News on a shamed politician months or years away from any kind of election on that misidentified party in a different state on a significant number of voters such that swayed their vote is so miniscule as to be laughable. The backlash is far more damaging than whatever positive could come out of it. You're getting your panties all bunched up in a wad for nothing.
Irony, hoosier. Hoosier, irony.
If you have nothing else to say, yes, assume anyone who questions Fox's integrity is EXACTLY like those who believe 9/11 was an inside job or Trig was actually Palin's granddaughter. I believe neither of those things, by the way. But way to make a completely asinine statement with no back-up. Idiot.
You're the one making a case that you can't prove. For some reason, you think you are proving by showing examples that don't prove anyhing and ask me to explain them. And I have, but you don't like the simple explanation. In that regard you are acting like conspiracy theorists whose logic makes no sense when put under any kind of even surface scrutiny.
They have a very vocal, very rabid, very loyal, very niche market. They play to them every chance they get. And these are the only people who take them seriously. I am sorry if you are one of them.
The image they are showing as the so called video wasn't even part of the clip.
The diction of his voice clearly indicates he expected a different video clip. It is called a MISTAKE. When Jarrett says "as just coming in" he may not have realized the old footage would be played in the tease. He clearly was expecting something else. There was no attempt to deceive and to say otherwise is to be dishonest. - Dick2012
Try and reconcile those two statements, Dick. Someone sure looks like a dishonest moron. Let's see if you can guess who it is.
I'm just a "moron", and no doubt you have special, thought-reading skills, but the video transcript says otherwise. In the video above, Jarrett:
"Take a look these are some of the pictures just coming into us - you can see earlier the lines forming; There's a crowd of folks."
... to that man behind his keyboard.
What kind of moron tells us we're morons when he doesn't even play the fricken video?
Oh, maybe Cheney666 has that "Makes-new-friends-every-day" disorder that Ronnie Raygun had - in 1982.
Do you have the clip of the whole story which sounds like was aired after a commercial?
What about MMFA blatantly distorting the facts on this post by showing photos of a 2008 campiagn rally as if that was the video shown in the actual story. Certainly we would see that entire story of that were true.
Again, MMFA is not an organization to be taken seriously.
Yeah. He "may not have". That's sure some definitive proof you got there. And you called us morons.
Neither are necessary. Neither are correct, actually.
And neither should be included on anyone's post on a blog accusing someone else of being intellectual lightweights in which you chastise them for their grammar.
No issue with your calling someone on it, but make sure you're correct. And, your bad luck, your quoting (incorrectly) English rules on a thread that happens to contain someone who spent 10 years teaching English lit and grammar.
Then again, maybe I just have delusions of grammar.
Even if Jarrett wasn't the one responsible (and unless he is capable of projecting an astral shadow into the production truck, he very likely wasn't)... that still doesn't change the fact that they said they were airing footage that was JUST TAKEN and instead played footage from a year ago. That's not something that happens by accident. If I'm attempting to go out to my beat-up AMC Pacer and instead get into a Corvette six houses down, I have not made a mistake. I have deliberately done something heinous, and it's party time, baby.
Who could've made this mistake? Were the videos in question not labeled? Is the entire Fox clip collection of Sarah Palin on two VHS tapes labeled "PALIN 1" and "PALIN 2" and, whoops, dangedest thing, somebody accidentally grabbed PALIN 1?
THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN.
Even if you completely ignore Jarrett's culpability in this, there's still the little issue of FOOTAGE FROM A YEAR AGO BEING AIRED AS IF IT JUST HAPPENED. There are two reasons this could happen:
1. You are running a completely inept and incompetent news operation that can't hold up to even basic standards of journalistic scrutiny.
2. You are a crooked network of snake-oil salesmen artificially inflating the reputations of the politicians you admire--and whose pockets you've lined.
At this point, I am willing to believe EITHER of these options, and in both cases, you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
How is the fact that MMFA caught them playing footage that didn't match up, footage they hadn't yet explained when this was posted, mean that MMFA is bad somehow? Of course it doesn't mean anything of the sort!
What place would campaign footage ever have in a story about Sarah Palin getting big crowds for her book signing? It wouldn't. It's propaganda, nothing more.
So, their 'excuse' that they intended to show that video but have different words to go along with the video doesn't make sense - there's no news value in showing old campaign video when discussing the crowds she's garnering today.
Have they ever inadvertently made a "mistake" that benefitted anyone other than a Republican?
That was not b-roll footage. If it were stock footage or b-roll it would not have been referred to as " . . .just coming in." Your grasp of the jargon of video editing and teevee production is quite impressive, though . . .
Cheney 2012 = FAIL
No surprise really because you appear to derive some satisfaction by posting like above.
Do you get paid by the thumb downs you get?
Dream on MMFA. Maybe someday you'll wake up and Sarah Palin will have been a bad dream. Or, maybe, while you are whining, she'll get elected president!
How 'bout a Palin\Beck\Hannity ticket?
That'd give Bill O'Loofa something to dream about.
[citation needed]
Because really, if that were true, they wouldn't NEED to run that fake footage, right?
Oh, and if she's ever elected president, it will be a bad dream for this country. You might want to do a bit of research on this woman's very radical religious beliefs. She believes that she was CHOSEN by God to be President of the United States. She and her "prayer group" lead by Mary Glazier of Windwalkers believe that she was chosen to lead our country into the "end times" which they believe are long overdue. Even Palin's own home Assembly of God church considers her belief system "heresy." Look up Windwalkers and Mary Glazier.
So, if you want this woman to create a situation where the entire planet goes BLOOEY, keep supporting her silliness.
Palin won't be the president. She can't drift to the middle and keep her fans because she becomes just another politician, and she can't win the office being on the far right. And Goldman Sachs would have no appetite for her nor she for them, unlike the current president who realized he had to sell his soul to them.
Sure beats having an Ivy League educated buffoon in office.
the fact is that Palin is drawing huge crowds for the size of markets she's going into
And why is she going into relatively small markets, then? She's doing Grand Rapids... why not Detroit? She's going to do Fort Wayne... why not Chicago? She, or her handlers, have very carefully picked the smaller, more conservative markets because they know fully well that that's where her fans are. It would be like going to a bookstore, seeking out the science fiction section, and finding, amazingly enough, science fiction fans there!
So yes, it's a fact, but it doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. And you're follow-up "fact," that "Palin is extremely resonant with Americans" is entirely unfounded.
Unprecedented in the entire history of book selling.
The intelligence level here is off the charts today.
Obviously, mikehuck! My word, hoosier's irritating enough when he actually gets the point, but when he misses by a mile, he starts to invade Cheney2012's level.
Do you think the segment producer was telling Jarrett in his IFB, "Stretch the intro, we're waiting on the bird and don't have the live feed?" Is it possible Jarrett's TelePrompTer® had the intro script and Jarrett just read what he was told to read?
Why didn't the segment producer hold the cover shot of Jarrett and the graphic for a few more seconds while he introed the remote? Did someone put a gun the TD's head to take the B-roll instead of the live feed?
You have to ask yourself why any NEWS producer would cue up B-roll of a completely unrelated event.....if they didn't intend to mislead.
Ask him to explain the hesitancy in Jarrett's voice when he looked down at his monitor.
We already proved to you that Fox News has no issue with showing the wrong season. And your response was they couldn't do it this time because it was just proven that they have already done it. Wonderful pretzel you've twisted yourself into.
Open your ears, your eyes and your mind. You might learn something.
Palin is yesterday's news and isn't worth our breath or keyboard strokes.
If the RNC wants to nominate her in 2012, let 'em do it. She will be as much an automatic loser as Kerry was in 2004.
The bigger threat is Virginia's governor-elect Bob McDonnell. Does MMFA know how many presidents came from Virginia? Precious little is said here about him, but I won't go off-topic to bring up his issues.
I long for the day when children will laugh at a lie told by another child and call it "another FoxNews story."
----------------------------------
The Midnight Review
Mum Is The Word
the lady's got juice, so get over it...
reporting from murderland ranch,
i'm mookie von zipper
massmurdermedia
Get your head out of your backside.
Don't expect much from Mookie he's still in a cloud of bong smoke and using outdated terminology...got juice? Dang how old is that movie?!?
jeez... again...
stop the nonsense, this 20 seconds clip is not a wide shot to show a lot of people are gathering. it's just some close shots to show Palin. the one that the commentator is talking about, and he says more photo are coming which means we will later show you some more photos. however this article shows liberal are reaching the point of collapse, because when you reach that point you start saying things that don't have a meaning. good day folk
very.....
Always remember to (a) keep in mind MMFA's mission statement, (b) read the whole article, and (c) read all the other comments above yours, or you may try to make a point that's already been shot to pieces, and you will look foolish.
Of course, this doesn't apply to neocons, because they don't mind looking foolish.
I thought I told you guys to go back to sleeping with your sisters. You didn't listen and so you got intellectually pantsed. Quit while you're ahead.
How much you wanna bet we never see that? :-)
Either way, 8 out of 10 times the anchor would correct on-air and say "That video you're seeing is Palin from back when she was on the campaign trail."
10 out of 10 times, there would be a date or file font loaded into the chyron to take when the video popped up.
It just makes no sense no matter how you look at to make the charge this was intentionally deceptive.
Thousands line up in Michigan for Palin
Why on earth would Fox feel the need to dig up footage of some rally from summer 2008 when you had that kind of thing going on already? There'd be absolutely nothing to be embarrassed about. Absolutely no reason to fake footage on the part of anyone.
It's simple so let me break it down for you. While yes, they are both very big numbers, ( and follow carefully here because this is the hard part) 1 number is actually a much bigger number than the other big number. Ergo... (latin for therefore)
Motive!!!!!!
In that sense, 15 people is far less than 1,500.
Ergo.....
No motive!!!
The estimate I saw from the University of Idontknowwhere estimated the crowd at 1.5 million.
Same goes for "Fox's News". The're either doing these mistakes intentiallly, or they are a really, really bad news organization.
(These kinds of mistakes simply don't happen with the real news organizations.)
Lying... or just really bad. Take your pick.
Which of the two is it for the accusation here that it was a definite case of deception that they were caught red-handed and guilty as charged, without thinking any of it through or allowing for an objective analysis, or even for Fox's explanation?
Believe it or not, a little CONTEXT would help your accusation. Look closer at the post above:
Notice that he actually provided a context for this assessment. You, on the other hand, just drooled down your chin as proof that Obama did something with something.
The debate team must have relished your every slice of input...as an example of how not to debate.
Randy
But I did and have made the case for this blog post on Fox here as being at least 'really bad' in their accusations.
No one can explain why Fox would intend to deceive with footage from a different season, from completely different campaign rallies with different outfits worn by Palin, with Jarret saying crowds were lining up when the rallies had them bunched together, and for which the background in the campaign rallies only showed at the most 15-20 people.
How can it be an attempt to deceive when there are only at most 20 people shown at the campaign rally?
Seriously, Faux better get used to the fact that Google exists.
Whether it's "racism", "race-baiting", "hate-speak", or "video-doctoring", MMFA knows it when they see it! Although they can't quite articulate or support (with actual facts) their reasons for applying such labels to various quotes, videos, and sound bites they target, they (apparently) feel justified in using tendentious, accusatory language just the same.
The hypocrisy is stunning, as MMFA leaps to conclusions and misleads in much the same way as the targets of their criticism -- FOX News, Limbaugh, Beck and others. Maybe the ends justify the means?
Matt, given Fox's tendentious coverage of the news you might suspect them of intentionally using the wrong video, but you have hardly 'caught' them 'doctoring'(a wholly different connotation from what happened) video. Two very misleading words to represent the available facts about what happened. Using the wrong video is not the same as 'doctoring' a video, which surely requires intent. Suspecting intent is not the same as 'catching' someone 'doctoring' a video.
And no, Limbaugh saying 'no one goes to (East St. Louis) is no more proof of racism than someone saying they don't like Obama. And no, claiming a journalist has 'adopted' the conservative language of hate-groups by using the plain-language phrase 'define marriage traditionally' is not proof of collusion between them and some conservative agenda.
Look, Fox, Limbaugh and others are easy enough targets without 'spinning' things, which only spins away your credibility, although clearly the MMFA dittoheads lap it up!
You do good work, sometimes. But stick to the facts if you want to avoid diluting the message.
All the best,
P3
Don't you folks have better things to do. When you are in a hole stop digging.
For anyone who is dis_gus_ted with the idea of her going to Fort Bragg or Fort Hood (especially with the title of her book) please make your voice heard by contacting the following:
Fort Bragg Public Affairs Office 910-907-5290
http://armedservices.senate.gov/members.htm
Chairman Carl Levin (D) http://www.levin.senate.gov D.C. Phone # 202-224-6221
Ranking Member John McCain (I'm sure he'll be glad to hear from you)
http://www.mccain.senate.gov D.C. Phone # 202-224-2235
http://armedservices.house.gov/list_of_members.shtml 202-225-4151 click on stafff for General Counsel Paul Oostburg
Be nice.