On MSNBC's Countdown, Media Matters president Eric Burns discusses media response to Giuliani's false terror claim
January 08, 2010 8:31 pm ET
From the January 8 edition of MSNBC's Countdown:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Mr. News
Sorry for the misspelled word.
Mr. News
Why does anyone care about something as meaningless as race (though as proponents of affirmative action my asking is as meaningless as someone's ethnicity)?
Fairly typical! Get a clue NF. This woman is far from being a typical teabagger.
When you exaggerate you reduce the plausibility of your argument NF. You appear desperate.
Then again, none of the libbies rallies ever result in violence, do they?
It boggles one's mind how the Left refuses to admit they are the group who promotes violence.
Wow! What a reply! Next time I need a quirky comment I will call you NF. You are so clever.
Question for you, retired:
At which political rally last year did someone shout "Kill him!", referring to Obama?
HINT: Sarah Palin was the keynote speaker . . .
We're not the ones bringing guns:
When you exaggerate you reduce the plausibility of your argument SF. You appear desperate.
Oh, by the way:
retiredinsf, just now:
retiredinsf, not exaggerating about "leftists" earlier:
I dunno -- ask Glenn Beck . . .
~
It's high time a stink was made about the double standard that democrats are held to by the media and how democrats are portrayed to the public.
And how the media uncritically allows the right to lie like crazy and never calls them on it and instead, seems to repeat their made up stories like fact.
this has been long overdue in the realm of cable and the traditional media in general
You're even more incoherent than usual.
~
I promise to let you know when I pick up the bottle!
Success for right-winged Republicans, and the rest of us just throw our hands up in disbelief. My, my, my when will this stuff ever end.
Anyone who disagrees with a leftist is labeled as above. Sorry to be the one to make you aware of this, but many people do have an opposition opinion to yours - which means you guys are not correct just because you think so.
epk: "I don't remember politics being so petty and nasty, and I remember a lot of the protests from the '60s."
What a joke! Bush even had an assassination movie made about him - not to mention all of the thousands of attacks from the MSM along with kooky left wing sites such as this! Gimmie a break. Time to put the cork back in the wine bottle epk.
You do know that movie didn't advocate assassination, and wasn't even made by Americans, right? What's it supposed to prove, in your view?
I chose that line out of your rant from all the others because it's easily the most absurd, surreal piece of nonsense I have read in awhile. Okay, ten minutes, but that's a record.
Buried in that attack is a veiled accusation that epk is FRENCH, or acts FRENCH. Because there is no one worse on the planet than the FRENCH. Great to see you reliving the greatest hits of the Bush years, circa 2003, when France became public enemy #1 for rightfully declining to back Bush's Iraq folly.
You are an archetype of why the Right is lost in the wilderness. That half of your family that votes Democratic isn't going to vote for Palin for president in 2012, and sadly she's the best the GOP has to offer. While Democratic support for Obama has slipped, so has support for the GOP. In other words, nobody in guvment is very popular right now. Come this November, the Democrats will still control the House and Senate. In part you can thank the Tea Baggers for that inevitability. Extremist movements from within a party struggling for an identity tend to rise to the top. But it's the duty of the moderates to step up and save the party. See the Democrats in 2006. We kicked the Truthers to the curb. No time for conspiracy theories. There is real work to be done.
I wish you and the GOP luck in finding a politically viable identity. You'll need it.
Randy
So, needstoretiretobedinsf,
Care to explain HOW Obama is "destroying America"?
I keep hearing that being screamed by wingnut noisemakers on TV and radio -- just as they continue to scream that he's a "socialist" -- but, they never get around to explaining WHY he's a socialist/communist/whatever, or HOW he's destroying the country . . .
Wow -- way to elevate the debate among us "highbrow, leftist snobs" . . .
Because I drink wine, speak French, and go to art museums, I'm a "high-browed puke." Because I attended college, I'm an elitist (does it matter that it was a state school, and that I was in hock for a decade to pay for it?)
My father was a union trucker, and my mother was a cleaning lady. I grew up in working class neighborhoods and went to public schools. I have seen my electric bill compared to others, and it is actually very low. I have been recycling most of the last 15 years. I drive a hybrid that gets 40MPG. I at work, I am notorious for my use of real plates and cloth napkins over the disposable stuff. Once again, you make judgements over people you don't even know, and you're wrong.
Now, can I be mean, occasionally, but almost never without provocation. You have been nasty to people since you got here. I asked you why you were being so nasty and you accused me of being trailer trash (if I am trailer trash, how can I be an elitist?) This is my experience with people like you. I always try to understand where someone is coming from, I may ask them directly, if I need to. I don't degrade the enemy just because they attacked us; I don't hate Muslims, just because; for this tolerance, people like you have called me Anti-American or worse. I've gotten into arguments with people like you before. When I have been called names or told I am wrong, I usually look them straight in the eye and smile, sure of my facts. This usually results in my being called an arrogant b***h. Perhaps, but I can usually back up my arguments with facts, so why should I back down.
You, on the other hand, call names and make incorrect judgements on people for no real reason. I may have said some very harsh things here, but they were aimed at you, based on your actions and words. You started it. A lot of your posts seem to be projecting your inadequacies onto others.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your names will never hurt me. And please notice, I didn't call you an idiot or a puke, and I don't think of you that way. I see you as a lonely, angry old man feel trying to feel more powerful by trashing others. If that's what makes you feel better, go ahead.
As for the Bush movie, it was made in Great Britain and has nothing to do with anyone in this country. Also, if you supported and continue to support GWB, it is just further evidence of your lack of conservative thought. GWB was and is no conservative. EVER. He simply had an R in the parentheses behind his name. That didn't make him a conservative.
Good for you, epk.
If needstoretiretobedinsf is as "normal" and as conservative as he claims, that likely means he's on his third marriage {at least} -- and is probably cheating . . .
Pity. You don't what your missing. By far the most eye-opening and mind expanding drug on Earth, with the fewest negative side effects and contraindications, and best of all, it grows in the ground, which is why Pfizer and their conservative blowhard apologists in Congress won't support its legalization.
Randy
Last week I played bridge and I took one too many deceptions.
I was really bothered by conservatives suggesting Senator Landrieu's deal-making was nothing more than turning deceptions.
Retired, you're a one-deception pony. Too bad we have something called "symbolic language," in which words can have many meanings. But I can understand your very normal desire to believe serial liars about what "Mike's trick" is, instead of believing well-respected scientists. After all, the serial liars TELL you that the scientists are lying.
Last week I played bridge and I took one too many "studys".
I was really bothered by conservatives suggesting Senator Landrieu's deal-making was nothing more than turning "studys".
See what I mean about leftists not being normal? To them a trick is a study or experiment (of course only when it excuses their behavior).
Get it?
You wrote;
Any reasonable person would conclude from this comment Jones is being deceptive and fraudulent.
I disagree. Any reasonable person would LOOK at the data and see what was done and make an assessment after that. You clearly didn't do that or you wouldn't still be parroting these idiotic talking points.
Can not look at the data because the hoaxers will not release what is left of what they did not trash to cover up their tracks. After 3 years they still would not release data under FOI requests. What do they have to hide if AGW is legit?
Why are so many of you so gullible?
That's not true and you know it. Just because the CRU didn't keep the data doesn't mean the data was destroyed, and you know that. You're on MMfA enough to have read that the original data is still intact.
You still haven't explained why climatologists would want to lie about climate change. You also did not respond to my question about what you think Jones actually did. I can only assume that you have no idea what was done.
You asked why so many people are gullible. I would respond by asking you why you are such a conspiracy theorist. What incentive is there for this "hoax" that you allege is occurring?
Money! Billions and billions!
Who will be making these "billions and billions"? Most established corporations would rather maintain the status quo than change anything, so who do you believe is behind this "hoax"?
"I know what normal people think. After all, I'm one of the minority who believe that climate change news is exaggerated. And normal people like me are, in addition to not being good enough at math to know that we are not normal, not good enough at English to know that words have more than one meaning. Also, I'm rock-solid certain that this one scientist guy is normal too, so when he writes 'trick' in an email, it can mean only one thing: he's hoaxing us! All other uses of 'trick' are vague, seldom used, and above all not normal! Now if you show me any counter-arguments, especially ones that blow my B. S. out of the water, I'll just call you stupid, say the same thing again without significant new contributions, and use more capitals and exclamation points. Then I'll ask 'Get it?' and pretend I think you didn't get it before. It's a fool-proof argument technique."
Maybe for "normal" people like you, retired. Feel free to have the last word; I am bored with your "arguments." Good luck putting anything new in it though; you seem to be out of original thoughts.
Randy
PS Check this video. Skip to 3:09, about the word trick, and feast your eyes on papers with "trick" in the title, as I mentioned above.
Last week I played bridge and I took one too many deceptions.
I was really bothered by conservatives suggesting Senator Landrieu's deal-making was nothing more than turning deceptions.
-- mrhebert74"
"See what I mean about leftists not being normal? To them a trick is a study or experiment (of course only when it excuses their behavior). -- retiredinsf"
Swoosh .... the sound of that one skipping right over his head.
Beats me. Ask your bud mrhebert74. He is the one who said it. I love it when you folks slam one another without even realizing it! But, I am not surprised because of how foolish you all seem to be.
It's not supposed to be a major point anyway. You can make your argument without it. I'd also ignore what he "thinks", since he can't demonstrate intellectual superiority.
Didn't you write in a comment above about how exaggerating reduces the plausibility of arguments? Please reread your ridiculous generalizations about "leftists" and try to follow your own advice.
Ordering a burger with dijon mustard, eating arugula salad . . .
That is the perspective of those eight Fox News contributors. They have the right to those perspectives, just as you have the right to yours.
Mr. Burns went on to say that this is the kind of issue that conservatives are going to use for their political advantage, that this is about politics to them, and not about national security.-
The fact is that people from ALL sides of the political spectrum (right, left, independents and the others) use particular issues to fight for their political advantage. But it is a travesty for anyone to claim that conservatives are more concerned about politics than they are about national security. It is even more of a travesty in light of the fact that President Obama has been busy on the campaign trail for the past year he has been in office, causing division among the populace and demonstrating scorn for a large portion of the population rather than trying to serve in the bi-partisan way he promised he would.
Mr. Burns said that journalists and the media have a responsibility to dig down and really get to the truth so Americans can really understand what is true and not true. And that is a fact, Jack! I would say several Fox News contributors are doing just that, including OReilly and Beck, among others.
Finally, I almost choked on my coffee when Rick Burns said that the media is interested in a good story and in controversy and feeding into this kind of misinformation. Mr. Burns, are you talking about ALL of the media, or just conservative media or (more pointedly) Fox News? Excuse me, but you ARE talking about the right and not the media in general. Because you went on to say that we are seeing the right wing trying to create a good story, and that it is irresponsible and dangerous for America.
Oh, I see. So we should not worry about jihadist terrorists or Iran or our other known enemies being dangerous for America? Rather, we should worry about those evil right wingers, tea partiers, and the great Satan Fox News. THEY are the dangerous ones? Thanks for warning us.
Hmmm, just go get your kudos over at FoxNation 'cause they eat that crap up there, not here. And, thank God for that - LOL.
For at least as long as we have to hear the phrase "Clinton [fill in the blank]" . . .
Sean Hannity blamed the 2008 meltdown on the CRA passed in 1978 then basically pretended that Reagan and Bush 41 weren't president for 12 collective years. Unreal.
Randy
Seriously, why do you wingnuts make it so easy for us thinkers to make fun of you? I almost feel bad about it, until I read your post again and realize how much you deserve it.
For the better part of the last six years GOP loyalists have been spouting the nonsense that the Democratic Party is "soft on terror." In more recent times many of their loudest voices have made not so subtle suggestions that Democrats are actually encouraging terrorist--something that is equal parts false, ridiculous, and obscene.
I'm not one who believes that conservatives on a whole are putting politics ahead of national security. Nevertheless, we do see examples of that very thing happening. Jim Demint has held up the nomination for a new head of the Transportation Security Administration because he's concerned about the possibility of a union. Peter King calls the justice department's preliminary review of the interrogations of detainees a, "declaration of war against the CIA." A host of others have suggested that the President has been too distracted by the health care debate to focus on national security. Again I say, on a whole I do not believe that conservatives put politics ahead of security, but there are too many examples of a select few of them doing just that.
Now it appears some of those select few wish to rewrite history. Lets give Perino and Giuliani the benefit of a doubt and say they misspoke when they made their "we had no terror attacks under Bush" claims and meant to add, "after 9/11." That as laughably and irresponsibly false as Orly Taitz's Kenyan birth certificate and much, much easier to disprove. Nevertheless, it's a narrative that continues, one that goes absolutely unchallenged on News Corps outlets, and all too obviously advanced in order to underscore the "terrorists will kill you if you don't vote Republican!" line that worked in 2004, but fell flat in 2006 and 2008. Having nothing of substance to run on the GOP is running with that again figuring a .333 batting average is considered really good in baseball.
Burns made an excellent point when he said we do not have a culture of responsibility in our media. That's sadly undeniable. The remaining newspapers have largely cut the column inches of their stories reducing the reports to summaries rather than in depth journalism. TV and radio stations run with sound bites that sound clever, but lack substance. Both parties understand that and are ever so willing to play along offering quotes and statements that puts their ideas in small, easy to swallow capsules and characterizes their opponents as inept cartoon characters. Both sides know they will go unchallenged and they'll often attempt to slip in a blatant lie.
Like it or not, the right wing has consistently told the biggest whoppers. And why not? It's been effective for them. The very fact you used the oft repeated, "Obama has been on the campaign trail while he's been in office," shows how successful it's been. The very fact that you defend Fox News and suggest that O'Reilly and Beck are guardians of the truth shows how successful it's been.
One final observation--the fact that you're here and posting show just how successful Burns and Media Matters has been. Tell me, did you find your way here via Fox News? I did. I didn't know a thing about this site or Daily Kos until I heard so many of the News Corp. drones complain about it.
First, you err by referring to O'Reilly, and especially Beck, as "journalists" . . . they're "opinionists" {by their own, and several of their devoted listeners, admission.}
Second, I fail to see how some of Becky's more noted antics {simulating boiling a frog, simulating pouring and igniting gasoline on someone, misspelling the word "OLIGARCHY" in order to make a point about Obama being a socialist} constitute "digging down and getting to the truth" . . .
BTW: I already know what your responses to my above comment will be. Tell ya what, I'll write them down now just to prove I know you people so well:
"What brain? You can not give your brain a rest when you don't have one. You winning? You did not win even one argument! Rise? How can you rise when you are already dead? Who do you think you are? JC? Occasion? Don't even think about MMFA as on "occasion! Your claptrap is always so feeble - you right wing slobbering poor excuse for a human! Take you crayons and go to bed!"
That about it?
As for who won or didn't win, I leave that to the elections to judge. Last two say your tired rhetoric is losing ground, if for no other reason than those with your antediluvian attitudes are a dying breed. Natural selection at its best.
Randy
Good grief.
sad
*hiccup*
TRANSLATION: I came onto a website where I don't agree with the opinion expressed by most of the posters, tossed out the usual wingnut responses about "high-browed, snooty liberals", and generally fulfilled the bidding of my neoKKKon masters in hate radio.
Having done so, I will, as is characteristic of those of my ilk, declare "victory", then leave in order to receive more talking points from Limpballs, Beck, Hannity, et. al., then return again another day in order to derail another subject thread; derailment of a thread and everyone's responses to my inane rants are what substitutes for friendship in my disappointing world . . .
And if Obama was being "weak" on terrorism (actually, the response appears to be just as draconian as Bush's), good for him. What kind of demasculated bedwetters have we become when we allow terrorism (highly suspicious terrorism, at that) to be used as an excuse to destroy our constitutional republic?