NewsBusters editor falsely accused Media Matters of taking Bennett "out of context"
In an October 12 post on the Media Research Center's NewsBusters weblog, NewsBusters editor Greg Sheffield falsely asserted that "Media Matters [for America] took out of context" controversial remarks by radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett. Sheffield's post linked to a September 30 NewsBusters post (by NewsBusters contributor Dave Pierre) that did not mention Media Matters for America by name, but accused "liberals" of "taking [Bennett's] comment way out of context" and of falsely characterizing that comment as racist. But in first exposing Bennett's controversial remarks (which linked crime, abortion, and African-Americans), Media Matters documented Bennett's remarks in their full context and provided background for Bennett's reference to the book Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005) by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.
The September 30 NewsBusters post referenced by Sheffield attacked "liberals" for failing to include a portion of Bennett's comments in which he stated that aborting all African-Americans' pregnancies would be "morally reprehensible." The post defended Bennett on the grounds that "[i]n the full context of the entire discussion, his comment is not the least bit racist." But as Media Matters noted when previously accused of taking these comments out of context, the original Media Matters item exposing Bennett's remarks merely documented those remarks in their full context, in both transcript and audio form, and elaborated on Bennett's apparent reference to a theory laid out in Freakonomics that legalized abortion has reduced crime. As we pointed out, authors Levitt and Dubner posited that aborted fetuses would have been more likely to grow up poor and in single-parent or teenage-parent households and therefore more likely to commit crimes; they did not put forth Bennett's race-based argument.
Neither the October 12 nor the September 30 NewsBusters posts included a link to Media Matters' original item exposing Bennett's remarks, which included the full context of his statements.
Sorry MM, but this one is weak. Does MM speak for all liberals? No. I have heard many on the radio and other sources take the quote out of context. Just because MM didn't doesn't mean that some people did. I thought even in context the statement reflected a misunderstanding of statistics, or a subconscious racism, but this one doesn't belong on the site. Gotta call em like I see em.
Did you read the NewsBusters link? It begins, "When Media Matters took out of context a statement Bill Bennett made on his radio show, . . . "
Oops, you are right, I didn't click on the link and took MMFA's word for it that they were not mentioned by name. My bad.
Gotta call em like I see em.
by cantseefade - Thursday October 13, 2005 04:21:00 PM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have to agree with you that it's not clear that newsbusters was talking about MMFA. That being said, the tactic of saying "liberals did this" or "conservatives did that", without any naming of names or specific examples renders the complaint meaningless. There is as much or more variation in opinion within both groups as among them.
The rebuttal is that Media Matters took Bill Bennett out of context, not ALL liberals or liberal media. So, yes, this does belong here because it's a flagrant lie. I read the original thread and they included the FULL context of the comment, not a sound bite. And even in context, Bennett comes off as a racist, which is his right. Yes, in a free country part of the equation is the freedom to be racist, so long as you don't bomb churches, burn crosses, or string people up. Then we draw the line. I'm not condoning racism, just pointing out that racism or racists thought, in and of itself, isn't against the law.
How's about you people read the NewsBuster link that says:
"When Media Matters took out of context a statement Bill Bennett made..."
Instead of saying it's not clear that NewsBuster talks about MMFA. Hmmm?
Here it is:
[link to newsbusters.org]
...
1. MMFA is correct to claim that Sheffield's piece (October 12) claims that MMFA took Bennett out of context.
2. But MMFA is incorrect to imply that the original September 30 post (not by Sheffield) accused MMFA of anything or referred to MMFA at all!
...
"But MMFA is incorrect to imply that the original September 30 post (not by Sheffield) accused MMFA of anything or referred to MMFA at all!"
It refers to MMFA according to NB editor.
Actually, Bennett still made himself out to be racist by injecting color into the discussion. The premise provided by the caller was color-neutral.
And, even using the famous Bush "fuzzy math", Bennett painted himself out to be racist.
First he made the statement. Then even if you take it away with Bennett's following statement claiming it would be "reprehensible"...., Bennett followed that "qualifier" with another racist comment that it would still cut crime.
so in math terms === 1 (racist comment) + -1 (slightly apologetic qualifier) = zero.......ADD one more racist comment ==== 0 + -1 = -1
So Bennett still painted hiself out to be a racist as well as a jerk and a buffoon.
I don't have to call him anything.
He did that himself.
The guy doesn't hate black people, he was using an extreme example to illustrate his point.
I understand MM is very partisan and so are the readers (including myself), however there comes a point where you have to use common sense and not take every-single-word literally.
On the one hand, your comment about not getting too excited about particular comments makes sense. On the other hand, it is a huge project to combat the propaganda by the right wing that is reinforced by the main stream media.
Bill Bennet got a huge amount of publicity for the books on Values that others compiled. Bush and the right wing claim a foundation of values which is pure propaganda. The "heros" of the right wing need to be brought down really hard so the main stream media will report it, and eventually the American people will get the message.
Media Matters performs an essential service for our democracy. To quore David Brock, "it is the media, stupid."
One doesn't have to hate people of other race to be racist.
Bennett said on his radio program that X is a stupid idea; then he said that if you believe X, you might as well believe Y. But Y is "impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible." "Y" was the idea that aborting all black babies would cut the crime rate.
It takes a real, certified idiot not to understand something so simple.
Is that too hard for the MSM to report and explain? If you people on Media Matters were true to your name, and not acting as if your name is All That Matters Is To Twist Media Reports Into Distorted Attacks Against Conservatives, you'd be motivated to explain the truth.
You discredit yourselves for piling on this story.
Truth? Hell, you can't HANDLE the truth!
Truth? Hell, you can't HANDLE the truth!
by dicebucket - Saturday October 15, 2005 10:29:31 PM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
At least they didn't miss the point like you seem to have done...
The point is that nobody was talking about race until Bennett brought it up.