ABCNews.com: "Was Hillary behind Obama Smear?"
On the morning of January 25, on the front page of ABC News' website, a headline read: "Madrassa Madness: Was Hillary Behind Obama Smear?" below pictures of Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL), despite the fact that the article to which the headline links notes that the accusation that Clinton is responsible for the smear "remains unproven and unsubstantiated." As Media Matters for America documented, right-wing media figures forwarded the accusation, originally published on the website InsightMag.com, that "researchers connected to" Clinton were responsible for spreading the allegation that Obama "spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia."
The January 25 ABCNews.com article to which the headline referred was written by ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper, who referred to the InsightMag.com article as "since-discredited." He wrote that InsightMag.com "cited [only] unnamed sources" and noted that, since the article was published, media figures have "repeat[ed] the false charges" against Obama "while bemoaning the notion that the Clinton campaign was investigating Obama's past, a charge that remains unproven and unsubstantiated."
As Media Matters noted, a January 20 New York Post article quoted Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson saying, "We have no connection to this story." The article further reported that Obama strategist David Axelrod said he did not "believe ... for a second" the allegation that Clinton's camp was behind the story.
From the January 25 ABCNews.com article:
Clinton Camp Denies Role
The round table was discussing a since-discredited story that ran in Insight Magazine entitled "Hillary's team has questions about Obama's Muslim background." The story cited unnamed sources that claimed that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, a New York Democrat who has announced her candidacy for president, was looking into whether Obama's Indonesian elementary school was a "madrassa" that "espous[ed] Wahhabism, a form of radical Islam."
Clinton's campaign said there was absolutely no truth to the magazine's claim.
"We have no connection to this story and think it's deplorable," said Phil Singer, a Clinton campaign spokesman. "It's an attack on both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama."
The story seems to have started with Insight magazine, then bounced to Fox News Channel, then to myriad other conservative media outlets including the popular Rush Limbaugh radio program. Often hosts repeating the false charges did so while bemoaning the notion that the Clinton campaign was investigating Obama's past, a charge that remains unproven and unsubstantiated.
Headline vs.article content. Where are those who are quick to come to the defense of this website when they offer up a misleading or vague headline by saying "Read the entire article, there is nothing misleading here". This would be the same thing.
For the record, the headline referenced here by ABC News is misleading and should be corrected.
You almost had me agreeing with you, but my gut tells me the headline is valid because they are showing source:title. Now should it be here? It does not look like disinformation so much as it shows someone is setting the record straight. Maybe MMFA should branch out and create a section highliting outlets that discredit misinformation and place this in that location.
Course, on the other hand, it is a first for ABC to be fair and balanced again. That movie was a real biased whack job.
A more accurate headline for the article would be "Are the Moonies attempting to smear Democrats?"
You're right in the sense that the headline is misleading.
Actually, Tommy, in the most recent past incident, I believe most posters agreed that the MMFA title was wrong, but that the article was still accurate. This seems to be exactly what MMFA is asserting with respect to this ABC item. Your criticism of other posters is unwarranted.
As for my opinion of the ABC item, I don't think the headline was necessarily bias driven. My guess is that the motivation was sensationalism, i.e., to attract more readers. Though the intent is different, I still find it to be misleading and annoying. It makes me feel suckered that same way as when the local news will often preface the weather forecast with, e.g., "another snow storm on the way?" only to find out that it's going to completely miss us.
Perhaps not the most recent incident regarding Stephanopolous, however there have been others where this has not been the case.
As for your comment about sensationalism, I totally agree.
Pretty clever smear...even for the Flying Monkey Liars.
<> I guess it comes down to the Clinton campaign's word against Insight Magazine. Isn't Insight owned by the Moonies? Strike one. Haven't these people been lying vociferously for the past decade? Strike two. I also note that Insight still insists that the story is true, even though they claim it came from Clinton's people. Hmmmm. Strike three.
I think we can deduct who's lying here.
Clearly, Mark Halperin is delivering on his promise to skew the news in favor of right wing opinion. I have stated before, the Corporate Media is desperately afraid that Democrats will control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. If this happens, Democrats will also have a majority at the FCC where they will be able to turn back further weakening of media ownership regulations. It's all about the corporate bottom line and they will pull out all the swift boating tricks they can to prevent a return to the public control of the broadcast spectrum. For the next two years, every Democratic misstep, no matter how small or entirely manufactured like this one, will be elevated into a major scandal.
What the h-- has happened to ABC news? I mean pinch me, will somebody.
I think its still a valid question. Was Hillary behind the smear? She says no, why cant news organizations ask it? its not like her people are not capable of smearing people. All Politicians smear people it doesnt matter if they are Democratic or Republican. Look how Bill Clinton smeared Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown in 92? Look how Carter smeared Kennedy in 1980? Look at how Gary Hart was smeared in late 87 by the Dukakis Campaign. look how the Dukakis campaign smeared Joe Biden in 88. The list can go on and on.
You know full well this is a manufactured scandal with absolutely no evidence to back up the claims. It would be valid for the media to ask the question only if they had some evidence that there was some substance to the claims. As it is, they are merely perpetuating a lie. This is nothing but a propaganda twofer designed to smear both Obama and Clinton.
Do you have any evidence or examples of these smear campaigns you are referring too? If not, I submit you are making it up. You have been outed before as a troll yet you still keep at it. Nobody here believes your claims to the contrary. Why bother?
Why am I a troll? because I pose a question? Look at what they did to poor Joe Biden in 1988 that is fact. Trolls are people who come on here and spew conservative hate. I come on here and ask challenging questions. Get a new line, also I am not sure if you thought I was a troll when I tell you that I am proud to say I will be supporting Senator Clinton.
Doris,
You are not a troll. You pose questions and respectfully engage in dialogue. That is not a troll. Those who accuse others of that label baselessly are just very frightened of opposion opinions, for theirs are obviously not very well thought out.
Keep posting.
Thank you , I wish everyone on here would stop the name calling games, labeling anyone they disagree with a troll and stick to thoughful question asking and discussion. I will continue. I also make a promise that I will never call anyone a troll.
maybe it's because you seem like tommy's twin sister. what does the campaign of 88 have to do with this? and in case you didn't notice, the clinton campaign did deny it. so unless there is some evidence, beside your speculation, that should settle the issue. if you don't want to be called a troll, stick to the facts and stop the ridiculous unproven assertions. you whine just like tommy too. i'm so misunderstood.
Amen Doris, Amen.
The only stupid question is one not asked!!!
Hi Doris...
I keep seeing people jump your case for some unknown reason. Like I said last time, don’t let your feathers get ruffled. Just keep your 9-Banded Armadillo Skin on. Keep a short memory and just remember this is Media Matters, a “Far Left Swamp Pit”. That’s what Bill Oh! Really? calls this Website.
I’m glad your posting comments here. Please stay and continue saying what you want to say.
mavbe unknown to you. here's the problem, from doris's very first post: "i think it's still a valid question. was hillary behind the smear? she says no, why can't news organizations ask it? it's not like her people are not capable of smearing people." she then follows, with a long list of alleged smears, all conveniently democratic, ignoring a real one like the bush campaign smears against mccain. so explain, why is this a "still a valid question"? is there any proof? if not, why keep asking something that has been denied? how about, did hillary steal from her campaign funds? no proof, but let's keep asking anyway. and where is the proof that her people are capable of smearing people? no proof again? but let's keep asking the question according to doris, and apparently you.
I think we all agree that Bush/ McCain smear is beyond smearing. I also think we all agree Republicans smear . That wasnt the point, my point was it sadly has happened in the Democratic Party as well. I guess you dont like recent American political history?
i guess you don't like addressing the point. why is this still a valid question?
Hey Doris,
Just ignore He He Ha Ha Lefty, unfortunately there are a few posters here who refer to anyone as a Troll that doesn't RIGIDLY follow their line of thinking...and dares to be open-minded and ASK questions.
Laughinglikeafool Lefty simply prefers you be a bobble-head.
Exactly Jeter,
There is nothing that drives some of these hard left posters more insane than another poster who looks at each issue, each candidate, each topic thread, and evaluates it on it's own merits and integrity. Sometimes they are liberal, sometimes conservative and offer up their opinions. Somehow they feel betrayed because the "Doris' of the world" don't parrot the hard left take on every issue - which is oppose and slam anything from the "other side".
I should add the hard right posters as well.........
Tommy correct it goes both ways sadly.
I agree. The other day I posted that I thought a comment about a sombrero was funny and I got mercilessly attacked. I was blown out of my chair by some of the assumptions people were making about me.
Contrary to your false claim, you were challenged to defend your comment (that "sombrero" was "hilarious" and that the rest of us need to "lighten up"). You were not a victim of an "attack" by any means. You were ASKED--not accused---to tell us why you wouldn't want even MORE of this kind of ethnic "humor".
I thought we made peace. I cannot believe you are stalking me on this issue. I am truly sorry that I laughed at that headline. I am truly sorry for my apparently to you crass sense of humor. Are we done now? Can we move on to fighting the real enemy-right wing fearmongers?
"I cannot believe you are stalking me on this issue. "
-----
If you bring it up in a unrelated thread, expect to be slapped down all over again. You're the one who can't let it rest, yet you're the first to whine "poor me" and play the victim when your ignorance is pointed out yet again.
Go read my post on the Limbaugh comment regarding Obama being "Halfrican" and then you will see where my line is. Funny thing is, most of your posts I've read I've enjoyed.
PS-I didn't bring it up, I added to the discussion that was already going on here. And what we went through the other day was not my idea of a civil discourse.
You wrote: I agree. The other day I posted that I thought a comment about a sombrero was funny and I got mercilessly attacked. I was blown out of my chair by some of the assumptions people were making about me.
How is that NOT bringing it up?
exactly, he brings it up out of the blue, claims he was "mercilessly attacked", and then when someone responds he's being "stalked".
From the article above:
"despite the fact that the [link to abcnews.go.com] color="#0052a3">article to which the headline links notes that the accusation that Clinton is responsible for the smear "remains unproven and unsubstantiated." "
So why is it a reasonable question to ask again?
Gee Doris, think about it. It is the media's job to ask questions of those whom they are reporting, then REPORT THEIR FINDINGS.
Its certainly yellow journalism to headline a question which they can't answer.
By the way, are you still a child molestor? [get the point?]
I retract my earlier apology
You're just the conservative troll I thought you were. By now it is clear there is also no basis for the claim that Clinton is trying to smear Obama. She has officially denied spreading this rumor about Obama, and no evidence has appeared to the contrary.
Hey Steve please be a nice guy and get off Doris's case. Just because she dares to question something doesn't make her a Troll . My wife is a Democrat who used to post here [before I did] She left this forum because she got tired of being afraid to question anything. Figured she'd be accused of being a troll. And she has a point-eh?
--------------------------------------
"By now it is clear there is also no basis for the claim that Clinton is trying to smear Obama."...by Steve K
=====
Clear to whom?
Ever know anyone accused of a crime to plead Guilty if they think they can get away with pleading Not Guilty?
Every political campaign utilizes Opposition Researchers. They often get "info" about their opponents out by dropping a line or phone call to someone in the media [thus keeping their hands clean]
There's some question as to where the info about Obama originated.
Hillary says it wasn't her campaign. That could be true. Or not.
The media can ask. Discuss. Investigate.
Yeah, J2, but it looks in this case like all they have to support the "Hillary did it" claim is an article from a source that has no more legitimacy than The National Enquirer. Ask, discuss, investigate - THEN publish.
Consider this: a year or two ago one of the tabloids ran a front-page story about how Bush was drinking again, Laura was angry about it, etc., etc. Would it have been legitimate for ABC News to run a headline saying "Is Bush Drinking Again?" based on nothing more than the tabloid's story?
Hmmm...maybe everyone just assumes Bush is drinking! But seriously, you make an interesting point. However, in this case, ABC seems to have picked up the item only after Fox etc. tried to give it credibility. In that context, I would consider the ABC article having value. I don't like the headline, but at least the article seems to be accurate.
If the article is accurate, then why is the question acceptable coming from a newsroom with actual journalistic standards?
And I quote from the article above: "despite the fact that the [link to abcnews.go.com] color="#0052a3">article to which the headline links notes that the accusation that Clinton is responsible for the smear "remains unproven and unsubstantiated." "
"remains unproven and unsubstantiated."
Ummm...you're response was to whom? I've called the headline sensationalistic, misleading and annoying but never acceptable.
Hey Rusty,
Unfortunately the Networks, which I believe were somewhat immune to tabloid journalism until recently, MAY find that in order to compete with Cable that they are covering stories they would have turned down in the past.
When a NBC, ABC. or CBS covers a story it does give it legitimacy [whether deserved or not]
As far as THIS particular story goes, one would prefer some sort of PROOF before seeing it published, but in the 24/7 news cycle we live in I do think MANY news organizations are pushing out stories [verified or not] to beat the competition.
I understand your point, J2, but I disagree that the 24/7 news cycle justifies this kind of "journalism."
Jetter, at first I thought "why is everyone attacking Doris" as well.
But I reread her posting, where are the facts? Its easy to jump on the site and say whatever you want. Where is the actual information is what I'm asking (and I believe others are asking the same).
I mean don't you remember Tommy on 01/10 or Dave from Chicago on 01/20? Maybe you remember what was said to Holly on 1/16? Don't those all point out the obvious?
I'm just asking for actual cases to support her claims, and not just republican "common knowledge" of events. Like saying, "well you know how they made up that lie about Reagan in 83" without saying which attack and if it is proven fact that the Democratic party created a lie. For example.
And just so you know, I'm not attacking Doris. I just want a little more meat in her post. Or her to elaborate more, not just type a list of claims and leave it at that. Which seems to make people on this board very angery.
BTW: Both of you should feel free to post anytime, but back it up with information (not just resorting to the "you liberals just attakc anything you don't like to hear."). When conservatives post here, and ask real questions and have more data to go along with it, I try to answer as best I can (ask Tommy, AnotherAmerican, etc.).
Again these have been answered throught the post. I asked a question, that was it and got the answers, yet for some reason I hit a nerve? Not sure why , I agree it was a smear , my point was ABC asked a question that based on American history is ligitimate. We have an administration that wont answer questions and they dont seem upset about that. But if you mention how Joe Biden was smeared by a fellow Democrat I am attacked as a troll and a right winger. How weak.
I would like to see examples of those other smears you mentioned. In particular I can't recall anything Dukakis did, but sure do remember that revolving jail cell smear as well as the effort to push that picture of him sitting in the tank driver seat wearing that oversized helmet. Please show them, because right now I don't see anything past or present by democrats that's fallen to the level of discourse forwarded by the right.
Ive posted the link and story, I remember in in 88 when I was working for Jesse Jackson.
Doris, I ain't seeing the link. My reading glasses aren't that thick...
Here you go Snoopy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/biden.htm
OK, I stand informed. But, (yes I have to always throw that qualifier out!) in this particular case I wouldn't see it as a smear so much as an underhanded revelation of the truth. Biden was a big plagerizer, he got called on it. How is this equivelant to the republican noise machine saying one thing about a democrat and then claiming it was another democrat who dug up the dirt?
It has nothing to do with the Republican Smear machine, it has to do with the precident that candidates from the same party smear eachother .
I will agree with that, but the point I've been making is I've never seen it this nasty from both sides. Dukakis may have sneaked proof of plagarism out there, but it was nothing compared to the willie horton ads republicans used against him. And this Obama thing? Never in my lifetime have I ever seen an instance where one party smeared the other party's candidate and then deceitfully try to cover it up by blaming it on another member of the offended party.
How is correctly pointing out that Biden plagiarized a speech a "smear?"
A smear is when something is pushed forward in the media as truth when it isn't (see"Was Hillary behind Obama Smear?"). That's a double smear. The information about Obama was false as was the allegation that Hillary Clinton was behind it.
PS: Now that that lie has been completely debunked, ABC News (the folks who brought you "The Path to 9/11") notwithstanding, the right-wing smear machine is trying to attribute the lie to John Edwards.
Doris, you're right that the question should be asked. It has been. It has also been answered. At this point, there does not appear to be a shred of evidence to suggest this one anything but a fabrication by InsightMag.
So, the question now is, how long to you keep questioning this?
ChristianDemocrat , the question was not asked by ABC News, as a News organization they have a right and duty to ask.
That is true. I read the whole article, seems what they were really doing was reporting what the right wing did and then providing info of the investigation into the school, the clinton camp response, and Obama response. A summary to date, if you will.
There is also a great letter from Obama to Fox news chewing them out for poor investigative reporting. I hope to see more of that in the future.
As a News organization they have a right and duty to ask.
True, but they also have a duty not to publish until they've answered the question. I mean, look at the headline. Do they expect their readers to do the investigating and reporting for themselves? I don't know what that is, but it ain't journalism.
Oh...I thought you were speaking more generically that the matter wasn't settled. My mistake.
That said, I still find that the title was sensationalistic. A journalist doesn't have to use the question as the title in order to address it. Any number of factual statements could have been used that would not have created the same mistaken impression.
"the question was not asked by ABC News, as a News organization they have a right and duty to ask."
-----
They don't have to ask it again once it has been answered. It is a lie that the question has not been answered, so if they are going to publish the question, they should not leave it as a question, but publish the correct answer as well.
Leaving the question open creates the impression that the answer has not yet been found, which is a lie. It also leaves the impression with those who skim the headlines that the Clinton campaign was possibly behing the madrassa lie.
doris gets ever more ridiculous. they denied, but that's not good enough. in fact, doris won't be satisfied until hillary goes door to door across america and tells her personally. then she might believe it. don't call her a troll though. tommy will be on here and the two of them will exchange posts expressing their righteous indignation.
Mefirst- get a life , your a little late to the party. Also your personal insults toward me do no one good. Seems you dont want to ask questions and that is fine, some of us do.
But if you're talking about Hillary's smears against opponents, where are they? You are saying politicians smear people all of the time, and yes, that's true, look at all of the negative campaigning that went on this year (bulk of which came from the republican side by the way). But has Hillary smeared her opponents before? I don't really recall seeing anything stating as such.
Hillary's staff is doing opposition research on Obama and a few others (Edwards probably as well) right now in order to start her run for President. Everyone does opposition research, it's part of the process these days. Now, if they do dig up some scandal and some mud the question remains do they throw it? Some do, some don't. I have more respect for the people that don't toss the mud. Thanks though mostly to the republicans and specifically Karl Rove lately, and a few others before him, we can expect the campaigns to get nastier and nastier as time moves forward. I guess the old genie has been let out of the bottle so to speak.
Doris, please Hillary has enough funds to crush Obama is she wanted to, but she may also consider him for VP if she gets the nomination. The smear is from Insight mag. owned by the Washington Times. This tactic has been used over the last 10 years by Republicans. Issue a smear, blame someone else and watch the fallout. Beware of the BS. It's starting early,
No, Doris
I think its [sic] still a valid question.
No, it isn't, for the simple reason that Obama's early schooling can have no bearing on how he makes his political decisions today.
Was Hillary behind the smear?
Nice to hear you admit it was a smear. This alone means the question is not valid.
She says no, [so] why cant [sic] news organizations ask it?
Maybe because news organizations are supposed to concentrate on "news," and not on innuendo.
its [sic] not like her people are not capable of smearing people.
If that's true, then be all means, start blaming everyone who is capable; don't concentrate on Sen. Clinton.
All Politicians smear people[;] it doesnt [sic] matter if they are Democratic or Republican.
Then why are all of your alleged examples those of Democrats? This is straight out of the "I'll claim I'm not partisan, but everyone knows I am" playbook that Tommy so often uses.
Look how Bill Clinton smeared Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown in 92? Look how Carter smeared Kennedy in 1980? Look at how Gary Hart was smeared in late 87 by the Dukakis Campaign. look how the Dukakis campaign smeared Joe Biden in 88. The list can go on and on.
Examples, please. I remember all these campaigns, and the only one I can recall that comes close to being a smear was when a staffer on the Dukakis campaign pointed out that Biden had plagiarized a speech; Dukakis, who was far too much of a gentleman for that sort of thing, immediately fired the staffer. Until you can provide documentation, I'd consider this to be a bunch of smears... from yourself.
In short, the right-wing smear machine concocted the smear about Obama, and have tried to pin it on Clinton, thus smearing two candidates at once, foisting a false image of disunity, and apparently keeping their own hands clean. Furthermore, if journalists do as you wish and ask her about it, it's taking away time and energy from real issues. And finally, it wouldn't matter whether they ask her or not, because you know fully well that they won't--just as you apparently won't--accept her denial.
Now, Doris, try to be more rational, and please remember your apostrophes.
I think these questions have allready been answered and you do make good points. Please try to refrain from personal attacks toward me or my typing, its not necessary.
MM documents another attempt of propaganda by the mainstream media, good find..
I was going to offer "unbelievable" but that would be a flat-out lie. "All too believable" is more like it.
I also like the video caption
"The Obama Madrassa Controversy"
I guess when you're manufacturing the controversy, you get dibbs on labeling it as such.
Smear of Senator Biden in 1988.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/biden.htm
It wasn't a smear the first time you posted the link, either.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2822061
ABCNews has just written a better story (linked), and it covers how the conservative media has been misreporting it. Good job ABC News on continuing to follow it up, state the facts, and expose those who are trying to Swift Boat both Dem frontrunners. Also, Obama has been out front denying this crap, and the Clintons are strongly denying they had anything to do with it. We will not be pushed around this time. The lessons of John Kerry will help us win in 2008!
Deceptive Headline
Why is ABC posing a question that is on its face a debunked smear? This is not honest journalism. It's propagating a whole cloth lie whose reason for being is to disparage TWO Democratic hopefuls at once.
Again, Tommy is hiding behind the fact that a bogus headline does far more damage than a bogus claim buried in the text.
Read my post again, you missed something????
There was nothing to miss.
TOMMY: your first post was a bit convoluted, so I did miss the point. Sorry for the misinterpretation.
I still don't get how "defenders" of MMFA are predisposed to instruct pundits to "read the entire article, not just the headline". Which headline does this refer to? The MMFA thread headline or the headline of the featured article/site/broadcast? Those are not always the same thing.
If you mean the MMFA headlines, I can see that, since there are people who just skim the "threadline" (new word!) and say, "Bah, what a non-issue!" In this case, the headline IS the point of contention, ergo my comment.
IS ABC NEWS MORPHING INTO FAUX NEWS II?
From all indications, yes.
Now this is an ABC SMEAR
I just looked at the ABC Site now, I call this a smear. Discussing the pardon of Senator Clintons brother.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/01/pardon_scandal_.html
Yup, here we go again. What your relatives do isn't important, unless you are a democrat. If this is news worthy, how about we dredge up ol' Neal Bush and the savings and loan scandal again?
Exactly except Bush isnt running in 08 so no one would care . But McCains S&L past and Rudy and his Bernie Kerik connection. Its going to be a dirty , nasty campaign and Senator Clinton has lived this allready, the American people accept her and she will win.
Clinton didn't run in 2000 but you Republicans couldn't let go of that.
Drive-by shooting...Bitter chimes in with another non-sequitor.
Pretty hilarious act of tag team trolling conducted by Doris, Tommy and Jeter. They show up here at MMFA every day to muddy the waters and dismiss MMFA's research. Here they are attempting to give credibility to Insight's smear and justify ABC's repetition of it. Without any evidence to back up either claim, there is no legitimacy in posing the questions or repeat the claims. It's just smear, innuendo and manufactured controversy where there is none.
Do you guys really think you're fooling anybody? And who has the time to hang out at MMFA all day to try and discredit it? How much do you guys get paid for this? Ever think about doing something useful with your lives?
Go ahead and attack me for calling you out. It's really entertaining.
How am I discrediting MMFA research? I agree with it and just asked as simple follow question. I also am retired so I can now stay on the computer during the day, not that it is any of your business.
No Doris, you claimed that ABC was legitimately posing the question. That position has been debunked and shown to be based on no evidence. You act as if your posts on other threads have not been read. Your tactic is clear and it has a name: concern trolling. What you do is show up on a thread to claim that there is nothing wrong with what ever it is that MMFA is demonstrating that the Corporate Media has done. Then when someone calls you out on it you claim that Liberals are being closed minded, paranoid, dogmatic or whatever. Then Tommy and Jeter come along to back you up. There's a pattern here. I worked for a decade reading newspapers for a living. I have seen in letters to the editor every dirty deceptive trick that Republicans have in their propaganda arsenal. Every election season, formulaic "I used to be a Democrat" letters show up in every paper. These letters are written by Republican party activists and what you do is just an update of the same tactic employed on the web. Pose as a Democrat, or a disgruntled one, and attack using Republican talking points. It's a pretty clever trick but online activists are on to it. It's also a pretty silly waste of time considering that only a handful of people ever read these comment sections. I'm only here today because I'm not working and I'm finding it amusing.
Sorry that was never my intention, I simply felt ABC had a right to ask the question since there has been a history in American politics. The answers are clear , it is from a Republican Smear site. There is nothing wrong with asking questions . As I said the other day if you want Stepford Wives then I am the wrong person.
Well, if that true then I owe you an apology. Concern trolling is a favorite tactic of right wing online activists. You can't blame me for suspecting you of doing it.
As far as your belief that ABC was not out of line or trying to frame the Clinton's campaign in a negative light by posing a question that has no factual basis, if you truly believe that's legitimate and ABC is not engaging in some unwarranted editorializing or perpetuating a lie, so be it. Previous examples of smears by other campaigns is no proof that Clinton's campaign is responsible for this one. The more likely explanation is that the Corporate Media is engaged in an effort to undermine both Obama and Clinton. Abundant evidence of journalistic malfeasance to attack Democrats is provided by MMFA and FAIR on a routine basis.
The Corporate Media has a vested financial interest in the fortunes of the Republican party and their ideology of deregulation, "free" markets and privatization. To me, that's not conspiracy theory but an institutional analysis. It's all about the money and media concentration.
Actually on this one all of those people you noted are pretty much in line with this one. Jeter normally comes in here and does his normal Bush bashing along with the rest of us, and Doris did ask a follow up question, which I think some have tried to answer (myself included). Now, I'm not saying that there aren't some folks on here who do indeed troll, but the folks you so righteously "called out" aren't doing it this time. They are presenting some views that they believe, and have some opinions about this topic, which seem fairly valid and well thought out. Trolls, if you don't remember, are more about ad hom, and making things up off the top of their head in order to incite and or flame others. Kind of like your post actually. That was more "trollish" than these other folks' today.
And to sort of poke fun at someone for being on this site all of the time, and to not be looking in the mirror, I believe the saying is, "Pot? Hello, this is kettle." I think you know what I mean.
LaughingLefty,
So far, what Doris has said is pretty tame. If she starts being rude, by all means lay into her.
Righties like Jeter should be welcome here so long as they are respectful with their disagreements. Attack their substance, not their character, unless they are being rude. I post on right wing blogs and they rip my head off instantly even when I am not trying to be a flamethrower. If they even sniff of a left lean, they call you every name in the book without looking at the substance of the comment. Just being right of center should not warrant namecalling here unless they are being over the top.
Hey, anybody is welcome to post whatever they want. I'm just drawing attention to a tactic being employed by online activists. If I showed up at a Republican site pretending to be a Republican and attempting to undermine their thesis, I would expect someone to call me out on it. I probably wouldn't waste my time doing it though. The tactic of concern trolling is real and you see it all the time at Liberal blogs. I didn't make up the term. This is not to say that I always agree 100% with everything MMFA posts and some of it I wonder why they even bother. As far as I'm concerned, they spend way too much time on Bill O'Reilly and Fox (we all know where they're coming from) when it would be better to track disinformation in the supposedly objective media.
By the way I cant stand Bill O and his lies. So I agree with you on this one.
Lefty,
I've been posting here for 2 years. I'm a Republican/Conservative, and have never *pretended* to be anything else. I'm fairly moderate, often agree with Liberals on many issues and am normally polite. I'll also come to the aid of ANY poster, Liberal or Conservative, that I believe is being attacked unjustly. I especially get irked when I see a lady being picked on for simply expressing her views. That's what we do here Lefty. Express our opinions.
As far as my posting habits, I doubt I post more than a dozen times a day. I'm at work...I'm too busy.
I find it insulting & childish to be called out by YOU as some sort of Troll, paid or otherwise.
I have a good reputation here.
I earned it.
Keep up the good insightful post Jeter. Liberal or Conservative , Democrat or Republican valid provocative insightful thought and questions should be welcomed. Some people want to act like Stalin not me. All opinions should be welcomed and debated.
You're the "laughinglefty". Actually, our reaction to your senseless and trolling posts go more to their inane accusations and pitiful reasoning.
What would be laughable would be if you earned any credibility on issues.........not that would cause me split a gut.
See, now posts like this one from Tommy deserve abuse.
...and your credibility would be...?
Let's just say your credibility is nonexistant when you throw out the troll label to avoid substantive discussion. As for mine, your assessment of it is irrelevant to me.
Lefty, as opposed to some, Tommy is the true type of instigator that needs to be nailed. His sole purpose on this site is to be a flamethrower. He used to throw out a single screed and then not post any followups. At least now he sticks around to take his beatings. We all know Tommy is a rightwingnut, so at least we know what he brings to the table ahead of time. I think Tommy has a little growing up to do. Jeter exemplifies how to be a righty on a lefty blog. He wears his conservatism outwardly, but he has always called a spade a spade.
Is it necessary to call people names and labels? Arent people allowed to have opinions?
Doris, what you and Jeter do here is fine. Tommy has been posting here forever and he is always trying to fire up somebody.
Nailed from you? (lol)
If I was more grown up like you, I would learn how to act on a lefty blog.......think I'll skip those puberty years.
Yeah, I know. I've read plenty of his posts over the last two years. I've never seen him actually do anything but try to muddy the waters and incite people. I really don't get what his obsession with waging a keyboard campaign against MMFA is all about except a kind of partisan fanaticism. I don't usually post comments here unless I have something to add or feel like batting down a right winger for a while.
Hi Doris...
I keep seeing people jump your case for some unknown reason. Like I said last time, don’t let your feathers get ruffled. Just keep your 9-Banded Armadillo Skin on. Keep a short memory and just remember this is Media Matters, a “Far Left Swamp Pit”. That’s what Bill Oh! Really? calls this Website.
When people call you a Troll that doesn’t damage you in any way. I’m glad your posting comments here. Please stay and continue saying what you want to say.
"Let's just say your credibility is nonexistant when you throw out the troll label to avoid substantive discussion. As for mine, your assessment of it is irrelevant to me."
-----
Let's analyze this post for a contribution to a "substantive discussion."
Well, there's...
And there's...
I guess Tommy's pretty good at avoiding substantive discussion, too.
Hey, now Tommy. Lets not get into the attack, counter attack frenzy.
Can't we all play in the sand box?
And Doris, I'm sorry if what I posted sounded rude. I was just asking you to provide more data, which you then attempted to do. I don't agree with you, but hey what a boring site if all we did was tell each otehr how much we agree with everything posted.
Right now, someone from Insight magazine is on Sean hannity's show claiming they got this story from Hillary Clinton's camp. Sean asked if had any evidence to support this claim and the guy said he had many sources, but refused to give ONE. He also reiterated what was said by Morgan and CO...almost word for word. He also said what they came out with the other day: If he was raised in a secular household (as he claims), why does he have -- or retain -- Muslim names, Barack and Hussein? Also says that we (insight) don't have anything against Muslims...yea right....but we understand a lot of people out there do and they are concerned about a Muslim becoming President.
This just shows how f*cked up Insight and Fox News are. They come out and say, 'we didn't say it, Hillary camp did', 'but if it's not true, why is Obama fighting so hard to correct it and why does he have two muslim names'? Oh, and we aren't going to attempt to prove it at all with named sources. lol They are INTENTIONALLY trying to confuse their audience.
The fact is, Obama shared all of this years ago when he came out with his book. It's not news. It's only news when they distort it and blame it on someone else. Dispicable.
Oh, and Sean Hannity has this 'news' story from Insight on his website. His is perpetuating the lies. Sick.
Nice post, Jen. I knew the Swiftboating was going to happen for this election, but I didn't know it would be so soon. Dangit.
It seems that, regardless of anyone's opinion, the inventors of this "story" have already succeded. They have managed (with able assistance from the Rush/Fox/Blog echo chamber to keep this story alive and in the news cycle for several days. I'm sure that this is just one chapter in two larger narratives that we will be seeing over the long campaign. The first is the "Obama can't be trusted to be a loyal American because his first name sounds like 'Osama' and his middle name is Hussein, and, 'Oh, yeah, didn't he attend a jihadist elementary school or something? I think I remember hearing that.'" narrative. The second is the "Hillary is without a soul or conscience and will do or say anything to get elected, 'Didn't she accuse Obama of being a terrorist or something?'" narrative. It's a pretty simple and effective strategy. The story doesn't matter as much as the residue it leaves in peoples' cluttered minds. How many people do you know who still believe that Al Gore said that he "invented" the internet, or that John Kerry faked his war wounds? If you say something is true in an authoratative fashion, you're halfway home. There is a web site right now claiming that Gerald Ford staged his death and is alive and well at some unknown location. (www.gerryfordhoax.cabanova.com). Although it's a joke site; it's tag line is "Can you prove that he didn't not die?", some of the tortured logic used on the site has a familiar ring. I'll bet a few people are even beginning to wonder.