MSNBC aired caption with false claim that Obama is a Muslim
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, the news channel displayed on-screen text featuring purported quotes from Iraqis about Sen. Barack Obama under the headline, "What Iraqis Think of Obama." One purported quote from an Iraqi engineer said, "Obama Is a Muslim & He Will Not Win Because of That." MSNBC did not note in a caption or otherwise that Obama is not, in fact, a Muslim.
On the July 22 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Contessa Brewer interviewed Newsweek Baghdad correspondent Larry Kaplow, who, she said, "spoke with Iraqis about Senator [Barack] Obama's visit" to Iraq. Brewer asked Kaplow, "What do they know about him, Larry?" During the segment, text at the bottom of the screen displayed purported quotes from Iraqis about Obama under the headline, "What Iraqis Think of Obama." One purported quote from an Iraqi engineer said, "Obama Is a Muslim & He Will Not Win Because of That":
MSNBC did not note in a caption or otherwise that Obama is not, in fact, a Muslim, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented.
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the July 22 edition of MSNBC Live:
BREWER: Barack Obama's in Jordan today, and he said the United States government and its military cannot stay in Iraq forever. Obama's congressional trip to Iraq is making headlines in America. It may not necessarily impress Iraqi citizens. Newsweek's Baghdad correspondent Larry Kaplow spoke with Iraqis about Senator Obama's visit. What do they know about him, Larry?
KAPLOW: Well, he's an enigma to many Iraqis, and they're still trying to figure him out. First of all, they look at him through a lot of skepticism about American interests in general. Many people said they just think he'll be another American politician trying to look out for their interests in the region, look out for oil interests. But you did find some who said, you know, they think he'll be different, that maybe because he is an African American, he'll have some different understanding of the situation for minorities in the world. And they're -- some were trying to be hopeful and hope that he will hand over their country back to them.
BREWER: And how do they feel about this timeline? I mean, the prime minister says he thinks that Barack Obama's 16-month timetable is just about right. Yesterday, a government spokesman said that 2010, the year 2010 would be an ideal date for U.S. troops to leave. What about just the ordinary citizens? Is there still eagerness for them to see the American soldiers leave?
KAPLOW: There is a building eagerness among the Shiite majority of the population for the Americans to start stepping back. Remember, security is much better now than it was in 2006, 2007, and so they feel less of a need to have the Americans protect them from daily dangers and more of an interest in what they see as getting their country back under their own control.
BREWER: And are they particularly invested in the American presidential race?
KAPLOW: No, I wouldn't say so. They're -- first of all, many of them still only have a couple hours of electricity every day, so they don't see a lot of the news. And then they do have so many daily issues they're trying to get through. The economy is still very bad. The wa-- there's a major water problem in Baghdad. So they face those things, but they get enough radio news and newspaper information to know that there is an election going on and wonder how it could affect them.
BREWER: All right. Larry, thank you very much. Appreciate that.
Honestly, what I saw was just a quote from an Iraqi engineer who doesn't have his facts straight. I doubt that this was a smear attempt.
On the other hand, the entire report seemed to be an attempt to throw cold water on Obama's visit to Iraq. It's especially interesting given the recent flap over Maliki's comments agreeing with Obama's approach to the continuing occupation of Iraq. Most Iraqis are probably as appreciative as Maliki of the idea that Obama does not want to pursue a permanent occupation of Iraq like McCain and the Bush regime seem determined to do.
That's what I was thinking. Hannity tonight described Obama's trip as his "media tour", noting the difference in attention compared to gramps' middle-east trips.
This is about all the righty media has right now, to point out the disparity in media attention between the candidates, and try to frame it as bias. Never mind all of the negative coverage of Obama mostly involving fluff and BS (reverends & flag pins & bowling), and that the con media is not covering anything meaningful about McCain, it's real simple; There is not very much interesting about John McCain.Covering him is like watching old video of GW Bush's last 2 campaigns. Who the F@@@ wants to watch that?
Col., see this...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/obama-snubbed-fox-news-on_n_114349.html
Irony,
It looks like Obama feels not only that he can run but he can hide (from Fox).
That's a true leader for you.
Lately, I've come here more or less to "point and laugh" at the absurdity, duplicity, self deception and outright hypocrisy of MMFA and it's denizens without a lot of commentary. However, I'm going to make one distinction here to those who "rail" against the likes of O'Reilly et all on Fox. Bear in mind that they are COMMENTATORS, not reporters. A scathing editorial against the "cons" will garner glowing approval from the likes of most of you here without a moment's hesitation as to it's validity, logic or veracity. This year we see the liberal (that's about 90 percent of it I'd guess), peeing their pants over Obama and "selectively" covering things that suit their intention to "make history themselves". The media are covering Obama v. McCain at a ratio of about 3 to 1 time wise. At the very least, Fox News Channel REPORTS on all of it. It's time you people realized the distinction between reporting and commentary. WHatever happened to the concept of "We report, you decide"? I think that still lives on Fox. If you can't function without knee jerk reactions to the positive or the negative impact of other's opinions in your life, you really do need to start thinking on your own....
Lately, I've come here more or less to "point and laugh" at the absurdity, duplicity, self deception and outright hypocrisy of MMFA and it's denizens without a lot of commentary.
Care to provide a single example of that? Of course not. It doesn't happen, but it sounds like it could be a valid criticism, if only you'd provide some proof of that happening!
However, I'm going to make one distinction here to those who "rail" against the likes of O'Reilly et all on Fox. Bear in mind that they are COMMENTATORS, not reporters.
Why do you think we don't know that he's a commentator and not a reporter? And "et al"? Not all the FoxNews people who are highlighted here on Media Matters are commentators - some are actually reporters.
A scathing editorial against the "cons" will garner glowing approval from the likes of most of you here without a moment's hesitation as to it's validity, logic or veracity.
Again, can you provide a single example of this? Of course not.
This year we see the liberal (that's about 90 percent of it I'd guess), peeing their pants over Obama and "selectively" covering things that suit their intention to "make history themselves".
The liberal media is not "peeing their pants" over Obama. The facts don't back up that assertion.
The media are covering Obama v. McCain at a ratio of about 3 to 1 time wise.
Obama has had more things to cover recently. That's why. It's been documented by reasonable people. Only people bent on seeing a conspiracy by the media see the unbalanced coverage of Obama vs McCain as a conspiracy against McCain.
At the very least, Fox News Channel REPORTS on all of it.
FoxNews covers "all" the news? You're crazy. They don't, and what they do cover is biased and slanted.
It's time you people realized the distinction between reporting and commentary.
It's not true that we don't understand the difference. You have no evidence that it's true.
Whatever happened to the concept of "We report, you decide"? I think that still lives on Fox.
They aren't giving their listeners a fair picture upon which to make a decision! That's the issue. Whether it's a straight news reporter or a commentator, they both have an obligation to give a fair representation fo the facts. Even if they're providing their opinion they still have an obligation to expose their listeners to the facts that surround the basis they used to form their opinion, and if they failed to give a fair look at all the facts, then they should tell their listeners that too!
If you can't function without knee jerk reactions to the positive or the negative impact of other's opinions in your life, you really do need to start thinking on your own....
As I said above, please provide evidence of any examples of us doing this. Or STFU. What's apparent is that you are the one making kneejerk, and false, assumptions and accusations. It is FoxNews viewers who need to start thinking on their own since they are not given all the facts necessary to make informed decisions by FoxNews.
At the very least, Fox News Channel REPORTS on all of it. - MissDee
I thought MissDee said that the folks over at Fox were commentators, not reporters?
So, commentators report now?
Your post, MissDee, makes little to no sense. You contradict yourself.
As I said above, please provide evidence of any examples of us doing this. Or STFU.
Now thats the Ellie771/Sue/nomonbush that I remember, that temper LOL.
Otherwise I agree with your assement Sue, with the exception of the "STFU". You act like a child in a playground and when someone has a different view than you you attack.
I'm guessing Missdee spends a lot of her day pointing & laughing at things that aren't really there. Any of you kids considering getting heavily into hard drugs, take note.
If I remember correctly, Missdee is the poster who once pointed out the contradiction of liberals who simultaneously called george Bush stupid and an evil genius. I asked her to name one person who ever referred to W. as a genius, and that was the last I ever heard from her.
I asked her to name one person who ever referred to W. as a genius"
Even the most brainwashed Bushie supporters know the guy is a moron.
Are you going to AGAIN use your obvious valuable time responding to yet ANOTHER crazie? O.K., yeah, I did, too. Once. Luckily for me, I have a couple of acquaintances who are extreme right-wingers. It is always instructive to listen to them (one does not have "conversations"-they just talk through anyone else's attempt to chime in). I have learned a lot about their reasoning patterns. As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating."
I loved your post. It should be printed out and taped to every poster at MMFA. Almost every line contains the usual hyper-right attack against anyone with brains. I really liked your "you people" remark. The part about (gasp!) liberals "peeing in our pants" is excellent. If you don't mind, I would like to point out that Fox is indeed a network that uses "commentators" rather than journalists, but have you noticed that at the bottom of the screen that little logo that says "FOX NEWS"? Forgive me for being a knee-jerk liberal, but isn't that a bit, uh, confusing to a lot of people, especially people who really don't have access to the internet's vast alternative opinions and analysis? If you haven't already, I gently suggest you read MMFA's mission statement. It might clear up a few points that confuse you.