In latest response to video-splicing controversy, CBS News acknowledges error but falsely claims it did not "in any way distort" McCain's comments
SUMMARY: In a statement reported by The Washington Post on July 24, CBS News now acknowledges that it erred in splicing video of an interview with Sen. John McCain that resulted in the expungement of a false statement made by McCain and the misleading inclusion of an answer McCain gave to a different question. But in the reported statement, CBS News senior VP Paul Friedman maintains, falsely, that the error "did not in any way distort what Senator McCain was saying."
CBS News now reportedly acknowledges that it erred in splicing video of an interview with Sen. John McCain, in which the network expunged a false statement made by McCain and included an answer he gave to a different question from the one he was purportedly answering. But, according to a July 24 Washington Post article, CBS News senior vice president Paul Friedman maintains, falsely, that the video as aired did not misrepresent what McCain said.
The Post reported that Friedman issued the following statement: "The report was edited under extreme time constraints and one piece of tape was put in the wrong order. Fortunately, this did not in any way distort what Senator McCain was saying."
CBS News' initial response to the controversy, as reported by Politico senior political writer Ben Smith, included no such admission of error. According to Smith, CBS spokeswoman Jennifer Farley stated: "As all news organizations do with extended interviews, last night's Obama and McCain interviews were edited to fit the available time and to give viewers a fair expression of the candidates' major differences."
But contrary to Friedman's assertion that the video compilation "did not in any way distort what Senator McCain was saying," the editing of the interview did, in fact, distort McCain's comments by expunging his false statement, as Media Matters for America has documented. On the CBS Evening News, Couric aired comments by McCain spliced together from three separate statements he gave during the interview -- one of which responded to a different question -- rather than airing McCain's direct reply to her question, which included McCain's false claim that the 2007 U.S. troop surge in Iraq "began the Anbar Awakening" -- an agreement by some tribal leaders in western Iraq to accept U.S. aid and cooperate with anti-Al Qaeda operations. In fact, the Anbar Awakening reportedly began in September 2006, months before the surge was even announced.
Ah, but remember Dan Rather and "Memogate"? They launched a full-scale investigation, fired the segment producer, and had Rather resign.
This is just another nail in the coffin of the phony "liberal media" lie -- or should I say "false witness"?
But in the reported statement, CBS News senior VP Paul Friedman maintains, falsely, that the error "did not in any way distort what Senator McCain was saying."
Then why did they edit the response?
That hum you hear in the background is Edward R. Murrow spinning in his grave over what has happened to the once-great news organization he helped create.
"...one piece of tape was put in the wrong order..."
Well, that's obviously a bald-faced lie right there.
I wonder if MMFA will cover McCain's backpeddling on this? Last night his excuse was that the surge actually began before the surge. Or something equally incoherent:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/23/politics/main4285658.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4285658
I don't believe MMFA covers politicians backpeddling on anything, they may cover the media coverage of such an event, but not the candidates themselves.
Since you're so fond of defining this websites purpose to me, I thought I'd return the favor.
Good grief. Is my comment really worth all this scrutiny? Or are you just using this as your I'm-fair-and-balanced-because-I'm-defending-Tommy moment of the week? You've really picked an important point to take a stand on here. My imprecise language may have led someone to believe that I was suggesting MMFA should cover something outside the bounds of their mission statement. Boy, it's a good thing you guys were on top of it, or my post could have potentially confused dozens of innocent people.
By the same token, is it worth getting so defensive over? You could just concede the point in the first place instead of posting;
"Since I posted a link to cbsnews.com, that should have clued you in to the fact that the media is reporting his backpeddling. Thanks for your snarky reply, but I do understand that MMFA covers the coverage and not the story itself."
The fact that the media was reporting on it was meaningless in and of itself, so there was nothing that should have "clued in" anyone. You understand that MMfA covers the coverage, but there's nothing in the coverage that you cite that merits mention here. It's not like Tommy hasn't made any number of unfair comments to us, but at the same time we show ourselves to be better by not making unfair comments to him.
As for my "fair moment of the week", I'll just have to beg your forgiveness for being principled. I'm making a legitimate point, whether you like it or not.
You aren't making a legitimate point. You're nitpicking and parsing an aside that was hardly worth one follow-up, let alone the half dozen+ that you're squeezing out of it. Congratulations, you're more fair than Tommy is...or than I am...or whatever. Have an extra cookie on me.
And of course the punchline comes tomorrow when MMFA posts on article on McCain's backpeddling. Then we'll all laugh. And I'll get my cookie back.
If the point isn't legitimate, address it instead of being snarky.
Some potential misinformation being spread on that subject wouldn't retroactively change the nature of your original comment. One could still look back and judge Tommy's comment to be perfectly understandable.
"If the point isn't legitimate, address it..."
This has now become absurdist theater. That's the sort of self-contradictory incoherence that I'd expect from Tommy.
So, because my comment and its accompanying link didn't provide precise enough language, Tommy's snarkiness was fair, but my snarkiness was not. Fine. Does that settle this pressing issue for you, or do need to drag this silliness out some more?
Self-contradictory? I have no idea how you figure that. Surely you can see the difference between Tommy being snarky because you screwed up and you being snarky because you're being criticized. One is being done while making a point, the other is done in substitution for making a point. That's a pretty significant difference.
On another thread someone said that Reagan served in the military for eight years, and I pointed out that Reagan himself said he was in uniform for four years. My quote was correct, but I had forgotten the context which didn't exclude Reagan serving longer than that (if PR work in Hollywood is "military service" for any practical purpose anyway). So I accept that. I should have re-checked the quote, and I owned up for my mistake.
Contrast that with what you're doing here. You could have just said "fair enough" and explained that you were dreaming of some possible future misinformation. Instead you make an unfair and disingenuous comment and follow it up with poorly thought-out jabs against me. Seriously, "fair-moment-of-the-week", the ludicrous idea that some actual misinformation about this subject would somehow embarrass me, and a self-contradiction that's not a contradiction at all? What on earth did you hope to accomplish with all that defensive nonsense?
That is what I expect from Tommy, a failure to know when to quit digging. You can do better, and you should.
So now I "screwed up"? Jeezus, get over yourself already. In case you hadn't noticed, I've already "owned up" to whatever confusion I've caused with my comment and link. Sorry if I didn't own up to it to the exacting standards that you've set with your quintessential Reagan apology. I'll try to do better next time, coach. I have no clue what you're trying to accomplish by continuing to beat this dead horse.
And yes, the command, "If the point isn't legitimate, address it[...]" is absurd and contradictory. It's like saying, "If there's no water in the pool, then swim in it." I just told you there was no water, so why would I pretend to swim in it?
Yes, you screwed up. I have no idea what your dispute is there. As I said, your link did nothing to "clue in" anyone, since there was no misinformation there. MMfA doesn't cover things just because they're mentioned in news stories, there has to be some additional significance.
I can't believe you fail to grasp the point. I mentioned specifically all the nonsense you've thrown at me, and you wonder why I'm still posting? If you hadn't been digging yourself into a hole, then there wouldn't be any reason to. You really think I'm not going to explain how I'm making my point for a valid reason instead of out of some motivation to appear fair, or fail to reply to a charge of being "self-contradictory"? If you don't want the response, then don't provoke it.
Also, my comment that you were substituting snarkiness for a point should make it clear what "address it" means, as if it wasn't already. If an argument isn't legitimate, you explain why. That would be how to address it, obviously, since just saying something is illegitimate doesn't mean anything. That's not "self-contradictory" either.
See, another invalid charge by you, another post from me explaining why it's invalid. That's how it works. Got any more?
You may very well be sticking to your principles, but there is something to be said for knowing when to back off of a pointless argument.
Why? I don't tolerate BS from anyone. Which ridiculous comment that I pointed out is supposed to be acceptable, and why?
Sorry, but when someone lobs false charges, then there's a point to calling them out on it in and of itself. There's no way to back off of that without abandoning principles, since I would do the same thing for a conservative. To do what you're saying would be to display a double standard, and there's no valid reason to do that.
So now you're going to accuse me of "lob[bing] false charges"? Your self-importance has completely taken over the rational part of your brain. We get it. You are a valiant Knight of Principles and Fairness, ruling his kingdom with a firm and just hand. No off-hand comment or snarky follow-up shall be deemed too small or insignificant, for your broadsword of moral strength and judgment will strike down and slice clean through the evil Emoticons of Deception and Snark.
Yes, suggesting that I was making a phony argument for the sake of appearing fair was false, as was your "self-contradictory" comment.
Do you really want to pursue either of those comments?
Yes, I do believe you picked a petty argument over an insignificant point in order to put on this chest-puffing display of "principles." Your ongoing comments have done nothing to alter that belief.
And I've already explained why your command that I address something I consider to be pointless nonsense is contradictory.
So after four years of consistent behavior, my principles are all some grand illusion that I'm desperate to establish. Do you have any concept of how bizarre that suggestion is? The real punchline here is that no matter how stupid you act here, the next time someone treats you unfairly I'll criticize them for it. All part of the act, right?
What you "consider" is meaningless without support. You have actually swerved into Tommy's "My opinions don't need a basis" territory here, you realize. The idea that you should back up what you say isn't self-contradictory.
Oops,
An irresistable force meets an immovable object
I have little tolerance for a lack of logic and even less for dishonesty. When you claim that your link to a media story makes it different from a story about McCain all by himself, that is just plain wrong. There's no distinction there, because any story is mentioned in some media. Either that was illogical at best or dishonest at worst. Considering you have made numerous posts correcting other people's logic, you don't have any room to question those priorities.
So you take me at my word that I've always exhibited this behavior, but that doesn't change the "fact" that I'm making an argument based on some ulterior motivation? So I've always been making phony arguments for this purpose, apparently. I would think I would have accomplished the goal of this long-range scam before yesterday. Or are you saying that my other conflicts with liberals were genuine, it's only for you that I'm being disingenuous?
"When you claim that your link to a media story makes it different from a story about McCain all by himself, that is just plain wrong."
Except that I never made that claim. That's your own inference. I wondered if MMFA would cover McCain's backpeddling. Tommy snarkily informed me that MMFA only covers media stories. I pointed out that I was aware of MMFA's m.o. and that the media was in fact covering it. That's it. Then you jumped in and accused me of suggesting that the CBS story I'd linked to in my first post contained misinformation beyond McCain's statement. I never suggested that.
When I explained that the media was in fact covering it, you could have just as easily inferred that I was pointing to the likelihood of future MMFA coverage. Instead, you chose to put different words in my mouth in order to pick a petty argument. My only mistake was in not adding some explicit disclaimer that my speculation wasn't specifically aimed at the cbs.com item I linked to.
"So you take me at my word that I've always exhibited this behavior, but that doesn't change the 'fact' that I'm making an argument based on some ulterior motivation? So I've always been making phony arguments for this purpose, apparently."
I don't know, have you? As I said, I've hardly paid that close attention to you. What I have noticed is that at some point in these long arguments, you often make note of the fact that you argue with both conservatives and liberals, as if that proves that you are principled and fair-minded. The problem with that is that this certainly was a phony argument if there ever was one. But now in some future debate, when someone accuses you of being partisan, you get to say that you've even defended Tommy against Clams. So of course you must be fair.
"Except that I never made that claim. That's your own inference. I wondered if MMFA would cover McCain's backpeddling. Tommy snarkily informed me that MMFA only covers media stories. I pointed out that I was aware of MMFA's m.o. and that the media was in fact covering it. That's it..."
How would you even know about the story unless it appeared in some form of media or other? The fact that you got the story from some source wasn't news to anybody, nobody needed to be "clued in" to that. The only way that made a difference was if there was something notable or some obvious potential problem in the coverage.
"When I explained that the media was in fact covering it, you could have just as easily inferred that I was pointing to the likelihood of future MMFA coverage. Instead, you chose to put different words in my mouth in order to pick a petty argument."
Here's what I said early on:"I'm just saying that you can't really blame anybody for failing to interpret what you said as "I wonder if there will be misinformation in the media about this story, as opposed to the example I'm now linking you to...". It certainly seems that his comment was justifiable." That's the alternate inference that you mention above, that you were talking about some future misinformation. I noted that possibility quite explicitly, I just don't think you can criticize someone for not automatically interpreting it that way. What's interesting is that now you blame me for not making that interpretation, but when I accurately reflected your meaning, it was at that point that your defensiveness kicked up about three notches. Why didn't you just say "well that's what I meant..." instead?
As for your theory about my supposed grand illusion, the reason I mention my conflicts with liberals is that conservatives tend to accuse me of making arguments against them just because I'm liberal. The "ulterior motive" argument is crap when they make it, and it's crap when you make it. What I notice is that the accusation tends to come up when people are defensive and lack a cogent argument. Go back and look at your absurdly over-the-top "valiant Knight of Principles and Fairness" post and I think you'll note you fit into that particular pattern rather nicely.
"[W]hen I accurately reflected your meaning, it was at that point that your defensiveness kicked up about three notches. Why didn't you just say 'well that's what I meant...' instead?"
Because, as I said then, you're being ridiculous and petty and (until my last post) I saw no need to defend myself against your pointless dissection of my comments. You can pretend that my "defensiveness kicked up about three notches," but what actually happened was that I gave you the written equivalent of a big eye-roll. And in case you didn't catch the sarcasm, that's exactly what my "Valiant Knight" post was as well. I'm not being defensive, because nothing I've written requires defending. You only call me defensive because I'm not saying what you want me to say.
"As for your theory about my supposed grand illusion..."
I never said or implied anything about some "grand illusion." You must be reading my comments through a mighty narcissistic lens to have come to that interpretation. You're showboating, plain and simple. You're putting a tremendous amount of energy into nothing. Therefore, the value of the argument must not lie within whatever point you're trying to make...because there is no point beyond your need to appear "fair." If you were arguing about something substantial, then I would respect that and address your comments. But you're not. You're hounding me over nothing.
"Because, as I said then, you're being ridiculous and petty and (until my last post) I saw no need to defend myself against your pointless dissection of my comments..."
Why is it ridiculous to say that the interpretation I accurately described doesn't immediately leap to one's mind? I don't see what's unreasonable or unfair about that sentiment, so the "ridiculous and petty" description fairly screams "how dare you question me?" How on earth do you ignore an obvious opportunity to clarify things, attack my character and then blame me for the length of the thread? All you had to do was to calm the hell down in the first place, and none of this would be going on. And in anticipation of your next post which begins "So now I'm attacking your character?", yes, accusing me of making an argument for the sake of appearing fair attacks my honesty.
"I never said or implied anything about some "grand illusion."...You're hounding me over nothing."
What would you call it, then? According to you, I'm not genuinely fair, just making a tremendous effort to appear that way. That would be an illusion.
My point was clear from the beginning. The only reason I'm "hounding" you is that you deliberately and willfully chose to attack me personally. Since you deny "defensiveness", you eliminate that explanation for your actions. Nice forethought there.
"How on earth do you ignore an obvious opportunity to clarify things, attack my character and then blame me for the length of the thread? All you had to do was to calm the hell down in the first place, and none of this would be going on."
Again, I saw no reason to defend or clarify my insignificant comments simply because you decided to pick an argument over them for nothing more than your own personal satisfaction. And I'm perfectly calm, thank you very much.
"The only reason I'm 'hounding' you is that you deliberately and willfully chose to attack me personally."
Well, you've obviously got the cart before the horse there, since you're the one who started this nonsense in the first place. I don't how many different ways I can say this, but you're arguing about nothing, and therefore you're only invested in the argument itself and not the (non-existent) substance. I chose not to clarify or defend my comments because there's nothing at stake apart from your ego and your need to maintain the appearance of fairness. That's the only possible value that this could have for you. It's just you pouncing on a perceived chink in the armor and then chomping into it as though it mattered. Only there's no meat under the armor, and I'm just sitting here laughing while you pointlessly thrash away at it. Next time you choose to take such a strong and principled stand, make sure it's actually about something. Because this is just some stupid personality clash.
"Again, I saw no reason to defend or clarify my insignificant comments simply because you decided to pick an argument over them for nothing more than your own personal satisfaction. And I'm perfectly calm, thank you very much."
You don't really deny that what you said was at best illogical and unfair, all you can do is say that it's not significant. Obviously since the point was valid, then it's the exactly the same as pointing out illogical and unfair comments by AA, Tommy, whoever else. And what would you call your decision to personally attack me, if not done for your "personal satisfaction"?
"Well, you've obviously got the cart before the horse there, since you're the one who started this nonsense in the first place."
And there it is, the admission that you think that me questioning you is equivalent to you attacking me. You've completely validated what I said to MHK, because it shows that once you engage in such tactics there's always a point in my pursuit from there onward.
Well done, indeed.
And just in case you feel like coming back and claiming you weren't equating my two early posts with your personal attack, then you're admitting that your attack was unwarranted. Also your "cart before the horse" comment wouldn't make a damn bit of sense. Obviously the only way that comment works is if I somehow deserved the attack, which is hard to justify considering the content of my first two posts.
But, it's your call. Either commenting on your logic and fairness is grounds for insult, in which case people like Tommy can insult you anytime you point out a flaw in their posts (since they can always repeatedly claim your argument is "insignificant", "petty" or whatever else without addressing its validity), or you're admitting you were wrong to say what you did.
I probably won't be back by the time this thread closes, but if you have a third option I'd love to hear it. And in all honesty, I hope this incident gives you something to think about the next time you feel like lashing out at someone just for taking issue with what you say. We all have that right, you know.
I merely wondered aloud if the McCain backpeddling would find it's way to MMFA.
Only if the media misreported his backpedaling. That would fit the definition of "conservative misinformation", and be a suitable topic for MMFA.
Why not get two? I'm sure Mr. WITH could benefit greatly from a copy.
Nice!!
Petard Hoisted!!!!
-- I don't believe MMFA covers politicians backpeddling -- Tommy
Well I hope you're proud of yourself...you certainly stirred up a pedantic storm with those words...LOL.
But it really served to highlight the exact issue we discussed on the other thread...about reporters/media and their huge egos overshadowing the actual issue itself...making everything about themselves.
Aside from the trivial histrionics...the Heckel and Jeckel Theater was worth the price of admission....
Yes and a more disjointed lie I have never before heard in my many many ears. Let me just say that me and McCain were born about the same time, even.
Does this help?
They still don't get it, do they?
Again, from C&L. More evidence of a CBS coverup:
CBS manuel—CBS NEWS STANDARDS….SEC111-5….EDITING:
CBS - creative b.s.
Keeping up with John McCain's foreign policy gaffes is becoming a cottage industry these days, and a progressive radio host has caught another slip-up from the Republican presidential nominee talking about the war on terror.
And keeping those flubs away from viewers is occupying plenty of network news editors' time.
Young Turks host Cenk Uygur noticed that his confusion about the timeline of the "surge" in Iraq wasn't McCain's only gaffe in his interview with CBS news this week. McCain seemed to forget the war in Afghanistan preceded the invasion of Iraq; either that or he didn't think it was a major conflict.
"The fact is we had four years of failed policy. ... We were losing the war in Iraq. The consequences of failure. The defeat of the United States of America in the first major conflict since 9/11 would have had devastating impacts throughout the region and the world," McCain told CBS anchor Katie Couric.
"Was Afghanistan not major enough for him?" Uygur asks.
Like his previous flub, CBS edited this misstatement from its broadcast. The full version of the interview, which only aired online, also saw McCain wrongly crediting the surge with sparking the "Anbar Awakening," in which tribal leaders began to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq.
The only way I can think of that would prevent the McCain media from covering for him is direct debates between the candidates, where Obama can ask McCain about his constant confusion of events.
If the meaning wasn't changed, then why would CBS have spliced the video to match one answer to a different question? They didn't edit the video for length -- they dropped McCain's answer to a question and replaced it with his response to a different one.
This reminds me of an experience I once had with a newspaper editor. I had written a letter, and it was published in an altered form. I called the editorial page editor to complain and he told me "we reserve the right to edit for clarity and brevity." I replied "yes, but when the word you edit is "not", you've altered the meaning, too."