Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Of Farms & Racism

I wonder what my little brother will say when faced with real lying sacks...

Contrast this bullshit from Fox News, including Hannity and Gingrich with the story from the actual folks down in Georgia.

But Spooner, who considers Sherrod a "friend for life," said the federal official worked tirelessly to help the Iron City couple hold onto their land as they faced bankruptcy back in 1986.

Apparently, you have to actually watch the video clip entirely and talk to the people involved to find out that Sherrod was telling the story as a lesson on growing beyond racism. The craziest part? She ended up saving the white man's farm.

Thank goodness more people are picking up on this. Shame on the Obama administration for getting rid of this official without all the facts being known. Shame on the NAACP for trying to appear "balanced" to make up for their ludicrous Tea Party nonsense last week. And shame on the knee-jerk, spintastic journalism of Fox News and right-wing radio and blogs.

Apparently, the "Obama hires racist black people" meme is more important than actually saving family farms.



patsbrother said...

(1) It was your friend Dante--not your little brother--who posted "You Lying Sack..." Thank you for misrepresenting others in a screed about misrepresenting others!

(2) Obama says X is not a tax, absolutely denies that X is a tax, and then his agents defend X in federal court as a tax, you come up with verbal acrobatics in order to justify it all, and ask why I say you've drunk the koolaid. (And while I would never normally ascribe district court-level activity with the imprimatur of the president, this is the lawsuit he promised he would file, which means this is not a mundane action nor one done without his direct approval. Which means, if he really absolutely rejects the idea that this is a tax, he would have shot that argument down.)

What as your favorite word back in the Bush days? What was it?

Oh, yeah: shenanigans.

(3) I am at a total loss at understanding what is so offensive about Hannity and Gingrich's exchange. Perhaps I missed it. Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you're a liar (which is a fact both you and I should cherish). You (and I) disagree with their CONCLUSIONS, but they didn't misrepresent facts. Where is the lie?

(And I certainly won't assume that the reason you're trumping up a lie that doesn't exist is to make verifiable lies bipartisan this week.)

(4) Oh, and again, I certainly give you wild numbers of precious gems with which to work, you don't need to reference things other people said to call me out.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

1) Whoops. Author perception fail. My bad.

2) You can put the tax stuff back on the tax post. I stand by my evaluations of that issue. I will let you know when I am charged one new tax dollar.

3) I posit that intentionally splicing videotape to remove context and mislead your viewers is pretty close to actual lying. I am unsure of how you can come to a different conclusion.

If all "racism" ended up with learning experiences and the "discriminator" working successfully with the "discriminatee" to keep their property secure, no one would complain about racism again, ever.

patsbrother said...

Look, I think their concern is pretty silly. But still nothing involved in this interview makes them liars.

When a news organization plays an unedited portion of a video, that's known as a clip. I have NEVER seen the news play an entire video unless it is live, really important, or both. Every news show does it, and very few will provide an un-interrupted 30-second clip, which is what Hannity did if the transcript is correct. (Apparently the average sound bite is now 7.3 seconds.)

Just because they didn't run the whole video doesn't make them liars. Actually, had they played just a little bit more, it would have been WORSE for the woman, as her NEXT statements looked just as bad.

(Again, while you and I agree, that doesn't make someone else a liar. Unless most network newspeople who deal in soundbites are hopeless liars.)

"Splicing," as you call it, is cutting and pasting, altering what was actually there. An example of this came from Ann Coulter's speech in Canada a few months ago. News outlets played a video in which a girl asked two questions and Coulter responded with an insensitive quip. What wasn't shown (at least until Coulter complained) was the minute in between in which Coulter responded substantively to the more substantive question until hecklers interrupted and in response to them she gave a response to the more sensational question. That's splicing.

What was done here wasn't splicing.

alli said...

Sorry Kevin, try again.

patsbrother said...

No, Alli, even in the full version, the words presented in the text of the transcript to which Patrick linked are an uninterrupted and un-rearranged stretch of video. Hannity did not splice the video that was available.

Again, I agree with your conclusion about the speech, and the longer video reinforces my agreement, but that DOES NOT make someone with access to a less than 2 minutes-long version of it a liar.

They were discussing their thoughts on a video that someone else had surfaced. I will remind you that the NAACP and the Ag Dept all thought the video that was available (as I understand it, the 2 minute video I saw on YouTube) was at least shocking enough to condemn her and fire her.

Did all of them jump the gun? Yes. Did Hannity or Gingrich splice anything or lie: no.

We're not disagreeing about anything but whether the people (Hannity and Gingrich) Patrick called liars are liars.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

You should see how many folks to whom I've had to explain and refute Sherrod's "racism," just because Hannity said it. You're familiar with the term "unringing a bell," aren't you?

Let's look for parallels:

Remember the big stink the last time popular "journalists" didn't verify their source material?

Somebody had to resign. Somebody famous. All because he didn't check to see if what he was reporting was accurate. It was considered dishonest and irresponsible, and he lost credibility as well as his job.

Think about that when you say that people who get paid millions and have dozens of staffers to do their research for them can't verify the context of a video that was broadcast on public access television.

Because if they weren't outright lying and intentionally misrepresending someone's position by blatantly airing a clip so out-of-context for the speech as a whole; they were grossly negligent and irresponsible for running a story without verification or research and presenting it to their audience as factual news.

patsbrother said...

First, Dan Rather was an actual journalist. Sean Hannity's show is an opinion show. Rather's purpose was to report; Hannity's is to opine. Hannity has less of a duty to investigate than Rather did (and I might add that between these two I like Dan Rather a whole lot more).

Second, CBS News is the outlet that broke the story, and thousands jumped on that bandwagon (until bloggers put the lie to it--another example of the new media!). Hannity CARRIED a story brought up by Andrew Breitbart. In the parallel, Hannity is one of the multitudes of columnists who ranted and raved about Bush after the CBS story, and Breitbart is Dan Rather. Those columnists weren't lying when they relayed that information (but they were quick to adopt it, much as Hannity did, because it fit with their vision of the world).

Do I think Hannity jumped the gun? Yes. Is this really, really bad for his reputation (assuming he had one)? Yes. Does this make him a liar? No.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Wait. So, members of the "liberal" media have a higher standard of proof than members of the "right wing" media?

And folks who base their shows on opinion-veiled-as-news do not have to check facts? They can act like reporters, until what they knowingly report as news is discovered to be false, then they can hide behind the idea that theirs is just an opinon show?