A Wrest Coast Perspective

by Frank Darbe
Lying, Arrogant, Puling, Sacks of Feculence
Why is it that Drudge, other conservative right wing bloggers like Jake Trapper, and even ABC News are such lying, arrogant, puling, sacks of feculence? What is it that makes them so inherently dishonest? What is it about the people who read and listen to them that they will take these voluminous scat piles and never bother to check things out? Why am I upset, you ask? Well, once again, Drudge and his close porcine intellectual relatives have chosen to foist a lie on the public.

The Drudge headline reads:

“Bill Clinton: 'We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy' to Fight Global Warming...”

Naturally, I clicked on the link and it took me direct to a
Bill: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming, where Jake Trapper writes.

quote:

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.
In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

Jake Trapper, that lying, puling, arrogant sack of feculance gives the link to the snippit of the speech from ABC. ABC takes the words mentioned above.

Damn it, Bill. You said that.

However, if you actually listen to the whole speech, which few people will do, you will find that he doesn’t say that.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

It occurs at 13:17 in the speech, a little past 2 minutes in Part 2. What he really says is this.

quote:

And maybe America, Europe and Japan, Canada, the rich countries in the world, would say...
Okay...we just have to slow down our economy, and cut back our green gas emissions, because we got to save the planet for our grandchildren.
We can do that, but if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia, and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and Ukraine, and all the other countries that is coming behind us, they will never agree to stay poor. To save the planet for our grandchildren.
The only way we can do this, is if we, get back in the worlds fight against global warming, and prove it’s good economics, that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren.

Wait a minute, you say. ABC News didn’t say that. Jake Trapper didn’t say that. Drudge didn’t say that. That is right, ABC News, Jack Trapper, and Drudge lied to you. They took one tiny snippet and passed it to you because they want to deceive you. Why?

The answer is simple. These three prominent, right wing, conservative, media sources want everyone to believe a lie. They are are willing to lie to you about it becasue they know that most people will not check this deeply. Drudge,other conservative right wing bloggers like Jake Trapper, and even ABC News are simlpy lying, arrogant, puling, sacks of feculence.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Darbe,

Frank, you have posted precisely the reason that it is difficult to "believe in" the majority of those running for President.

Yes, Jack Trapper, Matt Drudge, ABC News, and other journalistic venues have taken words out of context changing the meaning of the statements made as a whole.

As have virtually all of the Presidential Aspirants.

It is easy to quote people out of context, and then later issue an "Oops, my bad". It makes no difference how many "My bads" are forthcoming,the damage has been done. As Donna often says, "You can't un-ring the bell."

I don't find this problem, this phenomena to be exclusive to a few rabidly right wing sources, or a few rabidly left wing sources, I find it to be endemic to most of those running for office, and/or their staff.

I am posting these thoughts assuming that the fact that many journalists quote out of context in order to "juice up the news", and that the candidates and others who do the same is the primary thrust of your "To the point" well summarized essay.

This "show" that we've been watching for the past year seems to be full of this kind of nonsense, to me. The nonsense seems to emanate from all quarters involved; the specific parties (Democratic and Republican), the Media (much, though not all, of it), the Candidates (oh my yes!), and any others who think that they can sway political leanings of others if they have a "bully pulpit" from which to vent their disingenuous preachings.

It occurs to me that we will not be able to find any effective manner in which to hold these people's feet to the fire, and must therefore make our best judgment calls on General Election Day based on the truths, or as close as possible to the truths that we've been able to glean from all of the above by the time it is our turn to "punch the ballot".

Good essay, Frank! Very thought-provoking, as usual!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Spencer Lehmann,

Spence, I agree with you. Every candidate and almost all of their rabid followers are guilty of taking things out of context.

From the left, the Obamaista's have accused the Clintons of racism by taking things out of context or simply because they didn't take their heads out of their keisters before speaking.

In the Navy we called this problem Cranialrectumitus.

The Clintonistas have claimed that Obama and his minions are women haters.

I won't go into the various stupid accusations leveled by those on the right on each other.

But the way we hold them accountable is to expose it, even if it is to a few of us here or to your friend across the backyard fence. If some talking head says something, we should be willing to go to the source and find out if that was what was really said rather than accept it because it fits our world view. When people misrepresent the facts, we should stand up and tell them so. It will only get worse until enough of us stand up to them and make it better.

quote:

But the way we hold them accountable is to expose it, even if it is to a few of us here or to your friend across the backyard fence. If some talking head says something, we should be willing to go to the source and find out if that was what was really said rather than accept it because it fits our world view. When people misrepresent the facts, we should stand up and tell them so. It will only get worse until enough of us stand up to them and make it better.

Very well said, Frank.

Not only do I agree, those actions are exactly what you, I, and many others who are "paying attention" do.

I sincerely hope that enough of the American Electorate will have done the same, come November.

What about Keith Olberman? Or is because he is a liberal does he always tell the truth?

quote:

Originally posted by Senator Hatrack:

What about Keith Olberman? Or is because he is a liberal does he always tell the truth?

I could of course be wrong, however it was my understanding form both the Essay that began this thread, and from my own post clarifying what seemed to be the thrust of the Essay, that those mentioned by name were only done so in an "I.e." manner, and that the vast majority of pundits and candidates were all being referenced.

Further, in a follow-up post, Frank mentioned "the Obamaista's" and "The Clintonistas".

Clearly, this Essay was not a personal attack on Drudge, Tracker, or ABC, but on the entire Media.

It might help to read all of the posts up to the point of posting a response or question in order to avoid another case of pulling a thread "Off-topic".

Many Rs and Ds, and their respective "Journalistic Friends", as well as those who are not friends, and the myriad of Pundits who all have their own perspectives, appear to me to be the "target" of the Essay above.

Please, Senator let's try to keep this thread "On-topic".

Now...where were we?

quote:

Originally posted by Spencer Lehmann:

I am posting these thoughts assuming that the fact that many journalists quote out of context in order to "juice up the news", and that the candidates and others who do the same is the primary thrust of your "To the point" well summarized essay.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Darbe:

Spence, I agree with you. Every candidate and almost all of their rabid followers are guilty of taking things out of context.

<SNIP>

But the way we hold them accountable is to expose it, even if it is to a few of us here or to your friend across the backyard fence. If some talking head says something, we should be willing to go to the source and find out if that was what was really said rather than accept it because it fits our world view. When people misrepresent the facts, we should stand up and tell them so. It will only get worse until enough of us stand up to them and make it better.

Oh yeah, this is where we were!

If you find something Keith Olberman is quoting out of context, then quote what Olberman said, quote or put a link to the full context, and show us why Olbemann's use of that context makes it wrong.

Quoting out of context does not necessarily change the meaning of what was said. If the quote is done so that the entire meaning of what the person said is changed, that is a malicious lie.

The quotes I used are among the most egregious I have seen in a while. All three sources took that quote out of context and used it in a malicious way to change the entire meaning of what Clinton said. Because they changed the meaning completely, they obviously told a premeditated lie for political purposes. It wasn't that they didn't quote Clinton's entire long winded speech. Who would want to do that. That man can go on. It is that they specifically changed the meaning of what was said by their quote.

Keith Olberman has made mistakes in the past. He has apologized on the air for them and corrected his story. I find the willingness to apologize and correct the story admirable. Tucker Carlson has also apologized and corrected the story when he got it wrong.

But, by all means, bring on the quotes. Tell the truth and shame the devil.

Senator, having had the chance to see what they quoted and the original context, do you disagree that they changed the meaning. If you think they kept the meaning of what he said, why do you think that?

I asked about Keith Olberman because I don't know that much about him except for the fact that is a liberal. My question about him was asked because I do not watch his show. I don't watch his show or any of the political pundits on TV because I don't have cable TV. I don't listen to any the radio either. I listen to KSJN the local classical music station. (The radio home of The Prairie Home Companion show.)

Look him up on the internet. A lot of his comments are posted on YouTube. Since most of the conservatives hate him, there are blogs about him from the conservative side of the aisle.
If you find anything about him or anyone else, please post it.

I know what conservatives say about Mr. Olberman and their insults to him do a great disservice to conservatism. I dislike the man but respect him for standing up for what he believes. I would like to know what you think of him.

I admire Olbemann a great deal. His is the only news show that I watch regularly. Most of my news comes from Internet sources. He has consistantly been willing to stand up and speak out against what he sees as wrong. Most consider him a liberal, but that seems to be becasue he has been a harsh critic of the Bush administration. He has also spoken out against the democrats, having had harsh words for the Clinton Campaign, the Congress, the Senate, Obama Campaign, and the Edwards Campaign. Oh, and he doesn't like O'Reilly or Fox News. One other thing, he is an enormous baseball fan.

I don't consider him a liberal, becasue I have not seen him take a strong stand in support of liberal casues. But he hasn't pushed hard against them either. I would consider him a moderate. I suspect that if a Democrast is elected he will continue to speak out agaisnt any perfidies performed by the left. He has spoken out against the bickering between the Obama and Clinton Campaings calling it what it is, stiff similar to what was done by Drudge, Trapper, and ABC news above.

I know of 2 cases where he got something wrong, took responsibility, appologized on the air, and corrected the story. Very few media personalities ever do that.

But no one is perfect and I'm sure he hasnt' got a flawless record.

I see Keith Olberman as a political gadfly that speaks out about what he considers wrong, no matter who or what party. He wants to hold people's feet to the fire and hold them accountable for what they say and do.Yes he has made some mistakes, but as Darbe has said, he has publicly apologized for them-which is more than I can say for any other political pundit, Conservative OR Liberal.

I do agree that, so far, he seems to be a slightly left of center moderate.

quote:

Originally posted by Senator Hatrack:

I know what conservatives say about Mr. Olberman and their insults to him do a great disservice to conservatism. I dislike the man but respect him for standing up for what he believes. I would like to know what you think of him.

As with Frank and Donna, I too, like Keith Olberman.

Yes, he has undoubtedly made mistakes, I've seen him do so. I also have seen him apologize when he has realized that he was wrong, and that is a quality I have found to be very rare among any Political Pundits, of any political persuasion.

I too, find him to be a bit left of Moderate, but for me, that's fine. It's hard to really define my stance, which most simply put, is Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal.

Maybe that makes me "Schizophrenic", but I think I would be labeled a "Moderate Schizophrenic".

I might have to sign up for cable just to watch Keith Olberman's show.