...or does she? In response to Geezer saying if you google "Maddow Lies" you can find plenty of examples, and the link he provided, which speaks of Madd..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Maddow lies...

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, August 26, 2010 18:31
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 731
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, August 23, 2010 12:13 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


...or does she?

In response to Geezer saying if you google "Maddow Lies" you can find plenty of examples, and the link he provided, which speaks of Maddow OMITTING things Jindall said which supposedly makes it look different.

To begin with, nowhere have I ever said that anyone on the MSM doesn’t slant and mischaracterize the opposing point of view. That’s not lying.

However, the example offered is wrong. She showed a video of Jindal speaking, his own words. She said
Quote:

“In the jaw-dropping comment of the night, Gov. Jindal went on to invoke government failure during Hurricane Katrina as a model for how to understand how we should move forward as a country. The idea being that since government failed during Hurricane Katrina, we should understand not that government should not be allowed to fail again, but that government is inherently fail (sic) ... the implication of it is not that the lesson to have learned from Katrina is that we ought to make the government work better 'cause we need the government for some stuff, but that we don't need the government 'cause the government can't do anything.”
Ironically for your argument, she was right, if you read the rest of what he said.

The clip she showed was Jindall as saying “Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts.”

Some of what she omitted included him also saying “Well, Harry just told those boaters, ignore the bureaucrats and go start rescuing people. There's a lesson in this experience. The strength of America is not found in our government. It's found in the compassionate hearts and the enterprising spirit of our citizens.”

Is he or is he not saying that government is a failure and we should deal within things via the “spirit of our citizens”?? I don’t think she even mischaracterized him, or that the omission of the rest of what he said in any way changed the statement she DID show. The author of the article, entitled “Rachel Maddow More Shameless Than Speechless in Contorting Jindal's Remarks on Katrina”, only seems to have proven that what Maddow interpreted Jindal’s comments to indicate was exactly what he WAS saying!

Here is the first claim I could find that she lied by googling "Maddow lies" ( http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2009/12/rachel-maddow-f
alsely-claims-ex-gay-author-gave-support-and-encouragement-for-execution-of-gays-in-uganda
/):

She was speaking of three groups of evangelicals who went to a conference in Uganda, out of which conference the "kill te gays" legislation came forth. She said that these groups of American evangelicals were involved in writing the legislation.
Quote:

.... proposed legislation in Uganda calling for harsh penalties against gays, including execution.... [In an article by the Guardian, it was clarified that the evangelicals were pressing for tougher laws, rather than specifically the death penalty.

Maddow identified the three American evangelicals who attended the conference in Uganda and elaborated on their backgrounds ...Maddow interviewed International Healing Foundation founder Richard Cohen, whose organization sent Brundidge to the conference in Uganda...[International Healing Foundation is a group which “turns” people from homosexual to heterosexual]

Cohen wasted no time disputing Maddow’s earlier contention that his organization was "closely linked" to the proposed legislation in Uganda

”We were invited in the spring of this year, as you said, we sent Caleb Brundidge and he shared his wonderful story of change from homosexual to heterosexual. And he told them to have compassion, love and understanding for all people who experience homosexual feelings. So, we do not believe in this legislation, we had no knowledge of it, and we disavow all relationship to it.”[We have no way of knowing what was said or done at the conference except this man's word, bear in mind]

Not surprisingly, the interview became contentious and Maddow succeeded in tripping up Cohen at least twice while citing passages from his book.

After Maddow read an excerpt claiming homosexuals are much more likely to molest children and students, Cohen conceded that the would remove the passage before the book is reprinted "because we don’t want such things to be used against homosexual persons."[He didn't say it wasn't what he believes.]

Maddow challenged Cohen about his assertions on "factors that may lead to homosexual desires," including "divorce, death of a parent, adoption, religion, or race." After initially denying that race was among the factors he cited, Cohen conceded that it was and, when pressed by Maddow, he could not elaborate. "How does race make you gay," Maddow asked. "It doesn’t," Cohen said.

Maddow also challenged Cohen on his professional credentials, pointing out that he is not a licensed therapist: “You’re not licensed by any accrediting body and so you’ve just stated that your credentials are your personal experience of not being gay anymore.” [He never responded to the “credentials” question, but went on to talk about his transition from gay to hetero]

And this was in an article DISSING Maddow and titled “Rachel Maddow Lies About Execution of Gays in Uganda”

Now, given it’s been publicized that these evangelicals went to the conference where the legislation was proposed, that they admitted they were seeking HARSHER PENALTIES for homosexuality, despite them saying they weren’t proposing SPECIFICALLY execution, and the fact that she caught Cohen in three questionable “facts” cited in his book, one of which he ADMITTED was false, are you willing to accept his statements that he and his group had nothing to do with encouraging the “death to gays” legislation in Uganda? I don’t see any lies.

I won’t post more things that I find, tho’ I’m going to keep looking. But these two, as far as I can see, show no lies; in the first instance Maddow was right on about what Jindal was proposing, in the second, now that the “kill the gays” bill has gotten attention, I would more believe the facts of their ACTIONS than the words of a man who admitted he lied in a book he wrote and a clarification that he and his group were seeking “Harsher penalties, not specifically execution”...even that statement doesn’t exonerate them of encouraging execution, it just says “not specifically”. I’m not at all surprised that all the groups involved are NOW denouncing the “kill the bills” legislation since it became public and the public was shocked.

If we read carefully we can see past the manipulations and political propaganda, even when they try to make the exact opposite point. I have no expectations those here who the Maddow won’t see what the facts show, but that doesn’t bother me. I STILL haven’t found an example of her actually LYING, and I STILL haven’t seen any valid refutation that Fox DOESN’T lie.

I expect the usual off-the-subject snarks and attacks, but it would be nice if someone would show me where either example is an actual LIE, and prove it.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 23, 2010 12:35 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

However, the example offered is wrong.

I agree with this. And here's the link for people to check themselves: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2009/02/27/rachel-maddow-mor
e-shameless-speechless-contorting-jindals-remarks-kat


I don't see how she mischaracterised Jindal's position with her edit (though obviously she was critical of it in her comments). Partiality does not necessarily mean dishonesty or disingenuous-ness (disingenuity?). So can any conservatives explain, or offer better examples?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 23, 2010 1:08 PM

STORYMARK


Yep, I've had similar discussions with righties who like to attack her.

They seem to equate saying something they disagree with and lies.

It's amusing.

Meanwhile, it's pretty easy to come up with verifiable falsehoods from the O'Reily/Rushbo/Beck squad.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 23, 2010 4:46 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
In response to Geezer saying if you google "Maddow Lies" you can find plenty of examples, and the link he provided, which speaks of Maddow OMITTING things Jindall said which supposedly makes it look different.



And you omitted the same things in your thread.

When I read the entire Jindal quote, it seems to me he's talking about doing away with the bureaucratic inefficiencies of government, not government as a whole.

Quote:


JINDAL: Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts.
Let me tell you a story. During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office, I had never seen him so angry. He was literally yelling into the phone. 'Well I'm the sheriff and if you don't like it, you can come and arrest me!' I asked him, 'Sheriff, what's got you so mad?' He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the flood waters. The boats were all lined up and ready to go, and then some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration. And I told him, 'Sheriff, that's ridiculous.' Before I knew it, he was yelling in the phone, 'Congressman Jindal's here and he says you can come and arrest him too!' Well, Harry just told those boaters, ignore the bureaucrats and go start rescuing people. There's a lesson in this experience. The strength of America is not found in our government. It's found in the compassionate hearts and the enterprising spirit of our citizens.



I think I'd have a problem with stopping a rescue to check that everyone had proof of insurance. Seems to me Jindal is saying that government needs to work with the people in situations like the one described, not put up bureaucratic barriers.

How many bureaucratic hoops did you and the aid organizers have to jump through to get you to the Gulf? Don't you think that the citizens who have volunteered for that are the strength of America, rather than the government saying they can't help without dotting all the I's?


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 23, 2010 5:03 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


As to the Gulf, I didn't have to jump through any hoops, nor did the Coalition. Simple fact: BP only allowed paid workers to clean up the beaches, and kept everyone else away (this is our government?). The whole clean-up effort was put in the hands of BP; admittedly the government should not have let them have a free hand, in my estimation, because BP's sole focus was "minimize, minimize, minimize" irregardless of the harm done, but it wasn't about the government for the most part.

The statement "There's a lesson in this experience. The strength of America is not found in our government. It's found in the compassionate hearts and the enterprising spirit of our citizens." seems pretty clear to me, especially when coupled with Jindal's known anti-government feelings. So I disagree.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
The statement "There's a lesson in this experience. The strength of America is not found in our government. It's found in the compassionate hearts and the enterprising spirit of our citizens." seems pretty clear to me, especially when coupled with Jindal's known anti-government feelings. So I disagree.



Niki. In case you didn't notice, GOVERNOR Jindal is part of the government. In his story all the participants are government: the sheriff, the un-named bureaucrat, and then-representative Jindal. Some are working to solve problems and get folks off rooftops, and some are checking off boxes.

If you can, forget the Maddow 'interpretation' and forget party politics, then read the entire Jindal statement again, not just the bit Maddow (and you, apparently) focus exclusively on. Do you consider it wise for bureaucracy to prevent prompt action, requested by the government (the sheriff), needed in an emergency situation?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 24, 2010 6:17 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

When I read the entire Jindal quote, it seems to me he's talking about doing away with the bureaucratic inefficiencies of government, not government as a whole.


I think the context is everything in this case. The context of Jindal's speech is that it was the Republican response to President Obama's state of the union address. What was Jindal responding to specifically when he invoked the memory of Katrina?

"Today in Washington, some are promising that government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina, we have our doubts."

So is it fair to say that Jindal was responding to and criticising Obama's economic policies, and most specifically the idea of using government to rescue and stimulate the economy (bailouts/economic stimulus)? That's fine. But invoking Katrina for that purpose? Jindal himself is drawing the line between the failures of governmental intervention during Katrina (at whatever levels), to Obama's proposed plan of governmental intervention in a troubled economy through stimulus. That's the parallel that's being drawn, you decide for yourself if you're happy with it, I personally give Maddow the green light on this one. The suggestion is that 'government's inherent failure at intervening', is the lesson we should draw from Katrina (not 'government failures during Katrina were unacceptable, and we should strive to make them more effective because government intervention is VITALLY NEEDED in these kind of situations').

Jindal's story articulated a bit more the ways he sees that government actually 'gets in the way' when it tries to solve problems. But he's just expressing standard conservative philosophy here, it doesn't sound like a specific criticism of the stimulus policies (bureaucratic red tape etc.). So I don't see the need for its editing inclusion; it's an anecdote that's not going to float most MSNBC viewers' boats, and it doesn't redeem Jindal's foolish idea of invoking Katrina in the first place.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 24, 2010 7:23 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Geezer: As to Jindall’s story itself, here’s what he said:
Quote:

During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I'd never seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: 'Well, I'm the Sheriff and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me!' I asked him: 'Sheriff, what's got you so mad?' He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up ready to go - when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration. I told him, 'Sheriff, that's ridiculous.' And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: 'Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him too!' Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing people.
However, several facts dispute the veracity of the story.
Quote:

Jindal's story has Lee railing against the red-tape in the midst of the crisis. But Lee, the sheriff of Jefferson Parish in suburban New Orleans, told CNN he didn't find out about the license and registration issue until about seven days after the incident. In his own words:
Quote:

Those boats where not allowed to get into the water when they were needed and I just found out about seven days later one of the reason boats couldn't get in was they didn't have enough life preservers and some of them didn't have proof of insurance.

Katrina hit when Congressman Jindal was returning from a foreign trip. His family evacuated to Baton Rouge, and met up with Jindal at his parents' home. Two days after Katrina passed, Jindal took an aerial tour of the disaster area. It is not clear when he went back on ground. But it is highly unlikely that he was there during first few days. When did he go to this Sheriff's office?
Jindal was interviewed frequently by the media during Katrina. If something like this happened, it would be highly unusual for Jindal to keep quiet and not talk about it when he was interviewed. At least on Sept 1, he hadn't been there on the ground in person. He was still in Baton Rouge. In one of the interviews on that day, he said:
Quote:

Now, some of it is the scale of the catastrophe and that, you know, it's hard, you know, when you -- it's hard to plan for something on that massive of a scale in terms of the storm.
But really at this point, I don't think it's time to be critical of the state's efforts or the federal efforts while they're rescuing people off roofs, while they're picking people up out of the water. I think it's important they rescue every single person. I think it's important that while there are people's lives are in danger, that they get them away.

He made no complaints then about blaming the government and even said not to be critical of the state’s efforts.

This is what happened and why, which is not to exonerate what Jindall said about the chaos. But when this happened, Jindal was still in Baton Rouge. As to the reasons the boats were not allowed out:
Quote:

Although hundreds of volunteer's boats eventually received search and rescue assignments that morning from the DWFE and taken to critical areas throughout the flood zone of New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish through circuitous and hazardous routes, some volunteers were turned away because their houseboats, party barges, and deep draft boats were too big or unsafe for a rescue mission. And some volunteers simply waited so long to get an assignment they decided to go back home.

Harry Lee stayed in greater New Orleans throughout the disaster. It is clear from records of multiple TV interviews of Bobby Jindal that he was in Baton Rouge at least until after Sept 1. So Jindal could not possibly have "walked into his makeshift office" in greater New Orleans.

I do not, by the way, blame Jindal for putting a couple of incidents together and taking some dramatic license in making his point...tho’ I do question the way he portrayed the boats being refused passage. But if his story is a piece-meal combination of several things, his personal involvement is a lie, and either way, what he said then doesn’t match what he said later about the government’s role.

Of course he’s part of the government. Politicians say things to get elected TO the government, but what they SAY is to appeal to the electorate, and what he said is that government is useless, individuals are what we should lookto. How many of his fellow politicians say the same things, and how many of them, including Jindal, have indicated quite clearly that they feel the federal government is useless and essentially should be mostly done away with, even in emergencies? If you are saying that’s not what Jindal was inferring, he certainly didn’t make it clear from his words. He’s a politician, his agenda is clear, and he reflected that agenda with his words. NOWHERE did he say we should work to IMPROVE the federal government, only that “The strength of America is not found in our government. It's found in the compassionate hearts and the enterprising spirit of our citizens.” The implication is pretty clear: Government is weak, the people are strong, government is the problem, not the solution. Nowhere did he say anything about IMPROVING government, just that it doesn’t work. I stand by Maddow’s interpretation of what he SAID, not what he BELIEVES.

KPO, correct as I see it. It was a political speech. But the point was that, because government failed in Katrina, it shouldn't be trusted in other situations. I think your interpretation OF HIS WORDS is what Maddow was trying to illustrate. That it was a politically-expedient story and the inference he was making were certainly USED by Maddow to point out his not wanting to trust the government, and especially the fact that he never said anything about IMPROVING government, only that it was useless. As you said,
Quote:

The suggestion is that 'government's inherent failure at intervening', is the lesson we should draw from Katrina (not 'government failures during Katrina were unacceptable, and we should strive to make them more effective because government intervention is VITALLY NEEDED in these kind of situations').
is exactly what she indicated; that he didn't say anything about improving government, only that it was a failure and not to be trusted.

I don't blame him for the speech; the only point I was making is that Maddow did NOT LIE. She made a political inference to get a point across. But nowhere, given the actual words Jindal spoke, did she lie.

We can keep picking this apart via each of our own inferences and opinions; my only point was that nowhere did she LIE. She interpreted in a partisan fashion, but that is not the question at hand.

Nor did she lie about the Uganda thing. She made inferences, and those aren't even refuted, given the wording "specifically the death penalty" leave it open to the fact that they DID encourage use of the death penalty. Not to mention the fact that the person defending their actions in Uganda is a questionable spokesman in that he lied elsewhere, in his book no less.

Still haven't gotten any facts supporting that Maddow lies, nor any refuting the lies of Fox News. My points still stand.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 24, 2010 7:44 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

I don't blame him for the speech; the only point I was making is that Maddow did NOT LIE.

No, she didn't. The only point at which I think she wasn't completely fair to Mr Jindal was describing his position as government = fail. Really I think it was more specific than that: government intervention during 'storms' = fail - that's as much as we can say he was saying with his Katrina parallel. Then again Jindal failed to make that distinction clear himself.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 26, 2010 2:34 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Well whether or not Maddow lies I think there's definitely a role for someone dedicating themselves to pointing out Republican hypocrisy (as well as the Daily Show), like in this example, still on the stimulus theme:



It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 26, 2010 2:48 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


What's really hilarious in all this hullaballou about whether or not Maddow "lied" about Jindal, and what's been completely lost, it seems, is the fact that JINDAL WAS LYING in his original story!

He wasn't there, he wasn't in the area at the time, he wasn't with Sheriff Lee, it never happened. He made the whole thing up. Bobby Jindal himself admitted this.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/jindal_admits_katrin
a_story_was_false.php


So all this "Maddow LIED about Jindal" crapola is completely overlooking the fact that SOMEONE was lying in that story, but it sure as hell wasn't Rachel.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 26, 2010 3:48 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Haha it had the ring of a made up story tbh.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 26, 2010 6:31 PM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Well whether or not Maddow lies I think there's definitely a role for someone dedicating themselves to pointing out Republican hypocrisy (as well as the Daily Show), like in this example, still on the stimulus theme:



It's not personal. It's just war.



My soulmate, you did it again...The Dailyshow is on comedy central and is just that... comedy..Maddow hides behind journalism on MSNBC..There is a huge difference, and being my soulmate, I am sure you will renounce the nonsense in your prior post. Eddie Murphy's jokes about gay people in San Fransico cannot be added with Glenn Becks comments on FOX about gay people...sure comedy is almost always rooted in truth the difference is in the scale and balance

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump Presidency 2024 - predictions
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:54 - 15 posts
U.S. Senate Races 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:49 - 9 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:47 - 35 posts
Are we witnessing President Biden's revenge tour?
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:44 - 7 posts
No Thread On Topic, More Than 17 Days After Hamas Terrorists Invade, Slaughter Innocent Israelis?
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:35 - 35 posts
Ghosts
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:30 - 72 posts
U.S. House Races 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:30 - 5 posts
Election fraud.
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:28 - 35 posts
Will religion become extinct?
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:59 - 90 posts
Japanese Culture, S.Korea movies are now outselling American entertainment products
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:46 - 44 posts
Elon Musk
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:33 - 28 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:24 - 594 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL