Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
If you listen closely, it’s obvious the audio in the clip has been adjusted. However, that’s not uncommon — and that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s MSNBC who did it. Sound technicians usually cut out the audience to ensure speakers aren’t drowned out (which you can do by simply turning the mics up and down — or you can do after the fact). However, where the controversy comes in is in the caption on the screen quoting the audience as chanting “Ryan!” Why is that controversial? Because people who attended the event say that’s not what happened, and that the MSNBC video grossly misrepresents what actually occurred.
During Thursday’s edition of TheBlaze TV’s “Pat & Stu,” one caller gives her account of the campaign rally and their stories line up with many others at the event. MSNBC lied and distorted the video, that should get them in big trouble with the FCC.
“The crowd was yelling,” caller Sherry recounts, “the crowd was screaming ‘Romney! Romney!’ and Romney, being the gentleman [he is], we can’t get in his head because he’s so stinking nice, he stopped us to add ‘Romney-Ryan.'”
“And if you watch the clip again, Ryan throws up his hand like ‘oh, you don’t have to add me to the chant,'” she adds.
MSNBC is the biggest biased distorted Cable News Network (along with CBS) who are clearly trying to get Obama re-elected. They are distorting facts, intentionally refusing to broadcast pictures of proof that would damage Heil Obama’s imagine and re-election chances. I have never witnessed such Chicago style political lying and deception in my whole 61 years of life. God please help us if Obama is given another 4 years to “dumb down” the stupid liberals who voted for him. And God help their children too! Unintelligent people will rule this earth, and our enemies who prey for that, will move in swiftly!
What more is there to say. We’ve known what the media is like for a few decades now. They pulled a lot of this stuff when Reagan ran…had him way behind the the polls, likened him to Howdie Doodie, made fun of his film work…and he won in a landslide.
I think they all know their guy is in deep trouble. They are only gracious when they think they are winning.
Have they given any thought to their own ratings lately?
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/09/28/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-september-27-2012/150564/
Just when you think the clueless would get a clue they do not disappoint
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbc-host-who-got-caught-selectively-editing-romney-clip-says-media-doing-bad-job-of-covering-campaign/
Editing Romney Clip Says Media Has Done Bad Job of Covering Campaign
MSNBCs Andrea Mitchell is not happy with how the media has covered the presidential race so far. Yes, the same person behind WaWa-gate who was caught airing a selectively edited clip of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is calling on her colleagues in the mainstream media to step it up and start covering the real campaign issues.
On Friday, Mitchell joined fellow MSNBC host Rachel Maddow to discuss the topic, and the consensus between the two was this: the media isnt calling out Romney enough for his flawed policies.
But dont worry. MSNBC and NBC come hell or high water will be the standard bearer in the mainstream media, according to Mitchell. We will have that debate, she said.
I think that we have to force the issue we in the media, as well. We have to start talking about things other than polls, and the horse-race and whats on Twitter. With all due respect, that we have to get beyond the, sort of, social media content, said Mitchell.
The moment to moment stuff and get to the policy, Maddow interjected, agreeing with Mitchell.
So, in the spirit of getting straight to policy, Mitchell and Maddow immediately shifted the conversation to Elizabeth Warrens Native American heritage claims, bashing Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) for continuing to bring up the issue.
As Mediaites Noah Rothman observes, The immediate pivot to the issue of Warrens supposed Cherokee heritage lacks virtually every quality Mitchell had just defined as being essential to the health of the political dialogue. Self-awareness was never the press strong suit, but this exchanged elevated the practices of navel-gazing to an art form.
The LSM commits egregious lies, half truths, omissions, and distortions 24/7. They are also in the tank for Obama and the Democratic Party. (A Gomer Pyle “Suuuprize, suuuprize!” there.)
While Fox News has its gaffes and failures, there is a reason it continues to dominate the cable television news market. The LSM is little more than a propaganda machine of liberal elitists. Thoughtful people are aware of this. A significant number of Americans are not the mindless sheep the LSM wishes they were and they turn to Fox.
If you do not already follow, I highly recommend http://www.mrc.org/. While they are a conservative organization, their statistical news analysis is based upon valid research methods and practices and is well documented. Compare their work to the hapless left wing clowns at the George Soros funded Media Matters and make up your own mind.
Pie: “A significant number of Americans are not the mindless sheep the LSM wishes they were and they turn to Fox.”
We also have a new source called, “The Blaze” on Dish channel 212 and Blaze.org that I’m finding very good and even better on some issues than Fox.
Peggy and Tina, don’t you have a problem with the word “lying?” Just because the people at MSNBC have a difference of opinion or a different point of view, does not make them liars. I find it very arrogant of you to assume bad faith on their part, and your “I’m right, they’re wrong” attitude is that of a bully. The people at MSNBC are merely expressing concerns about possible future outcomes of a Romney/Ryan ticket, as is their right. We can agree to disagree–after all, isn’t all truth subjective?
Sure, Chris we can agree to disagree.
Tina, I believe we are dealing with two guys both named Chris. About an hour and a half before this comment was written a huge piece on the Woman Doc Speaks Out article appears written by one of them starts off with, I am objectively right, and you are objectively wrong.
Oct. 4 th at 1:12pm
Chris: Peggy: “Tina you are to be commended for your patients and perseverance in dealing with Chris and his Im right and youre wrong attitude.”
It’s not an “attitude.” On this particular issue, I am objectively right, and you are objectively wrong. I have provided proof for my side of the argument, and you have not.
Who or what are we dealing with? Shadow boxing with a chameleon?
Peggy, it’s called satire. Whenever I point out when certain people on your side lie, Tina sees it as evidence of my “obnoxious arrogance.” And yet she had no problem with the reporters mentioned in this article being called liars. That’s because lying is OK whenever it suits her political agenda, but not OK when it goes against it.
You and Tina both refused to engage with the facts in the thread about Dr. Jill Vecchio. You even posted a quote about the subjective nature of “truth,” even though we were dealing in the realm of facts that were very easily verifiable. You did this because you had no actual evidence that Vecchio’s charges were true, but you really wanted them to be true anyway, since they make Obama look bad. In my last comment, I used the exact same arguments you and Tina made in that thread, in an attempt to show how facile and weasley such arguments are and how they do not engage with the discussion.
By the way, there is a portion of Romneycare that allows people to kill puppies in the street. You may not be able to find it in there, but I heard from a doctor that it’s true, so he’s probably privileged to information we don’t have. Don’t be unreasonable by expecting me to post any actual evidence for this charge, lest I criticize you for your “attitude.”
Chris: “You did this because you had no actual evidence that Vecchio’s charges were true…”
I beg to differ. I posted the portion of Obamacare that deals with possible law suits wherein it states that a federal offense with fines and jail time could result. I also explained that the doctors concerns were at least in part about what could result because of the power given to HHS (under either party) to limit and restrict in the future.
You choose to dismiss this information even though I also gave evidence of many doctors expressing concerns on advice of attorneys that read and gave them their interpretation of the law.
The way the law was passed was also extremely offensive, as the SC decision shows:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/top-lawyer-arguing-against-obamacare-says-dems-committed-major-fraud-by-not-honestly-representing-obamacare-as-a-massive-new-tax-video/
It would not be inaccurate to state that you are an obstinate, partisan, supporter of Obama who is incapable of considering that the law may have flaws…deep terrible flaws that will do great harm to our nation in the future.
You are welcome to believe that government is without flaws and will always do what is best for everyone and that this law is perfection…but I don’t.
I think there is a lot of evidence that government is the last place to turn to to fix problems. Medicare and SS were both sold to the American people with guesstimates on costs that were so wrong it is now laughable to think we actually bought it. When I was young four workers covered the expense for each elderly patient…now, according to CATO 2010:
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs/medicare-reforms
Other examples that the federal government manages our affairs poorly include $16 trillion in debt with more to come, a failed result from Johnson’s Great Society (broken families and generational poverty), a school system that has gone downhill since the federal government got involved (low scores compared to other countries, high drop out rates, kids that graduate but can’t read), and the recent housing debacle that came about because politicians were A) schemers and B) greedy!
All of these and more point to the fact that giving our Federal government this much power in healthcare is a BIG mistake.
Tina: “I beg to differ. I posted the portion of Obamacare that deals with possible law suits wherein it states that a federal offense with fines and jail time could result.”
Yes, and that has nothing to do with Dr. Vecchio’s false claim that she is prevented from recommending mammograms to women under 50 and over 75. You are not an idiot, so I don’t know why you keep pretending to not understand this.
“I also explained that the doctors concerns were at least in part about what could result because of the power given to HHS (under either party) to limit and restrict in the future.”
Yes, and that has nothing to do Dr. Vecchio’s false claim that she is prevented from recommending mammograms to women under 50 and over 75 RIGHT NOW, not “in the future.” You are not an idiot, so I don’t know why you keep pretending to not understand this.
“You choose to dismiss this information even though I also gave evidence of many doctors expressing concerns on advice of attorneys that read and gave them their interpretation of the law.”
Yes, I dismissed them, because none of those doctors provided any evidence at all for Dr. Vecchio’s false claim that she is prevented from recommending mammograms to women under 50 and over 75.
There’s a reason I keep repeating myself: because no matter how many times I do, you keep choosing to ignore that you have not provided any evidence at all to support Dr. Vecchio’s false claim that…well, you know what the false claim was, because you are not an idiot. And yet you keep pretending to be one. You continue to conflate her false claims with completely different claims, to downplay them as mere concerns over what “might” happen in “the future” (even though that’s not even close to what she said), and to construct strawman arguments against me, such as falsely claiming that I am “incapable of considering that the law may have flaws,” which is ridiculous, as I have acknowledged actual flaws in the law several times (like not dealing with the problem of lowering Medicare payments to doctors).
All because you refuse to admit that one doctor was wrong about one claim she made about Obamacare. Why is that so hard for you? You can still be against the law for the million other reasons you’ve given, even if you admit that this one reason is completely made up. But by refusing to admit that this one was wrong, you are making it look like you will cling to ANY negative claim against the law, no matter how absurd. That’s dishonest, and it hurts your argument, because it indicates that you do not trust facts and truth to win you the day. If you have to resort to lies to win, it isn’t worth it.
If Obamacare is really so terrible, you should be able to stick to real reasons to oppose it. Not fake ones like the lie put out by Dr. Vecchio.