Maddow Admits using edited tapes

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Gleefully Admits To Using Edited Video To Smear GOP

newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2013/02/27/msnbc-s-rachel-maddow-gleefully-admits-using-edited-video-smear-gop

MSNBC’s propensity to selectively edit video to smear conservatives has reached a new low.  Speaking on her self-titled show on February 21, host Rachel Maddow openly admitted to playing edited footage of Senator John McCain to smear the Arizona Republican.

Speaking last week, Maddow aired footage of McCain addressing a constituent whose son was killed last year at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, who spoke to Senator McCain about her belief that “These assault weapons allow a shooter to fire many rounds without having to reload. These weapons do not belong on our streets.”  [See video after jump.  MP3 audio here.]

MP3 Audio linke: newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012/2013-02-21-MSNBC-MADDOW-MCCAIN.mp3


HAVING DIFFICULTY CUT AND PASTING TEXT FROM THE ARTICLE. CLICK LINK FOR FULL TEXT AND VIDEO.

[workpublic]

of course she does. the only "news or commentary" she reports is "you're stupid, look at me. i'm smarter, better, faster than you."

[djpolldancer]

i'm sorry.  i saw both clips, and i really don't get what is so outrageous about what Maddow did.  could she have done better?  sure.  of course.  but the basic facts remain the same whether or not you take into account Maddow's personal dislike for McCain, which is obvious to anyone watching her show, and likely shared.

you could argue that Maddow's job is to tell the whole truth.  but that is not what commentators like Maddow do.  if you think so, then God Bless You, but you are living in a fantasy universe.

[workpublic]

i think "commentators" jobs are to comment on issues, not self promote. ya hear that o'reilly?

[billisonboard]

Feb 28, 2013 15:18:03 GMT -5 workpublic said:

i think "commentators" jobs are to comment on issues, not self promote. ya hear that o'reilly?

Market shares or face cancellation.

[AtlanticCoastofFloridaPaul :)]

Feb 28, 2013 13:03:37 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Gleefully Admits To Using Edited Video To Smear GOP

newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2013/02/27/msnbc-s-rachel-maddow-gleefully-admits-using-edited-video-smear-gop

MSNBC’s propensity to selectively edit video to smear conservatives has reached a new low.  Speaking on her self-titled show on February 21, host Rachel Maddow openly admitted to playing edited footage of Senator John McCain to smear the Arizona Republican.

Speaking last week, Maddow aired footage of McCain addressing a constituent whose son was killed last year at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, who spoke to Senator McCain about her belief that “These assault weapons allow a shooter to fire many rounds without having to reload. These weapons do not belong on our streets.”  [See video after jump.  MP3 audio here.]

MP3 Audio linke: newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012/2013-02-21-MSNBC-MADDOW-MCCAIN.mp3


HAVING DIFFICULTY CUT AND PASTING TEXT FROM THE ARTICLE. CLICK LINK FOR FULL TEXT AND VIDEO.

Who sees these selectively edited tapes?  Her fake viewers?

riehlworldview.com/?p=28408

Free Republic has a pretty interesting screen cap of a large number of Tweets from multiple accounts. Hmm.

A poster on Twitter, upon seeing what he thought were very similar posts referencing MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s show, did some searching and found out that Maddow has been using phony twitter accounts to boost her “mentions” on the popular website.

As can be seen by screenshots collected by a tweeter named @leftybollocks, Maddow has massive amount of accounts posting the exact same claim that “Confession: I yell at my TV while watching Rachel #Maddow talk about filibuster reform in the same way most people do during football.”

More via Rachel Maddow Busted Using Multiple Fake Twitter Accounts To Boost Mentions Of Her Show.

- See more at: riehlworldview.com/?p=28408#sthash.G8WO33CW.dpuf

[AtlanticCoastofFloridaPaul :)]

Rush Limbaugh doesn't have a problem getting listeners- he blows all other commentators on all other media, and talk radio combined out of the water. Nobody even comes close. It's not hard when what you have to say, and the way that you say it resonates with a LOT of people.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Feb 28, 2013 13:19:42 GMT -5 workpublic said:

of course she does. the only "news or commentary" she reports is "you're stupid, look at me. i'm smarter, better, faster than you."

Hey Work, would you "do" her? 

[workpublic]

probably(cause i'm a male pig) to see how the other half lives. I doubt she'd be interested

but i think she plays for the other team

[TonyTiger]

Rache is perceived as a shill for the Left, just as Rush is perceived as a shill for the Right...

Both they and their corporate masters are accused of slanting their coverage to make their side look good and the other side look bad...

What else is new? Dog bites man?

They both do the same thing, to varying degrees, from opposite sides of the two-way mirror...

Maybe they should be encouraged to hook up...

"Rache and Rush-ey, sittin' in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g..."

Hey... mebbe they'd produce a crop of little Centrists...

IF Rush can remember what he did with "it", and IF Rache can remember what "it" is really supposed to do...

Although, I'll concede, that Rache would be getting the worst part of the deal, by any honest accounting...

[djpolldancer]

Mar 2, 2013 10:50:37 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Rache is perceived as a shill for the Left, just as Rush is perceived as a shill for the Right...

i don't think that this comparison is quite right.  i think that Maddow compares more closely with O'Reilly, a MSM television personality and commentator.  Limbaugh really is in a league of his own.  nobody is quite like him.

[TonyTiger]

Mar 2, 2013 12:33:09 GMT -5 djpolldancer said:

Mar 2, 2013 10:50:37 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Rache is perceived as a shill for the Left, just as Rush is perceived as a shill for the Right...

i don't think that this comparison is quite right.  i think that Maddow compares more closely with O'Reilly, a MSM television personality and commentator.  Limbaugh really is in a league of his own.  nobody is quite like him.

I was talking stereotypical public perceptions... not what actually is...

[djpolldancer]

Mar 2, 2013 17:39:40 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Mar 2, 2013 12:33:09 GMT -5 djpolldancer said:

i don't think that this comparison is quite right.  i think that Maddow compares more closely with O'Reilly, a MSM television personality and commentator.  Limbaugh really is in a league of his own.  nobody is quite like him.

I was talking stereotypical public perceptions... not what actually is...

i could comment on that, but not without getting myself in trouble.  point conceded. 

[grits]

Both of them say what is necessary to keep listeners.  The more listerners, the higher your pay check.  Say or do whatever is necessary to get the listeners.  Rush is a shock jock of a political nature.  I do not know if anyone is ever really going to know what the man truly believes.  As long as he can anger people, and get them to run 30 page threads on this site and many others, he will be on the air.  All those people give him tens of millions of dollars in free publicity.  Nobody could afford to buy what those people give him for free.  If people would ignore him, his salary would be cut, and the number of stations carrying him would drop.  
As far as the other one, she does the same but to a smaller audience.  I guess she doesn't have the charisma, and guts to reach his level. 

[djpolldancer]

Mar 2, 2013 18:30:13 GMT -5 grits said:

Both of them say what is necessary to keep listeners.  The more listerners, the higher your pay check.  Say or do whatever is necessary to get the listeners.  Rush is a shock jock of a political nature.  I do not know if anyone is ever really going to know what the man truly believes.  As long as he can anger people, and get them to run 30 page threads on this site and many others, he will be on the air.  All those people give him tens of millions of dollars in free publicity.  Nobody could afford to buy what those people give him for free.  If people would ignore him, his salary would be cut, and the number of stations carrying him would drop.  
As far as the other one, she does the same but to a smaller audience.  I guess she doesn't have the charisma, and guts to reach his level. 

Limbaugh's numbers are down about 30% in the last two years.  Maddow's are up, but i can't remember how much.  it is totally conceivable that they will cross at some point.

[grits]

Limbaugh has made some mistakes that hurt him like his drug use, and a few foot in mouth diesease moments.  I think peeps grow tired of the same hack.  They search out new ones.  Maddow has the potential to draw upon the haters of the conservatives.  It seems to be a growing group.  Who would have ever thought that kids would be ashamed to be citizens of this country, and believe that all the world's ills were caused by this one nation? It has happened.  I think they should go to a third world country for a summer, and witness what really goes on there.  

[grits]

Maddow needs to be very careful with using the edited tapes.  If she goes too far, she can be sued for libel.  It would not be difficult to prove that she did it intentionally, and with malicious forethought.  

[djpolldancer]

Mar 2, 2013 20:36:48 GMT -5 grits said:

Maddow needs to be very careful with using the edited tapes.  If she goes too far, she can be sued for libel.  It would not be difficult to prove that she did it intentionally, and with malicious forethought.  

has James O'Keefe been sued?

[grits]

Sooner or later, the wrong person will be targeted, and someone will sue.  The USA has become so lawsuit happy, it is a wonder that neither Maddow nor Limbaugh are tied up in court right now.

[TonyTiger]

Love-child of Jamie Lee Curtis and Daniel Radcliffe?  

......

[djpolldancer]

Mar 2, 2013 21:11:57 GMT -5 grits said:

Sooner or later, the wrong person will be targeted, and someone will sue.  The USA has become so lawsuit happy, it is a wonder that neither Maddow nor Limbaugh are tied up in court right now.

my point was that rarely are commentators sued.  in fact, i can't remember the last time it happened.

[djpolldancer]

Mar 2, 2013 20:34:41 GMT -5 grits said:

Limbaugh has made some mistakes that hurt him like his drug use, and a few foot in mouth diesease moments.  I think peeps grow tired of the same hack.  They search out new ones.  Maddow has the potential to draw upon the haters of the conservatives.  It seems to be a growing group.  Who would have ever thought that kids would be ashamed to be citizens of this country, and believe that all the world's ills were caused by this one nation? It has happened.  I think they should go to a third world country for a summer, and witness what really goes on there.  

i dunno.  i think that Limbaugh's and Maddow's audience are not malcontents.  they really see themselves as saviours of democracy.  at least that is what i can gather by observing their most rabid fans.

[rockon]

I see Rachel and Rush as very similar in may ways. Who knows what they actually believe but they get paid millions to feed people "comfort words". Many find comfort in having someone tell them that what they want to believe is true and these two are perfectly happy to do it. Not saying both haven't served some good purpose at all but for the most part our world would be better served without these yammering jackasses.

[cereb]

Meh...I don't listen to either one of them.

[grits]

Mar 2, 2013 22:47:05 GMT -5 djpolldancer said:

Mar 2, 2013 20:34:41 GMT -5 grits said:

Limbaugh has made some mistakes that hurt him like his drug use, and a few foot in mouth diesease moments.  I think peeps grow tired of the same hack.  They search out new ones.  Maddow has the potential to draw upon the haters of the conservatives.  It seems to be a growing group.  Who would have ever thought that kids would be ashamed to be citizens of this country, and believe that all the world's ills were caused by this one nation? It has happened.  I think they should go to a third world country for a summer, and witness what really goes on there.  

i dunno.  i think that Limbaugh's and Maddow's audience are not malcontents.  they really see themselves as saviours of democracy.  at least that is what i can gather by observing their most rabid fans.

The ones I have to listen to daily do indeed think they are the ones who can save the world. Anyone who disagrees with them is deemed to be part of the problem. I tend to be more centrist, and can see good and evil in both sides. The problem I run into is that neither side wants to be open to what is right in the other one's beliefs. They are either all right or all wrong. Sad really, and it shows the great closed mindedness that exists.

[djpolldancer]

Mar 3, 2013 0:06:44 GMT -5 grits said:

Mar 2, 2013 22:47:05 GMT -5 djpolldancer said:

i dunno.  i think that Limbaugh's and Maddow's audience are not malcontents.  they really see themselves as saviours of democracy.  at least that is what i can gather by observing their most rabid fans.

The ones I have to listen to daily do indeed think they are the ones who can save the world. Anyone who disagrees with them is deemed to be part of the problem. I tend to be more centrist, and can see good and evil in both sides. The problem I run into is that neither side wants to be open to what is right in the other one's beliefs. They are either all right or all wrong. Sad really, and it shows the great closed mindedness that exists.

sure does- as well as the wide gap between the believers in both camps.

candidly, i think they are both fun to listen to. 

[grits]

You can listen to them in my place. 
The biggest problem with commentators is they know courts have ruled that it isn't enough to prove they knowingly lied, it must be proven that they did it with malicious intent.  Stupid really.  If you intentionally lied about somebody, you did it. 
Something extremists in both camps seem to forget is that the press is the first thing suppressed by a new regime. 

[djpolldancer]

Mar 3, 2013 1:44:15 GMT -5 grits said:

You can listen to them in my place. 
The biggest problem with commentators is they know courts have ruled that it isn't enough to prove they knowingly lied, it must be proven that they did it with malicious intent.  Stupid really.  If you intentionally lied about somebody, you did it. 
Something extremists in both camps seem to forget is that the press is the first thing suppressed by a new regime. 

lying isn't against the law, unless you can show material damage results from it.
but telling the truth is not against the wall, no matter whether you damage someone or not. 

[weltschmerz]

Maybe they should be encouraged to hook up...

"Rache and Rush-ey, sittin' in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g..."

Hey... mebbe they'd produce a crop of little Centrists...

IF Rush can remember what he did with "it", and IF Rache can remember what "it" is really supposed to do...

Although, I'll concede, that Rache would be getting the worst part of the deal, by any honest accounting...
--------------------
She would barely feel it, even with the fake Viagra prescription.

"Ive got the goods to rock your world!"

[grits]

Mar 3, 2013 1:56:53 GMT -5 djpolldancer said:

Mar 3, 2013 1:44:15 GMT -5 grits said:

You can listen to them in my place. 
The biggest problem with commentators is they know courts have ruled that it isn't enough to prove they knowingly lied, it must be proven that they did it with malicious intent.  Stupid really.  If you intentionally lied about somebody, you did it. 
Something extremists in both camps seem to forget is that the press is the first thing suppressed by a new regime. 

lying isn't against the law, unless you can show material damage results from it.
but telling the truth is not against the wall, no matter whether you damage someone or not. 

It is against the law if it causes another person harm.  Haven't you seen all the damages awarded for emotional suffering?  The press of all people should be held to the highest standards of honesty, and the practices of people like limbaugh and maddow were unheard of in the past.  The problem is the courts have now ruled that you must prove they did it with intentional malice.  There is great hypocrisy in the media, and amongst the public itself.  If limbaugh calls someone a whore, there is a great outcry.  If Bill Maher calls Palin a revolting word for which all women should have held him accountable, he gets to skate.
Basically, the public has raised up for itself people who tell them what they want to hear.  If someone strongly disagrees, they want the person silenced.  They can't refute what they person has said with facts.  So, they resort to personal attacks. 
Funny how people think what goes around comes around only does good for them, and bad to those they don't like.  Time will prove it doesn't work that way.