Stop with the self-inflicted lobotomy, this has already been explained to you.
Nice theory, excepting that they routinely whine about MMFA already. Here’s a letter containing a sampling of Bill O’Reilly sniping at Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/items/200412160011.
Oops.
It seems incredibly unlikely to me that this a photoshop job. This is a fairly high-profile website, they would get caught quickly with something so easily disprovable. Plus, it would finish them; their whole reason for existing is pointing out inaccuracies in right-wing media, and the hypocracy of doing the same would destroy them. The gain is practically nothing compared to the risk. Sure, it’s possible, I guess, people do very stupid things sometimes, but if I were betting man I’d bet against it.
And frankly, I’m not sure why anybody would think the view portrayed is so unlikely that they would even think “photoshop”. Obviously, the people who are for the war feel the human sacrifice is worth whatever they feel will be accomplished or was accomplished by the war. Why should the added deaths of a continuing civil war change that view?
You mean like rushing to make false and spurious accusations?
http://www.themediareport.com/aug2005/nommattersapology.htm
http://newsbusters.org/node/547
Becuse the segments of “your World” that aired that day are accounted for and available at Foxnews. I linked to them.
They do not agree with what Media Matters reports.
Has it? So why can’t you find anything about “Will there be a civil war in Iraq? YOUR WORLD W/ NEIL CAVUTO” in all your copious searching, like Google found. That text doesn’t appear on the cached page either, if that is part of your explanation.
The cached page is to February 12’s Foxnews frontpage. On it, enough of your terms appear to make it show up.
The highlight them for you. They list which ones show up and which don’t.
Your search linked to a page that coincidently matched a number of your terms.
Do you understand now?
You did? Where was this? You linked to two snippets clearly labeled “partial transcripts.” If I recall correctly, the Bio for Asman says he covers the 12-1:30 portion of their programming. Are you actually suggesting that these two web pages of text took them an hour and a half to cover? Are you lying or just crazy?
No. I understand how Google took the words I entered and came up with the link. Now I’m asking you to explain where the Google preview got the specific phrases I bolded for you. You are saying that the text “Will there be a civil war in Iraq? YOUR WORLD W/ NEIL CAVUTO” appeared on that page on February 23, 2006, but has changed because the news evolved. Fine.
But you are also claiming that the only topics covered on that show on February 23 were Wayne Gretzky and Las Vegas. How is that possible, if at one time the text on the page read “Will there be a civil war in Iraq? YOUR WORLD W/ NEIL CAVUTO”. This is what you haven’t explained, you pissy little bitch.
As I’ve linked it was a segment about Las Vegas and one about Anna Benson. The links give you the transcripts. You can watch the video.
That’s what was on!
Jesus Christ, guys! Help me out here. Give me a break. I’ve already given you links to what was actually on.
It didn’t. It just got some of the words, and highlighted them
No. Some of your search terms show up.
If you put in the phrase you quoted you get this:
Because your looking at a huffington post cite linking to the mediamatters story.
I’m not familair with the show, does it normally have only 2 segments?
Surely you can see at least the possibility that the web site does not have transcripts for every segment, if only to encourage the viewer to watch it on TV, since they won’t be able to catch what they missed on the transcript?
I’ll give you that it’s possible they photoshopped it, although I feel it is unlikely for reasons I already mentioned. Can you admit the possibility the web site doesn’t have a transcript for every segment of every show?
Your chain of logic is flimsier than the evidence of huge hidden caches of WMD remaining in Iraq. I don’t know what was said on that day, yet you post a screen cap w/o any collaborating evidence and Scylla has linked to transcripts from the shop in question. What evidence do you find more compelling? Christ, if you have any actual evidence, post it for God’s sake, stop building a house of cards.
We. Don’t. Know. What. Was. Said. During. That. Segment. On. Fox. I’m withholding judgment until I know what exactly was discussed. You may think that reading headlines is all that you need to do to stay informed, but I prefer some actual, you know, facts.
I cut and pasted what Google gave me back to me in post #73. When you tell me “It didn’t”, are you now accusing me of fabricating that?
Hey, Capt. IDon’tGetIt, I was looking at the Google results page. I cut and pasted the text. Jesus, you are thick.
Show. That last post should read “Show in question”, not “shop in question”. I haven’t taken the position that MM faked anything, just that we don’t know what exactly was said, and I’d like to before offering an opinion.
No. I was trying to be nice. It appears you cut and pasted the one from the huffington post which is where your excerpt is from.
The one from Fox which is the first one that shows up when you conduct the search says:
You made a mistake and cut and pasted the wrong one.
I had assumed it was an honest mistake.
Nope. That’s not the way Google works. It won’t link to pages that have some words, but not others (except for words like ‘a’, ‘and’, ‘to’, ‘the’) - it’ll tell you it couldn’t find any results.
The only two ways google will find a page is if every term appeared on the page, or if pages pointing to that page contained the terms in their hyperlinks.
Fuck you, you deceitful cunt. In post #76, you imply that you clicked on the very link I was referring to at the time. In fact, you said:
Now you are suggesting that I mistook the link for a Huffington Post link, and suggesting that I falsified my quote? What a pathetic, desperate lying little partisan cunt you are.
Not quite. If you list words it will show you by relevance posts with the terms you’ve put in, but not necessarily with all the terms.
To make it behave as you say you can use advanced options or the “and” feature to make sure it only shows pages that have all the terms.