You didn’t post a link. I recreated your search verbatim and clicked on the first link. The text you copied does not match with the words you quoted. Rather than assuming you fabricated your results, you’d made a mistake.
Now I wonder.
Well, you can clear this up very easily. If in fact you are telling the truth and did not make a mistake it should be the work of a microsecond to give me a direct link saying what you say it says.
Do that and I will sincerely apologize. Fail to do so and I will take that as a concession that you are the (in your words) " pathetic, desperate lying little partisan cunt."
What could be more reasonable?
I suspect however you will find some excuse not to do this.
You asked me if Mediamatters ever did something like this and I gave you a link and you ignored it. You asked what was on at the time that the graphic was allegedly shown and I gave you two links with transcripts and video (and you will note that 2:00 Mountain time is 4:00 Eastern time so you have access to the actual video of what aired at the time in question,) yet you ignored that.
Oddly enough, my rebuttal to your claim that I said Fox News took the position that a civil war would be a good thing, doesn’t suffice to rebut other random claims you make.
For what little it’s worth, I’m with Scylla on this one. I’ve spent the last 20 minutes searching the FOX news website and Google. The FOX news website contains absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this segment ever actually aired. There are no transcripts, no screen shots, no capsule summaries, no video clips, no nothing.
Now, given FOX’s endearing habit of comprehensively archiving the transcripts of all its current events shows in an easily searchable database, and the given the highly contentious nature of the segment under discussion, it seems most unlikely that it could ever air without being recorded, in some format, on the website. Yet it is not. I may have missed it, and you’re more than welcome to try to succeed where I failed. I should, however, warn you that I’ve just spent 20 minutes of my life that I’ll never get back trawling through what is probably my least favourite site on the entire internet and have come up empty handed.
As for the Google results…well, a search on the terms ‘FOX’ ‘Cavuto’ ‘Iraq’ ‘Civil War’ and ‘Good Thing’ returned hundreds of hits, all to liberal blogs, all citing (drumroll) Media Matters as their one and only source.
Given how easily such a headline can be photoshopped, given the number of people willing to do it, and given Media Matters less than spotless record when it comes to fact checking, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that they were duped by a photoshop job, at least until corroborating evidence surfaces from an independent 3rd party.
The words I quoted were the search I used. The text I copied appeared with the first link in the Google reference. Obviously Google results change over time, as you so keenly reported yesterday. Now the first link that comes up is not the same as the results of the same search last night, so I cannot replicate the results of the search. Fortunately, I have your own corroboration as to what the link was last night, in contrast to your weaseling lies this morning. I just didn’t think to do some sort of screen capture, because I didn’t think anyone would have the beans to suggest I was lying - particularly the one person who clearly replicated the search I did and came up with the same link.
I looked at it, and it hardly demonstrates that Media Matters was lying. Look at the PDF from the guys website - the headers on the letter are clearly misaligned. It looks to me like Media Matters was right. A clear cut and paste job. I just didn’t want to get into a patented right-wing sidetrack about the headers are misaligned - no they’re not.
You keep suggesting that you have cataloged the contents of Fox News yesterday. That is, you linked to two videos, covering about 8 minutes of airtime. Thus, you conclude, no other topics or guests were included. Neither of the videos shows the time at which they aired. EXPLAIN HOW YOUR 8 MINUTES OF VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPTS catalogs everything that appeared.
One thing that is clear is that Asman is wearing the same outfit in the videos as he is in the screen shots.
I have emailed the Center for American Progress to ask them to confirm if P.J. Crowley appeared on Fox News on February 23 to discuss the potential civil war in Iraq. I’ll be sure to share the results with you.
Same here. There was a reference on several sites, all of which went to Media Matters. I’m dropping out of this one, I have no proof that the interview happened. As big as the internet is, I would have thought someone somewhere would have had the entire transcript up, but I wasted enough time searching.
You’re just simply a prick. From the Google results page that resulted from a search on “Fox News Iraq civil war good” last night, I cut and pasted what I posted here. The three lines under the first link on the page read as follows:
You confirmed that the first link resulting from such a search was in fact to Fox News. I’m not talking about any cached pages or anything else. I’m talking about the words that appeared right there on the Google page, as above.
I really don’t know how complete Fox News is in posting what it’s aired, so I’ve got no opinion about that.
As my mention of Ward Churchill should indicate, I’m pretty impressed by the ability of the right-wing noise machine to track down and attack every least little thing that might be pinned on someone left of center.
At any rate, I just sent the following email to cavuto@foxnews.com. I headed it: “Upside to Civil War” screenshots: Real or Fake?
Reasonable. They seem to me to be fairly complete especially concerning their show segments like “Your World,” so hopefully you’d find the lack of anything there at least curious.
Really? I think of him as a general scumbag that should offend every one.
Which would be why you omitted quoting the next few words when I mentioned its credibility as a commentary source.
Go back and read the next sentence I posted after that, fool.
Go back to your preceding remarks about Fox’s credibility as a news source. Then “discuss” how showing a scene from a movie is part of reporting the news. It’s entirely understandable how someone with no clear idea of the difference between fact and fiction would still be loyally defending the Bush administration or Fox, though. Pathetic, but understandable.
I’ll take your word for it - at any rate, I think I’ll wait and see whether my email draws a response before checking out Fox News’ website in enough detail to form my own opinion.
If there’s some right-wing nutcase out there who’s saying outrageous things, but that there’s no reason you should’ve heard of, who’s got no connection to anyone with political pull in this country, it’s silly for me to make an issue of him even in a forum like this, let alone for the Big Media to aim their spotlights at him.
Ward Churchill was the left-wing version of that - as evidenced by the fact that his offensive remarks remained unknown to the general public for, what, three years after he made them, before he somehow got blown up into a guy that O’Reilly couldn’t stop talking about.
I’ve done some extensive work on this. There seems to be a transcript service(www.voxant.com) that provides transcripts for that particular show on Fox News. BUT, it only provides transcripts for CEO interviews. You’ll notice that both of the interviews that you could find were of CEO’s.
Scylla’s already posted a couple of reasonable, plausible possibilities:
Or maybe they were simply theorizing about the possible (very) long-term social and political consequences of a civil war. It’s very hard to think that they would propose that a civil war would be anything other than a catastrophe in the short term.
Also note that Fox News is particularly active with their captions, putting up almost every point that a commentator makes – no matter how tangential – and these captions can’t help but miss the subtleties of whatever message the speaker was conveying.
Finally, I don’t think I understand why people are so disturbed by the idea that Fox may have been discussing what people think they were discussing. Surely the potential consequences of a war are a germane topic for discussion, and those consequences are both varied and complex. Though overshadowed by vast quantities of harm, some good comes out of almost all wars. Why is it impermissable for a news channel to examine that aspect?
The article you linked to only briefly mentions Gretzky’s wife, it’s really an interview with Anna Benson, who is the wife of Major League pitcher Kris Benson, and owner and manager of “Anna Benson Enterprises.”