Yeah, I think the whole photoshop thing is a red herring. There is nothing Pit-able about the images in the OP’s link. Nothing. Every news station out there is discussing the possiblity of civil war in Iraq and the idea that Fox might be trying to put a positiive spin on civil war to aid the administration is laughable on the face of it. So fucking what even if they did have one or two guys discussing how a civil war might play out better in the long term than the current situation. So fucking what. Yeah, I think it’s a bit of a nutty idea, but “cable news show highlights a nutty idea” is hardly man bites dog. They’ve got to come up with 24 hours worth of news. Lots of it is junk.
Well, they don’t exactly have to… What if all the news channels gave us a break and presented only useful and accurate information? It’s a crazy idea, but it just might work!
What would we do with the other 23 hours/day? 
We’d do what we do now - post at the Dope! 
Yesterday I sent this email to foxtranscripts@fdch.com (I got the email address from a FAQ on the foxnews web site)
I got a response today from somebody asking me to call her at a 301 area code number; I was reluctant to do so from my work phone, and I’m out of minutes this month on my cell, but she was kind enough to call me.
She said the segment was not transcribed because the guests were not major political figures or CEOs. I could have bought a video of the show for about 50 bucks though.
Scylla, does this demonstrate to your satisfaction that the fact you did not find the transcript does not prove anything?
Since that’s my area code, I was all set to volunteer to call her for you, until I got to the last clause. Glad she returned your call anyway.
$50 is higher than I’m going to go, that’s fer sher. But at least now we know why no transcript was online.
Just checked my gmail account - no response from Cavuto.
RTF: Can you further articulate what is so Pit-able about this particular issue? What specifically should we all be up in arms about again? I realize that you have your little beef with **Scylla **going, but he’s the only one claiming that the still photos were doctored. Some of us just don’t see what the issue is, other than: Ooh, Ooh, Look what FoxNews just did!
No, it doesn’t, but that’s just because I never said it did. Quite the opposite. The absence needed explaining. You and Samclem have done a good job in explaining it.
You really can’t say anything one way or the other about those graphics without confirming their provenance and context.
So, my point is that there’s nothing here until we know that those graphics are authentic and understand their context.
In post #85, in response to my query as to why anybody would think photoshopping was involved, you said
"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."
Since you brought up the lack of that segment on the web site in response to my query as to why anybody thought photoshopping was involved, it seems a reasonable interpretation you thought that lack of a transcript was evidence of photoshopping.
and what remaining reasons are there to suspect the graphics were not genuine?
Remember in Fiddler on the Roof, when his daughters make marital choices that are increasingly hard for him to deal with, he says, “on the one hand…” and then “on the other hand…” Finally, he comes to the point where “there is no other hand!”
Same thing here: one can say the caption’s been taken out of context, but there comes a point at which the question is, “What context could possibly justify it?”
And that was my reaction here: how could all-out civil war possibly be considered a good thing? How does it make sense even as a devils-advocate POV? To bring up some of Scylla’s and VarlosZ’s points I didn’t have a chance to respond to yesterday, why would you bring on a guest that argued that a few hundred thousand dead, and a nation living in even greater fear than Saddam could generate, would really not be so bad after all?
As to ‘very long-term consequences,’ that seems kind of absurd: in the long run, we’re all dead, and history moves on. Thirty years from now, Iraq won’t be the same because of global warming, peak oil, and who knows what else.
Ditto the notion that this obliviousness and callousness in the face of likely mass death is justified because every war has some good consequences. Well, sure: it’s hard to imagine an action whose fallout is totally negative. But the good rarely comes near to equalling the bad. Mostly it’s just bad.
The only one of Varlos’ points that carries any water with me is Fox’ possible tendency to turn every passing remark into a caption, with some of the nuance possibly lost. I have, on occasion, watched Fox while a captive audience in a public place with nothing else to do. I’ve seen their closed-captioning-style typing of nearly every word of dialogue being said on the tube - but this doesn’t look like that - one’s a caption on a screen-within-screen, and the other’s too nicely formatted - so I don’t buy this either.
What horrifies me is the clear need to “look on the bright side” of something absolutely horrific, which is what all-out civil war is. I think it’s pretty obvious where a need like that might come from, but the reason hardly matters. The moral callousness of it I find repugnant and appalling.
If you put it that way, than yes, the lack of a transcript or any corroboration at Foxnews that the segment existed does make fraud a reasonable hypothesis.
Since that time Samclem has provided an explanation that you have corroborated as to why there would be no transcript. It seems reasonable to me, and I haven’t offered any resistance to it.
Based on this, my hypothesis does not carry much weight anymore, and I expect that it will shortly be dealt the deathblow when RTFirefly gets a return email.
Not much that I can think of, though I guess it’s still possible.
But we have no idea what the discussion was about. For all we know, that was a two second throw-away line in an otherwise brilliantly insightful discussion. And we do know that “upside” was put in quotes, which tells you right there they were not trying to paint some kind of rosey scenario. I might say: Well the only “upisde” to civil war is that it could get our troops out of their faster.
Why don’t you at least take the time to find out what acuallly is going on before you launch a Pit thread??? The fact that you didn’t says more about you than this particular news story.
That they used as a header, in two different ways. Doesn’t that strike you as an interesting editorial treatment of a two-second throwaway line?
What - the screenshot wasn’t of something that was actually going on??
For the reasons I’ve already discussed at length, my call is that whatever sort of editorial judgment it was that produced those two headers had to be pretty damned callous, treating the lives of thousands as less important than…it’s hard for me to imagine what, quite honestly.
I think that’s Pit-worthy. You don’t agree with my assumptions. Sometimes that happens.
(Still no reply to my Cavuto email, btw.)
No, it strikes me as a way of getting eyeballs to look at something controversial. News agencies do it all the time.
Meh. It’s no different than any othere news agency reporting a terrible accident and noting that “only 1 American died” or “but no Americans were killed”. Look, you and many others on this board have a hard-on for FoxNews and you cried wolf this time. Doesn’t help the ongoing argument that that news agancy is not credible.
John: You might want to bust out a different way of showing dispassionate condescension than “meh.” I’ve seen it from you three times now in the last day or so, and it’s wearing thin.
Huh? Of course it is. A headline saying “Terrible Accident in Someplacestan: However, No Americans Killed” is quite a bit different from a headline saying “Terrible Accident in Someplacestan: Could It Be a Good Thing?”
The first case is drawing attention to a genuine, although minor and US-centric, bright spot in a terrible situation.
The second case is attempting to portray the terrible situation itself as a positive development. I think that’s journalistically irresponsible and downright absurd.
Sure, every terrible situation can have at least a potential upside, but treating the potential upside as the central issue is Panglossian optimism at a positively delusional level.
Pfftt!
Is that better?
Not necessarily, especially if you include my first statement, that we’re also looking at what is simply common journalistic hyperbole. See my example below regarding the US Civil war.
But that doesn’t change the “central issue” of the debate in this thread, which is we don’t know what the “central issue” of that discussion actually was, so drawing conclusions about it from one snipet is unwarranted.
As for whether something is “good” or not, that depends on the alternatives. Was the US Civil war a “good thing”? What if I said: The US Civil War resulted in a tragic loss of life on both sides, but it was still a good thing if we consider that the alternative would have been 20 more years of slavery in the South. And the news channel flashes: US Civil War, A Good Thing? Here, my “central issue” is the alternative to the Civil War, not the Civil War itself.
Look, I’m not saying that the FoxNews interview might not have been overthe-top ridiculous. It might very well have been. But I reject the notion that we have enough information from that link alone to draw that conclusion. That’s all.