“For all you know?” Dude, the full quote and context of what he actually said was in the article you linked to. Maybe read your own sources next time?
Anyway, CNN didn’t fabricate the quote, they misunderstood what the subject of the sentence was. Is it sloppy? Sure, but not exceptionally so by the standards of today’s “24 hour journalism.” But it’s not like they accused a guy of saying something super anti-Semitic, when he didn’t say anything remotely anti-Semitic. Rather, he said something super anti-Semitic, and CNN was slightly incorrect in the precise method he was expressing his anti-Semitism.
It’s basically like they’d reported a politician calling someone a motherfucker, when he’d really called them a cocksucker. Yeah, it’s technically incorrect, but not in a way that remotely matters.
Is this the same situation where the speaker coyly remarked on calling the American press by the German (Nazi) term for “lying press”? And the audience was ready with “Lugenpresse!” in enthusiastic response?
The quote was mishandled, which led to a conclusion well supported by other facts. Hard to give any fucks about an offense to his, ah, dignity.
Did you know what “Lugenpresse” meant before they told you? You do now, I hope. The only question is whether or not you are as horrified as I am. And whether your skills at rationalization are up to the task. I have every confidence in you.
“How can I peddle more influence for cash donations to the charities which I can then siphon off into my own bank account? for more portraits of myself”
Its the same speech that Daily Caller talks about, above. Its just not the part they wanted to talk about, for obvious reasons. Just glancing over it, it doesn’t appear that they even link to the story on CNN, also, for obvious reasons.
There you go, lad! Let us know when you have trouble with this intertube stuff, we are here to help!
But the man never said what was attributed to him by CNN, that is the issue.
Just because someone is generally perceived as bad is no excuse to make things up for effect, because if you go down that road sooner or later you won’t be able to tell fact from fiction when the the “generally perceived as bad” factor is built upon an accumulation of reinterpretations of facts for effect.
Yeah, kinda like that story about how Jeffrey Dahmer was charged with Health Dept. violations for food storage. Turned out, all those people parts were properly sealed and frozen in his fridge! So, totally unfair!
But he did. He did first identifies the left press with Jewish people, specifically using a Nazi phrase for those who supported Jewish people, and then asks if they were a specifically Jewish mindless creature.
It’s not about him being a bad man. It’s about the actual meaning of what he said, in context. Just because someone uses a dogwhistle doesn’t mean we have to go along with it.
Are you seriously going to tell me that a renowned antisemitic person specifically using antisemitic terms in a blatantly racist speech was not being antisemitic?
This is precisely what I mean about us having to be disingenuous, and act like the guy didn’t say what he actually said. We have to pretend there is some believable way he didn’t say that Jewish people may not be human.