Well…I don’t watch Fox, but watching the clip provided in the OP it doesn’t seem all that confusing or misleading to me. It’s fairly clear he’s reading the question from the teleprompter, and listening to the clip through twice I don’t see where the Fox guy mentioned European UHC at all…just the sticker shock for UHC.
Much ado about nothing is my take. MMV however…
-XT
I wasn’t using it as the best example, just as a recent example. You really haven’t refuted it either execept to make the conveniently unfalsifiable claim that you personally weren’t misled. You haven’t really refuted the fact that the clip indisputable cropped and framed in an intentionally misleading way, with a vital part of Obama’s words left out, to create a false impression in the audience.
Did they crop the clip, yes or no?
Did they explain that Obama was reading somone else’s question, yes or no?
Most importantly, did they cut out the part of the clip where Obama answered the question in the NEGATIVE, yes or no?
Sure…that happens quite frequently and I suppose it could be construed as a deliberate attempt to mislead. They didn’t cut out Obama’s interrogative inflection on the question though, so it was fairly clear (to me anyway) that he was reading it from the teleprompter.
If your point is that Fox skews the news by using selective quotes…well, doh! Of course they do. So do all the rest of the broadcast news networks. That’s a tactic that both sides seem to be very good at. The outrage comes depending on who’s ox is being gored of course…when it was selective quotes or clips of Bush then some people would be complacent, others outraged. Now that it’s Obama the tables have turned somewhat…or at least who is skewing what and to whom…
I think Fox has done a lot more egregious things than this…and a lot more Pit worthy. YMMV of course.
-XT
Yes. Clips are cropped all the time. You know this.
Yes. Visually. By actually showing him reading the question.
Yes. They cut out MOST of the full speech. But they** didn’t have him answering one way or the other**. It was JUST the question. And then Goler comes in clarifying.
Hope that helps. But feel free to stomp your feet if you must.
They showed Obama reading the question about European Health care, directly after Goler said Obama doesn’t want to “do it [health care reform] halfway.” Goler gave no context or explanation for the extremely tightly cropped clip, cut out the part where he said Obama said he was opposed doing it “like Europe,” then Goler said that people don’t want “government health care,” which is not something that Obama has ever expressed support for. The whole piece was constructed to intentionally create an impression that Obama wanted health care like Europe. These are facts. I can see how you guys are going to answer it, though. You’re just handwave it away and say you weren’t fooled.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Scylla. What part of the clip conveyed the information to you that Obama was AGAINST nationalized health care?
Do you take Fox News seriously, by the way? Is Sean Hannity either an intelligent or honest advocate for political conservatism? Is Greta Van Susteren a deep thinker? If you had to get all your news from Fox and Friends, would you feel that you were sufficiently informed about the world?
Actually you are wrong…watch the clip again. The commentator (Goler) says that Obama doesn’t want to do things by halves, then they run the brief clip of Obama reading from the teleprompter, then the commentator talks about the costs and how some people would rather see the return of small government and less services, blah blah blah.
None…but the implication I got from the clip was that Obama is for UNIVERSAL Health Care…which he is, no?
No…not at all. The only time I watch Fox is when I’m subjected to it when I visit my folks. My dad has it on pretty much constantly.
No, I think he’s an idiot.
I’m sorry, but I only vaguely know who this is. She’s the blond chick, right?
No…but then I’d have to say that this would go for any broadcast news. If you only get your news from one source then you are not informed…IMHO anyway.
-XT
I don’t think it’s particularly clear, just from that clip, that he’s reading anything off that monitor. The clip’s very short, and the writing on the monitor is not very legible. If it hadn’t been made clear ahead of time that Obama was repeating someone else’s question, I very much doubt I would have figured out that he was reading from the monitor, and not speaking his own mind.
Oh, save the snark. My irony meter exploded at the idea of indignant liberals upset because they perceive a President received an unfavorable edit on the news. Like, your just noticing now.
My heart bleeds with sympathy.
I don’t have any one. I could give you ten, though they’d all be simple speculation. Just because you have a hypothesis doesn’t mean I need a better one to suggest yours is flawed. Sometimes knowing that you don’t know is the height of wisdom. If a can of paint that was previously on a shelf is now spilled on the middle of the floor and you hypothesize that an invisible spaghetti monster did it, I don’t need a counter hypothesis to say that that’s stupid.
There are any host of possible reasons.
None. I’m also sure he said a whole bunch of other things that weren’t in the clip.
FTR, I actually don’t watch a lot of Foxnews. I tend to keep their website and CNNs up in windows all day.
About the same as CNN. They typically pull shit off of AP simultaneously or close to it. Both pull boners from time to time.
Indeed.
That’s true, when you actually offer a reason for thinking mine is flawed. You’ve offered no rational reason.
To use your analogy, it is as if you see some hand-shaped paint markings on the wall and spot your child covered in paint. Instead of concluding that your child has done some impromptu finger-painting, you withhold judgment because you “know you don’t know.”
There’s skepticism and there’s denial. You, my friend, are in Egypt, not Athens.
I’ll tackle this one again, because I just came up with an excellent hypothesis. FTR, I really don’t find the behavior odd, or weird. I don’t view it as Obama being shown in the negative, or think that it seeks to impute a viewpoint Obama doesn’t hold. I think the ta-doo at mediamatters and here is indicative of an insane fucking vendetta by crazed left-wingers…
But anyway. Why is the video edited that way? New hypothesis:
The clip is exactly 53 seconds long. That leaves enough time for the anchor to say “Thank you for that report Wendell Goler. Coming up after the break, more on what you can do to protect yourself from the swine flu.” and have the segment come out to be exactly one minute.
If Sean Hannity actually goes through with this promise to be waterboarded (for charity), I will cancel all other forms of amusement. I have never seen a cranial enema performed before.
You would have to argue that the edit presents Obama in an unfavorable light, or imputes a viewpoint to him that he does not hold. The clip doesn’t do that.
Assuming it did why is universal healthcare “like in European countries” terrible and offensive and negative, and just plain universal healthcare peachy?
Well, its only a vendetta until the enemy is crushed and humiliated. Then its gloating. Equally unappealing, perhaps, but quite different.
That’s a reasonable explanation for why a news studio would choose one video clip over another of a different length. It does not strike me as a reasonable explanation for choosing one clip of substantially similar length to another when one of those clips is the President stating his actual position (“I actually want a universal health care system; that is our goal”) and the other is the President quoting someone else using the exact phrase his opponent’s use to characterize his position (“a universal health care system like the European countries.”).
I suppose there’s only so much that can be debated about reasonableness, but I just don’t see how you see that as reasonable.
Sheer willpower. Its kind of awesome, really.
There’s probably 10,000 possible clips of Obama on health care. Maybe that one was new, or in the machine. Why didn’t they choose the #777 with the smiling guy in the wheelchair in the background?
Why is “European universal healthcare” bad, and “universal healthcare” good?
Why do you hate fox so much that you are willing to get into a blinded focus over such innane minutia?
Your argument has bigger holes than Angelina Jolie.
You do understand, don’t you, that there’s more than one model? Compare the UK’s National Health Service with Canada’s single-payer system. And there are others conceivable.
Will somebody please explain why “european universal healthcare” is bad and “universal healthcare” isn’t?
Well, socialism, of course! Duh.