No, I got it right. He provided a “just so” story that can be used as a sliding scale whenever it’s convenient.
No, his point was that since the story as reported by Fox fails to portray a typical target of negative commentary from Fox in a negative light, he sees no reason to suspect them of deliberate spin. Fairly valid argument, but a stronger one would be that the full tape is what it is; Fox merely points out the obvious in providing fuller context of Schiller’s comments.
Probably a move from the Palinistas to undercut the power of the Huckiviks.
What’s with all those negatives? The point is that they affirmative portray a typical target in a positive light. It’s a “sin” of commission, not omission, as you claim.
No. You could ask this question every time Fox doesn’t make an effort to exonerate a “typical target”. It’s a just so story because there is no differentiating reason in this case for them to do so.
Because it goes against their desired narrative that NPR has a "liberal bias. (for the record, it does not).
Fox News is unreliable and heavily biased, therefore they are unlikely to invent things which do not serve their interests. You know these things, so why are you arguing about it?
John, I thought your question, paraphrased, was “Why are you accepting Fox’s story as valid this time when you generally sneer at them as a biased source?”
So the logic in Blalron’s answer is that despite the well known Fox bias against liberal institutions, they’ve criticized an attempted hit job against one of those liberal institutions. So there’s no reason to believe their bias is at work in their reporting of this story.
If, on the other hand, they’d just not “made an effort to exonerate” a hated liberal target of a hatchet job, that would just be business as usual for Fox, and Blalron would’ve had to analyze the full tape of the interview on his own, I guess.
Don’t see what your “gotcha” is all about. Do you feel Fox is not biased, or is it that you feel liberals can’t honestly evaluate Fox’ bias?
John, one reason Fox may have made an effort analyze O’Keefe’s tapes this time is because they know that his credibility is pretty much worthless anymore and they weren’t comfortable about hitching onto him again without knowing what other shoe was going to drop. He burned them with the faked ACORN tapes already, and he did further damage to his credibility by becoming a felon and a would be sexual predator in the course of trying to fabricate other stories. Even Breitbart has cut himself loose from O’Keefe now, and Fox has to make some effort to cover its ass and maintain some kind of minimal credibility and deniability. They may want to believe O’Keefe, but they know they can’t. Maybe they’ve learned from the humiliation of airing the phonied up ACORN videos.