For example, let’s say I was talking to someone else about this thread.
“Oh yeah, and there’s this guy named bengangmo who has this ideal that we should keep people poor if we want better basketball players. Look, I have proof:”
Given this quote alone, I’ve characterized him a certain way. With the full context, it becomes obvious that he was being sarcastic, but this isn’t captured in the out-of-context quote.
I don’t know why I’m wasting time explaining to you why it’s dishonest to take things out of context. If you seriously have to ask, you’re pretty much placing yourself outside of any reasonable discussion.
No they aren’t. They play the entire context except for the summary quote. Since a summary is merely a more concise version of the longer argument, it doesn’t change the statement in any way.
This is an election campaign, not a schoolyard game. If the President’s campaign team has decided that taking quotes out of context is fair play, then it’s fair play. Complaining about it only when he becomes the victim is first class whining.
And if he’s lucky, his complaining will produce better results than John McCain’s protests when he was exposed to this dishonest tactic. If he’s unlucky, he’ll do about as well as McCain did.
True. However, they do not ADD context, and thus leaving them out doesn’t change anything. Unless what he said was not a summary, but a clarification of what he really meant to say.
Well, here’s a transcript of the full speech, and so there is quite a lot of context missing from that ad. But let’s just take a look at the three paragraphs in question.
Here they are. I’ve bolded the parts that were missing from the ad.
That’s more than just a summary or one line that’s been removed. Looks like they cut it about in half, to me.
I would like you to back this up as well; the McCain quote, the attacks on it from Obama or his team, and the added context which makes it unfair.
LOL. A sudden, inexplicable deflection to the media, everyone’s favourite whipping boy when there’s nowhere else to hide. Boringly traditional, but good for a laugh.
You know,there’s been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street and it is – people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But these are very, very difficult time. And I promise you, we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall Street.
This is what how the Obama campaign responded:
Today of all days, John McCain’s stubborn insistence that the ‘fundamentals of the economy are strong’ shows that he is disturbingly out of touch with what’s going in the lives of ordinary Americans. Even as his own ads try to convince him that the economy is in crisis, apparently his 26 years in Washington have left him incapable of understanding that the policies he supports have created an historic economic crisis.
And the Obama team continued to use that line against him, day after day after day.
McCain must be cackling madly at how karma is giving Obama a kick in the rear.
I remember McCain’s statement. I remember it being mocked somewhat in places like The Daily Show. I didn’t remember Obama’s spokesman’s statement about it, and I don’t remember them using it “day after day after day”.
Any response to the rest of my post, about the RNC ad cutting the relevant text by half, rather than taking out a single redundant line?
The bolded lines don’t add context at all. The first is actually just deceitful, he acts like businessmen want to pay more in taxes. Aside from a few billionaires allied with him, who?
The line about the internet isn’t even true, it’s just a legend.
and the last is just a summary. Political ads always selectively edit opponents’ statements due to time constraints. As long as important context isn’t left out, it’s not a problem. You are complaining about things that didn’t add context and actually make his statement look worse because they aren’t even true statements.
The super wealthy in this country are not doing their part in the care and maintenance of our country, hiding TRILLIONS of dollars in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes on it and successfully lobbying for lower and lower rates that reduce their OBLIGATIONS to this country.
And if these selfish, greedy pigs weren’t HOARDING 100% of all corporate profits since 1965, we’d have much, much lower debt because more people below the “I’m so filthy rich I can hide my money and get away with it” line would actually be PAYING taxes on that money. Not to mention, Social Security would be solvent for 50 decades or more because more of that money would be taxable for SS since it would be spread out among hundreds of millions of Americans who are earning below the taxable threshold.
NOT TO MENTION that if these selfish, greedy pigs would pay their employees a wage they could actually THRIVE on in 2012 and not the equivalent of what they were earning in 1965, we wouldn’t NEED to spend so much on typical programs for low-wage families.
For G-d’s sake, these so-called “successful” people have CREATED this mess in this country and you’re exalting them. Stunning.
You simply could not be more wrong.
Origins of the Internet
The first recorded description of the social interactions that could be enabled through networking was a series of memos written by J.C.R. Licklider of MIT in August 1962 discussing his “Galactic Network” concept. He envisioned a globally interconnected set of computers through which everyone could quickly access data and programs from any site. In spirit, the concept was very much like the Internet of today. Licklider was the first head of the computer research program at DARPA, starting in October 1962. While at DARPA he convinced his successors at DARPA, Ivan Sutherland, Bob Taylor, and MIT researcher Lawrence G. Roberts, of the importance of this networking concept. …
In late 1966 Roberts went to DARPA to develop the computer network concept and quickly put together his plan for the “ARPANET”, publishing it in 1967. …
In August 1968, after Roberts and the DARPA funded community had refined the overall structure and specifications for the ARPANET, an RFQ was released by DARPA for the development of one of the key components, the packet switches called Interface Message Processors (IMP’s).
I know what ARPANET is. I also know that it’s no more the internet than a hunk of steel is a car. It was shut down before the internet even got rolling.
THe government gets credit for this primitive precursor, you just attach more significance to it than it is due. It would be just as valid to credit IBM with the invention of the internet, since they invented the PC.
Guys, there’s no point in engaging with this guy. Why do you do it? You’ve proven that what Obama said was the exact same thing Romney has said. You’ve shown that Obama was taken out of context to mean something he didn’t. Now his only argument is that Obama and all of us really mean something different. That’s a conspiracy theory. It’s making up shit to prove your point.
There is no point in defending your side when the opposition has already admitted defeat. You’re not going to actually get him to admit he’s wrong–you’re just going to make him grasp at more straws, and the more he repeats them, the more he’ll believe them. That’s the exact opposite of fighting ignorance.
I agreed that he was taken out of context. The argument I found bizarre was that it was some kind of right wing campaign of lies. But if you show the entire context, people STILL see something other than you might like in the comments.
And as I also accurately pointed out, taking comments out of context is not dirty pool. That’s how both sides play the game and the media loves it. Whining about it NOW as if this is somehow a unique situation just betrays partisanship and ignorance in one package.
BTW, I noticed that early in the thread many people were making the same points I was, that it was reasonable to take his comments another way without being dishonest.
Apparently the majority simply decided to correct ignorance by chasing those posters away. I’ll follow if you like so you can just talk to yourselves about how the right-wing oppresses the President of the United States.
He also asked about the RNC removing only one line of the ad. Then I had to remind him that there was more, by pointing to a post he must have read because he quoted part of it. Now he challenges those parts of the speech without even admitting that he glossed over them. The first he called deceitful, because some successful people agree with the president, but apparently they don’t count. And he still seems to maintain that you can take an excerpt from a speech, and remove half of it without altering the context of the remaining half. And even though they don’t add any context, it’s totally fair to take them out because the context they do add is fair game because the president did the same thing four years ago.
There’s probably more, but that should enough of a recap for the folks who are late to the party.
I’m not totally familiar with the meaning of irony, but is taking another poster out of context in a thread where you are complaining about the President being taken out of context qualify?
Here’s my actual train of thought:
The President was taken out of context
It does not follow that those who misunderstood his intent are just dishonest. There are reasonable interpretations of what he said that support the conservative critique of his statement.
The editing is not evidence of malicious intent. ALL campaign ads edit statements and almost all whining about it centers around the editing. Every time the GOP is challenged on the editing, they show more and more. If they show the whole thing, which I’m sure most of the public who are interested in this have seen by now, do you really think that will change the perception?
I question the complaining given that this is a fairly standard campaign tactic used by the Obama campaign to devastating effect against other opponents. They live for these “gotcha” moments. This time they got got.
Finally, I disagree with the substance of his remarks once they go beyond the most banal intent. If all he said was that governments are necessary for civilization, well duh. Americans should be thankful to have such a brilliant President. Next he can lecture us on how to eat right(oh wait, he’s doing that, or the First lady is). If he actually meant to say something profound about how important the Democratic brand of activist government is, then he’s wrong, and he failed to make the point.
Are you referring to me? (I suspect you are, since mine is the only post since your previous one.) If so, in what way do you feel I have taken you out of context. Be specific.
Will it change the perception? I don’t know. I think the way that conservatives and the RNC are depicting this is a distortion of the president’s meaning. However, the battle lines are so entrenched that it seems almost everybody’s mind is made up already.
Let’s leave that opinion aside for a moment though, and focus on a fact. You linked to the RNC ad and asked about “the last line that they didn’t show”. There was more taken out than that. Now you say it doesn’t add any context, and is even deceitful. I had to point out the extra text to you. And then remind you of it, before you’d address it. That does not reflect well on the thoroughness of your arguments.
I can accept that criticism. I watched the RNC ad and did not notice the missing sentences even though I had also read the whole statement earlier.
Now will you accept the criticism that you are seeing the best in the President and the worst in the Republicans’ intent, and this might be biasing how you view the controversy? We agree he was taken out of context, there’s no problem there. I’ve just been trying to explain why others would plausibly see things differently.
