Then we would have kept the suspected terrorists locked up instead of loosing them on the streets of America. We would have increased our deportations of illegal aliens instead of pushing to give them the vote and tear down the border fences. Heck, we might have even gotten bin Laden.
And many of you would still have guns today, instead of having them taken away by the government.
Invented by Fox? Please. Fox was the only outlet to report on the story. The rest finally reported on it when they could no longer ignore it. If Fox had created the story then that would have been the story…“Fox trying to destroy Obama”.
The fact is Obama knew exactly what Wright was preaching. The church practiced liberation theology. This is political by its very nature. To suggest that the pastor merely said a few political things over the years is to misrepresent the situation. Like many things in Obama’s past and present, the media actively tried to ignore the story due to that thrill running up their collective legs every time Obama spoke.
This is not a story in the same way that “dog bites man” is not a story.
Is it your contention, then, that Obama hates America?
Can this be verified?
The “God Damn America” and “Chickens coming home to roost” sermons were unearthed and initially reported by ABC. So at least as far as the most damning quotes go, it was not Fox News that reported the story.
Sean Hannity broke this story and had Rev. Wright on his show (Hannity and Colmes at the time) in Feb. of 2007…more than a year before ABC picked up the story. Here is a timeline that leaves Fox out altogether.
http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2008/04/30/in_depth_politics/timeline4058186.shtml
Remember JournoList? Here is a story about reporters trying to bury the Rev. Wright story.
Yes. The day before they interviewed Erik Rush who wrote a story in the Rolling Stone (i believe) about Obama’s church.
I’d advise anyone following the thread to read the whole article in order to understand just how misleading Yorick’s summary is.
Sure enough, in the article, there are some reporters (exactly two are referred) who advise some other reporters not to report on Wright. The reasons given by these reporters do not center on liberal politics, and it is not at all clear that advising someone not to report on a subject is tantamount to “trying to bury a story” but anyway, there it is.
They didn’t break much of a story, did they? Hannity accused Wright of being seperatist, and Wright ably (though belligerently) and with quite a bit of prompting from Colmes explained why the accusation doesn’t stick.
If a story was broken, it seems to have basically ended there.
The answer to the question of “how misleading is yorick’s summary” is “not particularly”.
So what he said was correct.
He didn’t say it was.
Of course it is.
Regards,
Shodan
For me to bury a story, I must attempt to have it not reported even though I believe that it would be good reporting to do so.
So if I advise people not to report something because I don’t think doing so would be good reporting, then I am not trying to bury a story.
Yorick’s summary is misleading because it is strictly accurate yet tends to imply many things which are not true. To pull out an old but useful parallel example, It would also be misleading for me to say “I never stopped beating my wife”–for though the sentence is strictly accurate, my writing it also tends to imply that there was a time when I did beat my wife, and that implication would be false.
So you’re right to say Yorick “didn’t say” that the reasons given would center on liberal politics. But the context of the conversation makes that a clear implication of Yorick’s post. If he genuinely didn’t mean to imply it, then he needs to learn better how to anticipate the natural flow of conversational implication that most of us pick up on without explicit training.
You fail to understand that Hannity stayed on the (then developing) story for over a year. The mere fact that Obama attended a church that preached liberation theology is newsworthy.
I don’t understand why it’s particularly newsworthy. It’s not nothing. But Watergate it ain’t.
Do you think they actually have to come out and say that they want to bury it because they are actively rooting for Obama? Just read the quotes:
I wonder how much outrage this group displayed when McCain was accused of infidelity with almost no evidence?
Is it any less newsworthy than a preacher who introduced Perry claiming Mormonism is a cult. How about McCain’s pastor problem? The only difference is Obama sat in this church for 20 years.
If a preacher introduced Perry by claiming that Liberation Theology is a cult, that would be newsworthy.
I don’t know what McCain’s pastor problem is.