Media Matters for America is doing a victory lap over their story about Fox News exec Bill Sammon supposedly lying repeatedly on air during the 2008 election after audio they have released shows Sammon saying he found the idea of Barack Obama being a socialist to be ‘far fetched’. But not so fast.
The watchdog group has actually produced a video about the story with blatantly deceptive editing, using trick editing that is so blatant that one wonders why they have such contempt for their fan base. Of course, that fan base includes Howie Kurtz and Greg Sargent. (Is it coincidence that these are the two reporters who were carrying water for Arianna Huffington on the recent Breitbart / Huffington story?)
I’ve done a video showing exactly how MMfA uses editing trickery to lie and frankly, every time I watch the original video I’m stunned with what they try to get away with. They do such a botch job of literally making Sammon say something he never said that repeated viewing make me almost admire their cajones. You’ll see.
But before you watch the video, let’s make clear the real goal of the exercise beyond trying to make Fox look bad. MMfA, Kurtz, Sargent and the rest of the pile-on blogs want to undercut the idea that Barack Obama is socialist by discrediting those claims as crazy lies. Again, they don’t just argue against the idea on the merits of the evidence – they need to discredit completely all sources that say it.
Here’s Sagent…
Now, Sammon is also claiming here that Obama’s behavior in office ultimately persuaded him that the original diagnosis of Obama as a socialist turned out to be correct after all. That in itself, of course, is also a ridiculous falsehood. (Emphasis added.)
Once again, Media Matters goal isn’t the truth – it’s discrediting ideas.
Here’s the original Media Matters piece.
And here’s part one of my analysis.
Adding: Media Matter responded to my video.
they corrected one point properly – I said there were three clips they cut together – it was two. This is totally inconsequential. Media Matters tries to make hay from it by saying “That’s a pretty embarrassing error and a good indication of how seriously his work should be taken.” – I could say the same thing about them getting the date wrong in their clip.
Again, they are all about discrediting – not truth.
Beyond that, they don’t even actually respond. For example, how do they justify cutting together two clips from different days in one sentence? Let’s see..
But let’s move on to his accusation that we’re guilty of deceptive editing in switching between those two (not three) clips.
Stranahan believes that by going from this clip:
SAMMON: But I do think that when you start talking about, "spread the wealth around," which is what Barack Obama said to Joe the Plumber —
To this clip on a previous day:
SAMMON: — the red flag went up. I mean, that’s just code - and I knew that conservatives would say, ‘That is exactly code for income redistribution which is tantamount to socialism.’
We’re guilty of "making Sammon say something he never said." Stranahan says that it’s "obvious that Sammon is not stating his own opinion. … Sammon is saying he knew that’s what conservatives would think."
But that’s not deceptive editing. Media Matters included Sammon’s statement that "I knew that’s what conservatives would say." In other words, Stranahan accuses us of deceptive editing in our video by pointing to a line from our own video. Stranahan’s criticism makes little, if any, sense.
Umm – they don’t explain why they cut those two clips together. Nowhere.
And my video explains why cutting I clip that starts “But I do think…” with a clip talking about what someone else thinks is deceptive.
And Media Matters doesn’t address switching from the Joe The Plumber discussion to other things Sammon said. Why does this matter?
Look at what Sammon said in the speech…
SAMMON: You know, speaking of mischief, last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to quote, "spread the wealth around." At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched.
Sammon is talking about the Joe The Plumber part – he makes two references to the time in that one section. Nowhere does Sammon indicate that when he mentioned Obama’s connection to Ayers, for example, was that ‘mischief. But I’ll save some of this for part two.
Well done. I look forward to reading part 2. Its always amazed me how no one calls MMFA on this because they do this all the time. I recall the clip they aired of Glenn Beck’s sidekicks and conveniently clipped off the end where they state, “Of course we are being sarcastic.” The other thing I’ve caught them doing is to take statements completely out of context, and when you listen to the clips they post you know they got it wrong. I figure they assume their readers never actually listen to the clips and just read the analysis.
I don’t care of someone is conservative or liberal, I care about intellectual honesty. You have become one of my favorite political follows on twitter and I look forward to seeing more of your work.
When you clearly have the dates of the videos up, it is not “deceptive editing”. Anyone who can read can see that there’s footage from three different videos. It is bad editing (and I would have liked to see more of the context of the clips), but they don’t hide that at all.
However, removing the speech from the cruise, that Media Matters begins with, in your own explanation, is deceptive editing. That speech is the whole basis for Media Matters’ video, and Sammon himself says there that he found the idea that Obama was socialist “far fetched”. Editing that part out, and just showing the clips is taking it totally out of context.
If you are going to accuse someone of deceptive editing, you really shouldn’t do it yourself.
-But you did tell everyone to watch the original video, so you get “points” for that.
P.S. I’m Norwegian, and I think ALL Americans should learn what socialism is before being allowed to use the term. By European standards Obama is a conservative.
I didn’t want to include the entire MMfA video in my video. I was clear that I’ll deal with that part of the video in part II.
Meantime, no — including the dates doesn’t make it non-deceptive. It means that they have an ‘out’. I explain why the edits are deceptive — and MMfA is counting on people letting it slide. Please don’t let it slide.
I’m not really debating whether Obama is socialist or not. I have no idea what he believes, at all. His actions as President have me totally baffled.
Oh, I’m not letting it slide. It is really bad editing, and I think they should have just went with the speech from the cruise, it speaks for itself. There real was no reason to add badly edited footage after it.
I often look at both sides of the US media and shake my head. None of it would be taken seriously here in Norway, and the kind of reporting that happens on politics in the US would be called out here. As it frequently is all over Europe.
I’ve grown up with a father who is a political journalist. And although he has his private prejudices when it comes to politics, he makes every effort to report the facts of a case. And although I strongly disagree with him on politics, I think he’s doing a good job as a journalist.
I hope you stand up for journalistic integrity on both sides in the US. Call out everyone who distorts the facts to fit their agenda. That gives you integrity, and makes you trustworthy.
I’m with Ole, Lee.
I like full context, so I can see the whole speech/interview/report and decide for myself what the guy is/isn’t saying, so I think the whole editing thing is unfortunate. (Even if somebody’s going to use clips as examples, which looks to me like what MM was doing in some sections here, they ought to then link to the full piece, for those who want to see the whole thing.)
That said, the clips are hardly “deceptive,” unless you really believe that there’s anyone who cannot tell they’re from three separate appearances. I’m never a fan of “making” someone say something by stringing words and phrases together- unless it’s done for humor… There’s a clip of Dubya singing U2’s “Sunday, Bloody Sunday” made up entirely of stitched together speeches… Very well done. -but to call that deceptive is to say that you believe there are folks out there who might think it’s one video, or one sentence. And, to borrow Sammon’s phrase, that’s pretty far fetched…
As for whether BO is a socialist (and if not, whether the folks who claim he is are discrediting themselves by making the claim), words have meanings. Socialism has a specific definition, politically, and there are characteristics that define socialist theory and practice. Should someone ever actually define the term and then show how Obama’s words/deeds actually fit the definition, I’ll pay attention and be glad to discuss it with ’em. But as long as it’s being used as nothing more than an epithet against him (and me, and even you, to the extent that you’re a liberal), I’m going to treat the accusation the same way I do folks yelling “asshat” or “douchebag” or any one of a million other ultimately meaningless insults folks throw at each other because they see the world differently than you do.
I’ll await your next offering, but to me, the speech itself seems kinda damaging and damning to anyone claiming to be a “fair and balanced” newsman. The whole “I’m not saying he’s ….. (guilty, wrong, a socialist/communist/rapist/???), I’m just asking the questions (or “bringing up what ‘some people’ are saying”) is a pretty nasty trick, being used by folks all across the media spectrum, against folks all across the political spectrum, these days… It’s a way of saying something without taking responsibility for having said it.
Lee,
Be careful, man. Critics don’t take kindly to criticism. Next there will be a spliced together video of you advocating the raping of babies. The only time one has to resort to lying in a debate is when they’re wrong.
Ole,
as someone who follows american media and shakes their head, allow me to confirm the European stereotype of Americans: we’re lazy sheep, for the.most part. And, when deceptively edited videos are shown to a biased crowd, the subtlety of the edits is lost to the preconceived beliefs. How many people still believe that it was George W. Bush’s idea to have that mission accomplished banner on the aircraft carrier? All the media had to do was deceptively edit out, well, his entire speech, and the masses, to this day still believe bush was stupid for doing that (among other reasons, as well.)
As to Obama’s socialist tendencies, let me put it to you this way: our military action in libya is a no fly zone, no fly plus, kinetic military action, anything but war. You can call obamas policies socialist, you can call then conservative, you can call them flying tree monkeys from mars. the point is, you know damn well he’s no conservative by american standards, which, when speaking of american politics, is the only standards you can judge by. Because to Iran, our conservatives are liberals. When speaking of this president, he’s really only got one platform. Its not socialism, its not communism, its not flying tree monkeys from mars… its reelection.
Hi repsac-
Let me give your post the Media Matters treatment:
“BO is a socialist…Words have meanings….Obama’s words/deeds actually fit the definition”
This is easy to do with a single blog comment. Imagine what you can put together with hours and hours of video footage.
“Again, they don’t just argue against the idea on the merits of the evidence – they need to discredit completely all sources that say it.” [emphasis added]
Phrased like that, it implies that their smear-the-source tactic is supplementary to their argue-the-ideas tactic, rather than a substitute FOR it. If that’s what you’re saying, it gives them vastly too much credit. Smear-the-source is really ALL they’re capable of, or ever have been, and they helpfully telegraph that, in their very name.
For them, it’s all about shooting the messenger.
It’s funny how the same organization ripped Live Action for moving the audio around in one of their expose videos (even though it didn’t change the context at all). They also demanded O’Keefe release unedited video of his NPR piece. They were pretty confident no one would ask the same of them, apparently. Not that it matters. The only people who watch their stuff hate Fox anyway. No one’s mind is getting changed about Fox when all is said and done.
Ole,
So what you are saying is that Socialists in Norway are even dumber and more evil than the ones we have here? OK. Good to know. Now go bomb Israel or whales or whatever you’re into.
repsac3, I don’t think you’re fully engaging Lee’s argument. Recall that his argument is that MMFA tries to establish that all of Sammon’s socialism-related points are falsely asserted by using the initial “mischievous” quote to frame what follows. A fair approach would be to speak to Sammon and ask him which statements he didn’t really mean, but Lee’s point is that MMFA isn’t interested in being fair. Rather, they want to discredit a charge by discrediting a man. (Incidentally, that is true ad hominem argumentation: addressing an argument by attacking a person. What Breitbart got banned from HuffPo for wasn’t ad hominem argumentation, it was plain old garden-variety insults.)
That said, if you’re going to try to establish that narrative, you ought to highlight a statement of personal belief that seems to be undercut by the admission on the cruise. By mishmashing two pieces together, one of which contains “I think” and the other “conservatives think”, you hinge the rest of what follows on that disingenuous statement. That tells me two things. First, if you have to mishmash statements together to get your kill shot in, it seems that there’s no other legitimate quote that you can hang your hat on. (Since none of these quotes is fresher than summer 2009, it’s not like they didn’t have time to look stuff up.) Second, given that the mishmashed statement itself is such weak tea, your goal really isn’t to withstand serious scrutiny. You’re just providing ammunition for people who already believe you to pass along, retweet, and claim vindication for. It’s the old “a lie can travel halfway across the world while the truth is getting its boots on” gambit.
And from there, Lee makes the point that the further Sammon statements were truth statements, not belief statements. They really don’t relate back to the original contention that Sammon said things he didn’t believe; the earlier attempt to discredit the person is coming to fruition in discrediting the claims, as he pointed out. MMFA tries to make this a big deal by claiming that this isn’t how “real news organizations” act. Ridiculous; if the socialism charge was making news, Sammon’s private opinions of its veracity was meaningless unless you accept the idea of media-as-gatekeepers who should “vet” the news before it makes it to the ears of us great unwashed.
MMFA does not have a serious argument. But then again, who says serious arguments win the day?
(By the by, if you’re interested in someone who seriously takes on the question of whether President Obama is a socialist, you might check out Stanley Kurtz’s Radical-In-Chief. I haven’t read it, but I think it’s attempting to do just what you lay out above.)
Saluwe’s comment is brilliant and spot on.
This type of deceptively edited/spliced stuff was done in the last election. Anyone remember Rep. Alan Grayson’s despicable Taliban Dan ads? They used actual footage of Webster at an event, but cut and diced the ads to say the exact opposite of what Dan Webster actually said and what his actual point was. And then Grayson aired the ads over and over again. Fortunately there was tape of Webster’s speech that fully exposed Grayson’s sick games and a few local stations and network commentators called Grayson on it. Alan remained unrepentant, though, and continued to run the ads.
Webster won and Grayson lost but the utter dishonesty of the Grayson campaign set a new low bar for what is considered acceptable behavior in politics.
I assume the same film “shop” was involved then and now. Their mothers must be so proud.
“I didn’t want to include the entire MMfA video in my video. I was clear that I’ll deal with that part of the video in part II. ”
Yes. So much better to not include the cruise video and instead replace it with a black screen and your phlegmy narration
When Sammon pulls the “well people are saying X” card and doesn’t immediately say that he thinks it’s bullshit, he is throwing it out there to fester and grow. The fact that you pretend to not understand that just shows that you were custom made for Breitbart’s stable of retards, never-wases, and charity cases.
Oh look, it’s TBogg. At this very moment, Sammon must be packing up his office.
Oh look, It’s Treacher. How’s the knee, drama queen?
Lee, I think you are falling right into MMFA’s trap. They want people to attack them for editing this tape, and attack them effectively so they can legitimize their own bogus editing charges against O’Keefe. The best thing to do with MMFA’s BS is to ignore. No one with an open mind pays them any attention.
Media Matters lies. It is their modus operandi. The only people who take them seriously are the hacks not interested in truth to begin with.
Somehow I doubt TBogg has been hit by any SUV’s lately, but no doubt we’d all by impressed by his heroic reaction and composure. Oh wait, Tbogg is too gutless even to blog under his own name, so strike that.
And TBogg also wants to criticize me for not including the whole video in my video — when the very post he’s commenting on INCLUDES the whole video. And I tell people in my video to watch the whole video.
Of course Obama’s a socialist. We all are practicing socialists, and have been for as long as I’ve been alive.
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/02/06/we-are-all-socialists-now.html
“Oh look, It’s Treacher. How’s the knee, drama queen?”
Sammon is walking out to the parking lot right now, cursing the day you were born. Take that, Faux Noise.
“The best thing to do with MMFA’s BS is to ignore. No one with an open mind pays them any attention.”
Ixnay, Murgatroid, the best thing to do with liars is to EXPOSE them. Always has been. As for how much influence they have or lack, it’s hard to measure, but given that we know for a fact that their bullshit IS being fed to the alphabet networks, who ARE passing it along to the public, it’s just not acceptable to let it go unchallenged.
The stupidity, dishonesty, and ugliness of TBogg, on the other hand, is well worth ignoring.
What bothers me most about Media Matters is that they generally do not allow comments that question them or effectively show them to be wrong. Doesn’t matter how polite you are, they won’t let any substantive contrary facts through. The first amendment isn’t respected on their little slice of the internet.