• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Fox News Deceptively Edits Video To Misrepresent Politician’s Views

Oh, wait… did I say Fox News?

I meant to say NBC News:

And, it being a new age and all, Ed Schultz has already been forced to retract and apologize. Not for, you know, falsely accusing Governor Perry of racism. That’s obviously in the “fake but accurate” category and therefore needs no apology. But he is sorry he got caught doing something so transparently stupid.

As for my own… misleading headline, there’s a larger point here. NBC News broadcasts Ed Schultz, so in a sense it’s accurate to say “they” did this, just as I see some overwrought accusation that Fox News did something dastardly pretty much every day.

But it’s only accurate in that trivial sense in either case. Schultz is a commentator, not a news anchor. He’s on air to propound opinions. So it’s not really fair or accurate to say “NBC News” did this, as if the corporate entity was taking this position. So, too, almost every screeching Fox News story I see: The overwhelming majority of the time, it’s some talking head saying something which is clearly and unambiguously that person’s opinion, not the news arm.

Yes, the very fact that Ed Schultz has a job at NBC–or Beck did at Fox–is suggestive of the corporate parent’s leanings. But an avowedly partisan host or guest is still not the corporation. When the actual news arm shows its petticoats–which happens plenty often enough across the media–that’s worth comment. I don’t watch any of these stations–I don’t even know what their channel numbers are on my satellite service–so I don’t have a dog in any of these hunts. But the never-ending quest to tar whole news outlets with the misdeeds of a few of the opinion-spouting people that appear on them is beyond tiresome.

Related Posts:

About Dodd
Dodd, who used to run a blog named ipse dixit, is an attorney, a veteran of the United States Navy, and a fairly good poker player. He can kill a mime using only his thumb. He joined the staff at OTB in May 2007. Follow Dodd on Twitter.

Comments

  1. John Peabody says:

    Good post!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  2. PD Shaw says:

    This is the most vile blog post OTB has ever published.

    Well, that’s not really true, unless I mean most deconstructive.

    And I’m not sure I understand what that term means, but this a comment and it does what comments do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  3. Vast Variety says:

    The difference between NBC News and Fox News is that almost all of Fox News’s hosts are “talking head(s) saying something which is clearly and unambiguously that person’s opinion.” and it is passed off as “Fair and Balanced” news. Fox News is more akin to MSNBC than to news organizations like NBC or ABC.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

  4. Tano says:

    And, it being a new age and all, Ed Schultz has already been forced to retract and apologize.

    Its not that it is some “new age” that forces the retraction and apology, its the way the non-FoxNews world of journalism works.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  5. Tano says:

    Wow – and what the heck is with Brietbart video? Is this the way they (need to) present things to their audience? Repeating the same clip 5 or 6 times in a row? Are they dealing with people who are unable to understand something that is shown and explained one time? Or is it their elitist and condescending attitude toward their viewers who they seem to think are idiots?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

  6. An Interested Party says:

    While some people are feeling so sorry for how poor Fox News is treated so horribly, perhaps those same people could explain why Fox News shows misleading captions on a regular basis…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  7. bACHMANN pERRY oVERDRIVE (formerly Hey Norm) says:

    So Schultz, who is a complete partisan clown, retracted the story and apologized for the mistake.
    Fox does this crap all the time, and I see no apologies.
    Yet on OTB we get this pox on both houses crap again.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

  8. Jay Tea says:

    @Tano: Wow – and what the heck is with Brietbart video? Is this the way they (need to) present things to their audience? Repeating the same clip 5 or 6 times in a row? Are they dealing with people who are unable to understand something that is shown and explained one time?

    You see, Tano, those of us who know Ed Shultz, and most of MSNBC, and quite a few others, are full of crap and are just fine with seeing it once. But the target audience — folks like you, Interested, and the like — need the repetition and reinforcement and repetition to really, really, really get the point.

    Nice head fake in the headline, Dodd. Great way to get the message across to those who really need to see it. The folks who are just salivating to see Fox News get bashed (Interested and Norm, just to name the two who so cheerfully self-identified) get suckered in and find themselves hearing what they don’t want to hear. I tip my hat to you, sir.

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8

  9. bACHMANN pERRY oVERDRIVE (formerly Hey Norm) says:

    Jtea…
    WTF are you talking about?
    Seriously.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  10. EddieInCA says:

    Dodd -

    When was the last time you heard an On-Air retraction or apology from Hannity, O’Reilly, Greta, or the group from Fox and Friends?

    Schultz apologized and retracted. Earlier last week, Maddow did the same.

    However, this week alone, Hannity claimed the unemployment rate was 5.6 when Obama took office, when it was, in fact, closer to 7.6. Still, almost a week later, no correction or retraction. Additionally, Fox and Friends ran a completely dishonest piece on the Police in Pulaski, VA, which the police chief of the town has called “lies and distortions”, yet no apology or retraction to date.

    I can give you many, many more examples of flat out lies and fabrications on Fox, and, to date, I’m unaware of even ONE retraction, or apology for misinforming their viewers.

    But, of course, it’s MSNBC that is the problem.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  11. David says:

    @EddieInCA:

    I can give you many, many more examples of flat out lies and fabrications on Fox

    Please do, Eddie, because neither of your two examples were “flat out lies and fabrications.” One was saying an incorrect stat – common, because Hannity is an idiot, but if you want to call out all moments like this I’ll wait for Obama’s “apology” for announcing we have 52 states. The second is a person who stands to gain by seeing the story discredited calling the story “lies and distortions.” Why in the world would ANY journalist apologize based on that?

    I’m not really defending Fox News here, but those were some God-awful examples.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  12. Tano says:

    I’ll wait for Obama’s “apology” for announcing we have 52 states

    Huh?

    The second is a person who stands to gain by seeing the story discredited calling the story “lies and distortions.” Why in the world would ANY journalist apologize based on that?

    Because it is the right thing to do?

    Wow. That tells us a lot about you and your outlook on the world.
    Whether or not the person who raises the criticism does so for self-interested purposes does not change the truth or falsity of the charge.

    Schlutz, for example, was criticized by the highly self-interested right-wing media, who just salivated over the prospect of scoring a clean point on him. None the less, he did apologize.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  13. PJ says:

    @Dodd:

    Yes, the very fact that Ed Schultz has a job at NBC–or Beck did at Fox–is suggestive of the corporate parent’s leanings.

    But then MSNBC also employs for example Joe Scarborough, and they also employ a lot of hosts that aren’t as far to the left as Schultz is. Does Fox News have any liberals as hosts? Who are their more moderate hosts?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  14. An Interested Party says:

    @Jay: It’s kinda sad, but obvious, how someone as conceited as you is also quite delusional…before even clicking on the link to this thread, I saw that Dodd was the author of it and strongly suspected that it wouldn’t really be about criticizing Fox News, so you can sit on your hat, as you’re taking it off for something which is a phantom…as for repetition and reinforcement, you might be projecting a bit with that, as you worship at the altar of someone who is real good with both of those…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  15. Franklin says:

    See, I knew that headline had to be some sort of bait-and-switch, because as written it wouldn’t be worthy of a blog post. Oh, and FNC hardly ever apologizes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  16. Jay Tea says:

    @EddieInCA: I’m not surprised that you have examples from Fox so ready at hand. Because Fox is the only media outlet that has people paid by their enemies to watch every single second of their broadcasts for the slightest mistake, a tax-exempt foundation that has literally declared war on Fox News and has vowed to destroy them.

    That’s not hyperbole. I can cite sources.

    Eddie, cite your sources. Oh, I’m not challenging your truthfulness. What I’m curious about is where you came up with two such very specific allegations so quickly. I’d wager money (say, a nickel) that your information came from Media Matters From America, either directly or indirectly.

    Go ahead, find a tax-exempt organization whose declared purpose is to destroy at least one of the liberal media outlets.

    Does Fox make mistakes? Absolutely. Are some of their misstatements deliberate? Damned if I know. But I do know that they are held to a far higher standard than any other group, because no other group has an entire foundation that has vowed to take them down and is subidized by the US taxpayers.

    Of course, Fox is so much more successful than any of its competitors (hell, all of its competitors combined) that Media Matters’ best efforts are utterly ineffective.

    I do find amusing how Fox News is hitting back — by encouraging its viewers to challenge Media Matters’ tax-exempt status. I don’t see it happening under Obama’s IRS (who he’s jokingly threatened to sic on his adversaries), but it’s a fairly clear case. Media Matters is, legally, a non-partisan group, by law. They’ve 1) declared Fox News as an extension of the GOP, and B) “declared war” on Fox News. Kinda hard to say you’re non-partisan when you’re at war with a part of one political party…

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  17. EddieInCA says:

    @Jay Tea:

    Jay Tea says:
    Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 21:56

    @EddieInCA: I’m not surprised that you have examples from Fox so ready at hand. Because Fox is the only media outlet that has people paid by their enemies to watch every single second of their broadcasts for the slightest mistake, a tax-exempt foundation that has literally declared war on Fox News and has vowed to destroy them.

    That’s not hyperbole. I can cite sources.

    Eddie, cite your sources. Oh, I’m not challenging your truthfulness. What I’m curious about is where you came up with two such very specific allegations so quickly. I’d wager money (say, a nickel) that your information came from Media Matters From America, either directly or indirectly.

    I don’t read Media Matters for America. I read the Hannity quote on The Dish, Andrew Sullivan’s site. He might have gotten it from Media Matters, but I certainly didn’t.

    The other story I picked up at WSLS’ website: http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/aug/01/pulaski-police-chief-responds-clip-fox-news-ar-1211439/

    Go ahead, find a tax-exempt organization whose declared purpose is to destroy at least one of the liberal media outlets.

    Media Research Center. “Tax exempt organizations that are classified as 501(c)(3) charities, including Media Research Center, to which deductible contributions can be made.: http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx

    Does Fox make mistakes? Absolutely. Are some of their misstatements deliberate? Damned if I know.

    Glenn Beck: Less than 10 percent of Obama’s Cabinet appointees “have any experience in the private sector.” — False (December 2, 2009)

    Steve Doocy: White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard once served as the “right-hand man” for Bertha Lewis, who heads up ACORN. — False (September 30, 2009)

    Gretchen Carlson: Says the Texas State Board of Education is considering eliminating references to Christmas and the Constitution in textbooks. — Pants on Fire! (March 12, 2010)

    PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year: ‘A government takeover of health care’ (December 16, 2010)

    Glenn Beck: The Muslim Brotherhood has “openly stated they want to declare war on Israel.” — False (February 15, 2011)

    Karl Rove: “American troops have never been under the formal control of another nation.” — False (March 29, 2011)

    Brian Kilmeade: Says Gov. Rick Scott’s approval ratings are up. — False (April 15, 2011)

    Laura Ingraham: The Massachusetts health care plan is “wildly unpopular” among state residents. — False (May 16, 2011)

    Sarah Palin: “Look at the debt that has been accumulated in the last two years. It’s more debt under this president than all those other presidents combined.” — False (June 1, 2011)

    PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year: ‘Death panels’ (December 18, 2009)

    Kimberly Guilfoyle: If you log into the government’s Cash for Clunkers Web site (cars.gov) from your home computer, the government can “seize all of your personal and private” information, and track your computer activity. — False (August 3, 2009)

    Sarah Palin: “We’re going to be looking at $8 billion a day that we’re going to be pouring into foreign countries in order to import that make-up fuel that we’re going to need to take the place of what we could have gotten out of the gulf.” — Pants on Fire! (June 3, 2011)

    Sarah Palin: “Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in U.S. history.” — Pants on Fire! (August 4, 2010)

    Bill O’Reilly: “Attorney General Eric Holder is involved in the dismissal of the criminal charges” against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation — False (July 23, 2010)

    Sarah Palin: “Barack Obama had 150 days in the U.S. Senate where he was able to vote quite often ‘present.’ ” — False (February 8, 2010)

    Glenn Beck: John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.” — Pants on Fire! (July 29, 2009)

    Glenn Beck: Labor union president Andy Stern is “the most frequent visitor” at the White House. — False (December 7, 2009)

    Glenn Beck: “Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth? We’re the only country in the world that has it.” — False (June 19, 2009)

    Bill O’Reilly: Says he didn’t call Dr. George Tiller a baby killer, as liberal groups charge, but was merely reporting what “some prolifers branded him.” — False (June 5, 2009)

    Bill O’Reilly: When White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Mao Tse-tung was “one of her favorite philosophers, only Fox News picked that up.” — False (October 27, 2009)

    Bill O’Reilly: “We researched to find out if anybody on Fox News had ever said you’re going to jail if you don’t buy health insurance. Nobody’s ever said it.” — Pants on Fire! (April 27, 2010)

    These are FACTS which they misrepresented, or flat out lied about. To date, NOT ONE RETRACTION or CORRECTION.

    But I do know that they are held to a far higher standard than any other group, because no other group has an entire foundation that has vowed to take them down and is subidized by the US taxpayers.

    Yeah… proved that one false up above.

    Of course, Fox is so much more successful than any of its competitors (hell, all of its competitors combined) that Media Matters’ best efforts are utterly ineffective.

    Depends on how you describe “competitors” More people watch “The Kardashians” than “The O’Reilly Factor”. Now you can spin Fox’s success to mean that they’re the top dog in cable news, which they are – but the Fox News Channel ratings are dwarfed by the ratings for the ABC, CBS, and NBC Evening news

    I do find amusing how Fox News is hitting back — by encouraging its viewers to challenge Media Matters’ tax-exempt status. I don’t see it happening under Obama’s IRS (who he’s jokingly threatened to sic on his adversaries), but it’s a fairly clear case. Media Matters is, legally, a non-partisan group, by law. They’ve 1) declared Fox News as an extension of the GOP, and B) “declared war” on Fox News. Kinda hard to say you’re non-partisan when you’re at war with a part of one political party…

    As David Frum, GWBush’s former speechwriter recently stated “The GOP thought Fox News worked for them, but they’ve realized they now work for Fox News.”

    That says it best.

    Thanks for playing.

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  18. The Colourfield says:

    It’s a Dodd post,

    He is a complete and utter clown shoes.

    What else would we expect.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  19. Jay Tea says:

    @EddieInCA: Eddie, I wasn’t looking to get into a scuffle with you, and I’m still not. So I’m going to continue trying to have a civil conversation on this topic.

    Here’s what I’m talking about with Media Matters’ “war” on Fox News:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html

    Money quote:

    “The strategy that we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment,” said Brock, Media Matters’ chairman and founder and a former conservative journalist, adding that the group’s main aim had been to challenge the factual claims of the channel and to attempt to prevent them from reaching the mainstream media.

    The new strategy, he said, is a “war on Fox.”

    In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters — which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points, as well as a series of under-the-radar tactics.

    Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor. (In the interest of full disclosure, Media Matters last month also issued a report criticizing “Fox and Friends” co-host Steve Doocy’s criticism of this reporter’s blog.)

    That list of “uncorrected errors” you produced… it has the look of cut and paste work. Where did you get it from? Let me see if I can find that source…

    OK, nothing jumps out, but the format looks like Politifact — who I once caught in their own “pants on fire” lie when they went after Michele Bachmann: http://wizbangblog.com/2011/06/30/michele-give-em-hell/

    But I can’t find a “master list” of those, so I think I see the hand of Media Matters in culling them together. It’s their MO.

    What I’m getting at, Eddie, is that I believe that the original source of that list is quite likely a group that is not trustworthy. Media Matters has been busted lying in the past, repeatedly, and Politifact is also flawed. I’m not saying that list is wrong, but I’m saying that we should not simply accept it as fact, based on who I deduce the source to be… unless you can cite the original, non-Politifact, non-Media Matters source.

    Again, I’m not doubting that the misstatements were made… but I question whether or not they were corrected.

    And let’s not overlook that a lot of these were unscripted, off the cuff remarks, and a certain level of hyperbole is unavoidable. Contrast that with the original example of this story, where it took deliberate editing of the original clip to remove the context. Kind of like the time MSNBC talked about the dangerous racists who were bringing guns to anti-ObamaCare rallies, including a close-up of an AR-15 one guy had slung over his shoulder. The close-up was necessary, because the “armed and dangerous racist” was a black man.

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  20. David says:

    @Tano:

    Tano, are you even reading what I’m saying? My point with the Hannity/Obama analogy is that no one should assume that the mistake was malicious or intentional. As for the second example, it does “say a lot about me”. I don’t think journalists should be cowed into submission by the people they are looking to report on. Did you not see the example? The JOURNALIST was the one raising the criticism. Based on your response, apparently all journalists should stop pursuing a story if the person involved says “that’s not true!” Yikes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Tano says:

    Based on your response, apparently all journalists should stop pursuing a story if the person involved says “that’s not true!”

    huh?

    are you even reading what I’m saying?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Davebo says:

    Stick to caption contests Dodd. They don’t make you look quite as idiotic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  23. WR says:

    @Jay Tea: Apparently JT believes that if you have any actual knowledge, you must be a paid shill. Because where he lives, no one knows anything until they get their marching orders from Mr. Ailes.

    Sorry, Jay Tea — some people actually know things. You might try it someday. Or not. It’s probably easier the way you do it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  24. Jay Tea says:

    @WR: For the record, WR, here’s my policy: when you say something of substance, even when mind-bogglingly stupid and wrong (or, rather, when it’s typically mind-bogglingly stupid and wrong), I’ll answer you, then give my new stock response to you.

    When it’s utterly substance-free, then you get the new stock response.

    So, in this case, its this: “Back to your kennel, lickspittle.”

    J.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0