Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Equal treatment?

May 26, 2013

This past week has revealed the Obama administration is governing in a way we have never seen in this nation's history....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(83)

CHayes

May-28-13 10:11 AM

"Okay CHayes tell me this, where did the punctuation marks "--" come from? "

Quotation marks?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

May-28-13 7:19 AM

"Just so we can add some perspective to this debate - Romney's 47% speech, fairly reported in context OR single line repeated out of context by the news media?"

++

I sometimes think that is what cost Romney the election but never did hear any data on what the real impact was. Even though I thought he was/is better than BHO, the comment showed a lack of touch. He didn't understand all the groups in the 47% and that some probably supported him.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

May-28-13 7:07 AM

"but as the entire quote I posted below shows, that was neither what was said, or what was meant. It was straight up deceptive editing."

+++

Okay CHayes tell me this, where did the punctuation marks "--" come from? They are not normal. A period (.), a colon (:), a comma (,), a semi-colon (;), a question mark(?), a parenthesis (()), exclamation (!), etc are normal forms of punctuation. A "--" is a made-up punctuation. I wonder why?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-28-13 2:09 AM

I am fortunate to have friends that own businesses from a business that designs builds incinerators that are installed all over the world, to restauranteurs, to a person that owns a vending company, to a person that owns a successful car wash, to a person that owns a small art gallery, to me. Not a SINGLE one of these business owners would say that their business would exist without extensive help from family, friends, employees, in many cases the Small Business Development Center (govt entity), or many other forms of help they've received along the way. Not a single one.

What Fox did was to selectively edit the tape of the President to imply that he was saying personal initiative has nothing at all to do with business creation, but as the entire quote I posted below shows, that was neither what was said, or what was meant. It was straight up deceptive editing.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-28-13 2:01 AM

In relation to the controversy on Fox's distortion of the President's remarks about businesses and who's responsible. Fox REPEATEDLY played selectively edited tape to try and make it seem like he said govt was responsible for building businesses and business owners had nothing to do with it, but that wasn't what he said or meant. The entire quote reveals that:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

May-27-13 10:18 PM

Excellent question, jerry.. I suspect, somehow, magically..'that's different'..

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

May-27-13 8:56 PM

Just so we can add some perspective to this debate - Romney's 47% speech, fairly reported in context OR single line repeated out of context by the news media?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

May-27-13 8:23 PM

Bufftrev1

May-27-13 7:43 PM

Ritty, your reply to me is nonsense.. President Obama clearly was referring to the infrastructure in our communities, but Fox repeatedly and selective played that single phrase from the entirety of the speech. I think you know full well they did so to mislead and inflame, so there is an example for ya.. have a nice memorial day, if you can read this, thank a vet .. and a teacher.

Not true! I was actually listening to the speech in question here, and I literally screamed, "WHAT????" at the point in that speech when the claim was made that entrepreneurs and other enterprising people "didn't do that!" It was in context, and just as Ritty presented it. The comments he made, trying to cover up his obvious gaffe, alluded to infrastructure and other ways that government deserves partial credit for all enterprises and inventions, but the context was that, "You didn't do that!"

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

May-27-13 7:43 PM

Ritty, your reply to me is nonsense.. President Obama clearly was referring to the infrastructure in our communities, but Fox repeatedly and selective played that single phrase from the entirety of the speech. I think you know full well they did so to mislead and inflame, so there is an example for ya.. have a nice memorial day, if you can read this, thank a vet .. and a teacher.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-27-13 7:18 PM

" In a murder case, Skip. In a murder case. Don't leave off part of sentence"

OK, now I know for a fact someone's been to the Kool Aid bowl a few too many times today.

It's incredible. You don't even deny a single example I've laid out for you. Not a single one.

You're really nuts you know. You're not quite to Relene territory yet, but you're heading there fast.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-27-13 5:21 PM

"You didn't build that... ring a bell, ritty? Of course it does, it was a selectively edited portion of a speech President Obama made.."

That's baloney, of course. He was talking about people building successful businesses and owing part of the credit to government. That's why he used the word "that" (three times) instead of "those" (roads and bridges). This matter was settled long ago.

Keep drinking.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-27-13 5:11 PM

In a murder case, Skip. In a murder case. Don't leave off part of sentence in order to segue into more nonsense.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-27-13 4:13 PM

PS, Fox wasn't trying to "inflame racial tensions" with their coverage of the Trayvon Martin case, or the "Ground Zero Mosque"???

Again for good measure.....

CHUG!

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-27-13 4:11 PM

" Sorry Chris, political hackery and tabloid mixups don't rise to the level of purposely inflaming racial tensions"

Oh, its racial tensions you're after. How about the time Fox was doing a story about the Presidents birthday party, and put up a titlae at the bottom of the screen that said "Obama's Hip Hop Barbeque"? What exactly does that mean? The two musical performers that day were by Stevie Wonder, and the USMC band.

If after all the information I've provided you about Fox selectively editing tapes to.INTENTIONALLY alter the meaning of what was said, trying to inflame racial tensions, stealing stories from the Weekly World News, and completely bungling investigations, you still think Fox is practicing good journalism, I only have one word for you.......

CHUG!

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-27-13 3:54 PM

" Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the center of the decision to target tea party groups"

You half wit, you wouldn't even know about this if it weren't for Lois Lerner. She's the one that discovered that two employees at the Cincinnati office were using specific words to identify conservative groups (and probably liberal groups too). She's the one that ordered them to stop. She's the one that reported it to the IG's office. And you people want her fired? I'm with you there.

She shouldn't have been penalizing IRS employees for trying to identify political business applying for tax exemptions, they should have been rewarded. These people work in an office where less than 200. employees were tasked last year with processing over 60,00 applications. Extra due diligence to protect American tax dollars is fantastic.

The fact that only half of one percent of all these applications merited any additional scrutiny is unacceptable.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

May-27-13 3:52 PM

Erik, Can you please explain how it is that natural gas drilling causes raptor deaths. What is expected of the drillers to make it stop?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

May-27-13 3:07 PM

You didn't build that... ring a bell, ritty? Of course it does, it was a selectively edited portion of a speech President Obama made..

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

May-27-13 2:19 PM

Lois Lerner, the senior IRS official at the center of the decision to target tea party groups for burdensome tax scrutiny, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a shady charity headed by the president’s half-brother that operated illegally for years.

According to the organization’s filings, Lerner approved the foundation’s tax status within a month of filing, an unprecedented timeline that stands in stark contrast to conservative organizations that have been waiting for more than three years, in some cases, for approval.

Lerner granted the organization a 501(c) determination and even gave it a retroactive tax exemption dating back to DECEMBER 2008!

It is also not clear what the Barack H. Obama Foundation actually does. Its website claims the organization has built a madrassa and was building a imam’s house but there is no evidence that the nonprofit was actually helping poor Kenyan children as claimed.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-27-13 12:42 PM

Sorry Chris, political hackery and tabloid mixups don't rise to the level of purposely inflaming racial tensions in a murder case.

Have a good day.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-27-13 12:19 PM

"In a July 30 interview with Newsweek, Breitbart said he would be glad to meet Shirley Sherrod privately. He agreed that the excerpted video took her statements out of context and said that if he could do things all over again, he would not have posted the excerpted video."

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-27-13 11:00 AM

Think about that last one a second Ritty, Fox had to have done all kinds of background investigation on the Kingdom Foundation to uncover all those ties to terrorism, but not a single genius "journalist" in the house managed to uncover their ties to THEIR OWN NETWORK.

Again, one would be hard pressed to find a high school newspaper anywhere in the US that doesn't have higher journalistic standards than Fox "News".

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-27-13 10:55 AM

It's like trying to have a rational discussion with a cult member.

Hey Ritty, what'd you think about all the tines during the Mark Foley scandal when Fox put graphics of Foley up that listed him as a Democrat?

Or my favorite Fox faux pas, when they were attacking the idea of building an islamic center in NY, and claimed the primary financier behind it, the Kingdom Foundation had close ties to terrorists. Then it turned out the guy that started the KF, was the second largest shareholder in Fox, after Rupert Murdoch. Now THAT was entertainment.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

May-27-13 10:44 AM

"Can you cite such an egregious violation of "journalistic standards" from FOX News?"

You've not done that."

Remind me again what this "egregious violation" was you're talking about? Possibly I'm mistaken, but I thought you said that this other news entity (I think you said it was MSNBC) had taken a tape, and edited in a way for broadcast that would leave viewers with an impression that there was more to something that happened than there actually was.

I just provided MULTIPLE examples of Fox "News", doing EXACTLY that, and worse. With the cases I provided, Fox didn't just allow the viewer to cone to the wrong conclusion, they TOLD THEM the wrong conclusion to come to.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

May-27-13 9:21 AM

Then, is there also no reason to be mentioning President Obama negatively at about a ration of 100:1.. yes?

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

May-27-13 9:14 AM

"Can you cite such an egregious violation of "journalistic standards" from FOX News?"

You've not done that. The most you've done is establish that both networks are biased (which we already knew). There is no valid reason for FOX News to be mentioned negatively on these pages at about a 100:1 ratio to other at least equally guilty news outlets.

Happy Memorial Day. Gonna get warm this week.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 83 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web