Cone of Shame Award: MSNB-see-only-what-we-want-you-to-see
Oh, you are just going to love MSNBC’s explanation for why the network doctored up video of a black town hall protester carrying a gun to suggest that gun-toting Tea Party folks are all white racists.
I don’t think there is a Cone of Shame big enough:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsAttention: Obama’s coming to Arizona, Ground Zero of his Fast and Furious debacle
January 23, 2012 02:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
The Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
The Brian Terry Memorial Act passes
December 15, 2011 06:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
21 CommentsMSNBC Leans Forward to Apologize to Mitt Romney
December 15, 2011 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
The murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry: One year ago today
December 14, 2011 11:11 AM by Michelle Malkin
70 Comments
Holder, Blago, Richardson: Triangle of Sleaze
December 9, 2011 09:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
125 CommentsNewsflash: Shootings reported at Virginia Tech; reports – police officer shot/dead?, at least one other victim
December 8, 2011 01:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
42 Comments
Categories: Guns,Media Bias
Weekly Standard
» White House Economic Adviser: 'We Need a Global Minimum Tax'Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Is there such a thing as a cluster cone?
Once again MSNBC proves it is Propaganda Central for the Obamastration.
Mslsd the reason to block channel.
This is what you get when the management of the network sold their souls to get a POTUS elected. When management plays fast and loose, the employees will do the same.
Silly people. It’s not about the accuracy of the story. It’s about the general point they want to convey, regardless of the specific facts of the incident that they use to prop up their message.
Stop distracting them from their goals.
Is ‘Contessa’ a status/royal ranking or a real human name?
LOL——————————->
that pic of him swatting the fly cracks me up.
doofus erectus
the company reflects the crooked agenda driven attitude of the parent company, ge. we can doctor records to put the spin we want on things, obama has our back.
And I am generally speaking at what a bunch of clowns MSNBC has fielded and should all be taken to the pillory. It is my observation (generally speaking), that MSNBC employees are a waste of the air they breathe and should immediately cease their miserable existence.
The on-air talent should all brand the word “LIAR” on their foreheads before they are allowed to broadcast ever again, generally speakiing, of course.
So how does that explanation work for you, generally speaking?
One wonders why they would even use cropped footage of a black man with an AR15 at an Obama rally when they had footage/interviews of the white guy with the Jefferson quote sign at another rally. If they want to push the idiotic racist angle, they could have disingenuously used only the footage of the white guy. What did they choose to do? Lie.
Seriously, they were incredibly stupid and dishonest to do this. I think they just figured an AR15 looked more sinister than a pistol in a holster, but c’mon.
They “generally” showed their patoots this time.I watched Chrissy at times for the laughs but there is plenty to laugh at with the present crew in the WH.
A cone of shame around D.C. would be a great start.
We really need to relocate our National Capitol and start anew.
I believe because the AR15 is more striking to their view and that they don’t believe anyone would bother to check up on the image.
I am not supporting their point that these people bringing guns to the rallies are doing so out of racial motivation. In fact, that is at best unfounded and at worst really stupid.
But…MSNBC airs a clip that is, for whatever reason, cropped to focus on the gun. They didn’t show the man’s face but that could have been for any number of legitimate reasons. Contessa and her guests see the clip, wrongly assume this person is white and start spouting off on the racial stuff. That is bad enough and a lot more logical explanation than them purposely cropping out the guy’s face so that they can make some racial argument when 1) they know this footage is out there elsewhere and 2) as you point out, they could have used any number of photos of actual white guys.
Careless? Yes.
Says something about Contessa et al that they jump to the conclusion that the guy is white? You bet.
Says something about Contessa et al that they jump to the conclusion that bringin guns to a rally is a racial thing? Damn straight.
Purposeful manipulation of an image and then blatant lying about it when there is no reason to do so? I doubt it.
One of the MSM sites (can’t remember which) spoke of the black man “brandishing” his AR-15.
Yeah, slung over his shoulder. that’s what liberal media wusses call “brandishing”.
Can they be any more dishonest?
Don’t you all just long for the day when the talking heads turn into squeegee men/women at a street corner near you?
So, I guess Contessa is now supposed to be the “MILF” equivalent of what Sarah Palin was to liberals?
Eyukkk, pewuuu. For a brief instant, I felt what it was like to be a disgust-infused liberal (nearly an oxymoron, that term).
Idle complacency = guilt.
I wonder if MSNBC’s competitors: CNN, CBS, ABC etc.. will say a word about this? (Fox isn’t a competitor because, being that far ahead of the entire pack in ratings, “competition” wouldn’t really be accurate.)
I bet they don’t. Their silence will further condemn them as the race baiting, biased, hate generating j@cka$$es that they claim not to be.
Chap, normally I would agree, but your argument is a bit naive for footage that was well known in the political news world to be of a black man with a rifle at an Obama rally. Regardless of whether or not the talking heads were too stupid to know (doubtful), the footage was CROPPED by MSNBC to remove any indication the man carrying the rifle was black and the segment cut from the close up of the AR15 to a white man confronting a reporter with a microphone. The panel discussion then discussed racist whites who bring guns because they don’t like a black president. That is manipulation of the facts and it is dishonest. I know you are a lawyer, but seriously, they were intentionally deceitful.
The footage in question is well known…that’s the problem. It only made the news rounds because of the recent dustup with the white idiot who had a pistol and a Jefferson quote. MSNBC was caught in a dirty lie with their pants down and now they are spinning like tops.
If virulent emotional instability were fuel, we could all just fill’er-up at MSNBC and never have to drill another drop of oil again.
Ever.
When the fit hits the shan, one side is going to own guns and the other side is going to believe that guns only belong in the hands of police, military and body guards of the elite.
I’m just glad that I’m on the side that believes in the 2nd amendment right of the citizen to keep and bear arms.
And if MSNBC told me today was Thursday, I’d take a look at the calendar before I believed them.
Once again, the stupidity of the mainstream media strikes again. An AR-15 is NOT an automatic weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle. Yes, it looks “scary”, but trust me, there are MUCH more powerful rifles out there.
Well… three guesses on who controls the guns in the hands of the military and police? And three more guesses on whose guns are bigger.
Cute, but if it ever gets to that point, there is something for you to consider. When we take our service oaths in the military, we swear to support and defend the Constitution, NOT a political party, an individual or a group.
We are also bound to question orders which violate our oaths of service.
So, if it’s “racism” when white people strongly disagree with Obama, what was it when white liberals viciously excoriated Bush?
Oh yeah: uncontrolled lunatic rage.
But at least it wasn’t racism!!!!
And if your implication is correct, then the fact that the private citizens with whom you imply the military would be aligned with is armed and the other side is not would be irrelevant as well, no?
That’s her name Spaceycakes, she used to be an anchor down here in Palm Springs before the Commie network hired her, quite a leep actually and I don’t think they hired her on talent. wink wink. lol.
All I know is that it would be a confused, bloody mess and we better hope it doesn’t get that far.
Generals and police chiefs. See PBoilermaker’s notes on who the generals will side with….
*Looks at the M203 in his hands, the M1 Abrams driving down range and the AC-130′s flying overhead and answers* “mine, mine, and mine”
Saw the gentleman with the LEGAL open carry weapon on his back interviewed. Reasonable, well-spoken and correct describes this guy. He should be President.
PBoilermaker is right,
The Second Amendment exists to ensure that the Government fear the people. The problem with this Government is that it thinks the People are too stupid to take care of themselves or see through the BS.
Chap, again, your liberal fantasies fail you. Those of us who took the oath, did so to the Constitution. After you’ve upheld and defended it for a while, it really takes on a new and significant meaning.
Jefferson and Franklin wanted the Government to always be afraid of the People. I do too.
MSDNC
Hmmm… I’d probably flip that around and say that Jefferson and Franklin did not want the People to fear the Government.
You are missing my point, not surprisingly.
If there was a big armed revolution from the right…if the military sticks with the administration, I am putting my money on the professionally trained guys with the bigger toys. If the military sides with the revolters, I am again saying that the fact that the other side is or is not marginally armed is irrelevant in the face of bigger, better and many more guns and things that go boom.
I think the “reason” is quite germane.
And the reason the clip was aired is germane.
This whole “whose gun is bigger” argument is starting to slide into an OT pit (not just aimed at you, but yours was the last comment). Besides… Bigger guns doesn’t always win the battle. The British were certainly better armed and better trained than the revolutionaries.
I believe many folks’ point here is that someone at MSNBC knew that the footage was misleading. You’re giving Contessa the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn’t absolve all of MSNBC. Their excuse is quite lame.
Maybe. Or maybe they just wanted a big scary guin to fill the frame. Or maybe they were uncomfortable showing the guys face for fear of legal action.
Or maybe they did not want to show that he was black. But even that still doesn’t mean that there was collusion between the film editor and Contessa to purposely hide the race of the gentleman so that Contessa would be able to purposely lie about it. Especially when the footage was being shown on other networks and they could easily obtain footage of an ACTUAL white dude with a gun.
Only in that I believe she genuinely assumed the guy was white. Not in her argument or assumptions.
Salt,
I understand what you are saying but I disagree – They knew that the only way to avoid Tyranny was to ensure that the government remained in check by the People. They did this by ensuring that the People couldn’t be overwhelmed by force (with no standing army at the time, the People were the force). But hey, it’s kind of two sides of a similar coin.
Chap, no since arguing as it seems you missed the point. I will say this, you are discussing a “revolt” from the right. I, on the other hand, am talking about the Government bringing the People of the US to the brink of political norms and regulation by force of arms. That isn’t a “revolt”. It is siding with the Constitution and ensuring the Government stays in it’s place. Since most of the leadership of the Armed Forces aren’t Liberal, I doubt seriously if they would fire on American Citizens. Any Government that did so would be committing suicide. Never forget, my Liberal friend, that the majority of Americans don’t share your point of view in all matters.
Fair enough. I believe it was the semantics of the word “fear” that threw it off for me. I absolutely agree with the desire for checks and balances.
Besides which, the framers believed this government to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. In that context, fear of ourselves didn’t make much sense to me.
I believe we’re in agreement but that I was quibbling for the connotation of the word.
You are an impressive mental gymnast to go that far in defense of something so blatantly dishonest.
Here is what they actually said in defense of the segment: “Contessa was speaking generally and not about that specific person with the automatic weapon.”
Incredible.Dishonesty.
Salt,
There you go using logic again..
I agree completely.
I think it is equally mentally impressive to concoct a scenario where MSNBC goes to the trouble of cropping an image to obscure the guy’s race so that Contessa could make a race based argument when to do so would be absolutely pointless (there were plenty of photos of actual white guys) and embarrassing when inevitably discovered (the same uncropped footage was being shown on other networks).
I have an idea. Since MSDNC likes to refer to patriotic opponents of Dear Leader as “tea-baggers,” I suggest all MSDNC reporters be referred to as “fluffers.”
Anyone second the notion? In fact, let’s take it a step further and refer to all Obama supporters as fluffers.
I second.
Here’s the problem with your argument: MSNBC never said Contessa was unaware or that they made a mistake. To my knowledge, Contessa never said she was unaware. There was no retraction or clarification of the footage of the black man with the rifle, just some lukewarm, half-ass excuse about the correctness of their assertion that gun carriage at rallies is solely attributable to whites that hate a black president despite that specific footage showing otherwise.
If you are caught making a mistake you typically admit it if your integrity is important to you. They won’t do that. They don’t feel they made a mistake using that footage in that segment to support their specious argument. They defended their choice to do so.
You would be somehow surprised that they would be reluctant to fire off a long apology telling everyone they made a mistake, and that their host used poor judgment?
No. The usual MO is to first fire off a terse “clarification” that admits to nothing and then hope the issue blows over.
I never said MSNBC had the integrity to admit a mistake. I just find it hard to believe they would purposely jump through so many unnecessary hoops.
I strongly feel given the sediment of the military towards the present government, I wouldn’t count on them to help put down an armed rebellion. Their biggest fear should be the number that would join the rebellion.
If the CIA, FBI was to stand by and do nothing to help or to hinder. It would be all over for the government.
Chap, I agree – they could have simply been honest in their original reporting instead of trying to gin up the idea of racism that was not an issue to begin with.
Why jump through so many hoops? Maybe to jump start ratings that are lower than whale poop? Just supposin’
Hate to be a stickler, but I believe you meant “sentiment”.
Yes, I would (not length, but content…the apology can be short and to the point). This was a “hard news” segment where their manipulation of footage and subsequent commentary was unprofessional and dishonest.
Well, gee, that makes it okay to lie then? We aren’t talking about a politician lying about knocking up a woman who isn’t his wife, we are talking about a “news” organization.
When something blows up in their faces and they are asked to explain, they defend their idiotic decision and offer no valid excuses for a “hard news” segment that was so egregiously misleading.
Let’s call a spade a spade here. As stupid as it was, they screwed up and got caught.
I agree with this. The 6 people that actually watch MSNBC can’t be allowed to gravitate to another network.
I say we just recognize MSNBC for what they are; democrat party shills. With ratings in the toilet and a hand on the lever, their days are numbered.
Fixed.
1. It’s possible that a film editor innocently edited.
2a. It’s possible that the producer knew of Contessa’s pending claims when the edited footage was selected for Contessa’s piece but didn’t know the guy was black.
2b. It’s possible that the producer didn’t know about Contessa’s pending claims when the edited footage was selected for Contessa’s piece but did know the guy was black.
The probability of #1 is weak.
The probability of #1 AND #2a is weaker.
The probability of #1 AND #2b is even weaker.
Regardless, these scenarios don’t match their explanation.
Exactly.
I definitely see your point, but if the mistake was innocent (and it seems as if you believe it was), then why the heck would they release such a stupid, and misleading explanation?
One thing is for sure, they were either misleading during the segment, or they were misleading in their explanation about the segment.
Speaking of MSNBC, are they still in last?
Instead of the cone of shame, ca we put a trash bag of death to end the whole network once and for all.
So, they took footage of a black man, cropped it so that no one would know his race, and then implied he was a white guy.
Isn’t that racism?
I guess that “fake, but accurate” is policy now.
Sorry CJ,
Liberals can never be racist – they have all that guilt built up for things they never did – it imparts a moral superiority.
On South Park, that Moral superiority was said to be the cause of smug..
B-b-b-b-but they meant well!!1! Quit focusing on meaningless details, it was an innocent mix up.
/sarc
Ace of Spades HQ has links to all those who can be emailed/faxed about – ahem -
your concerns
regarding this matter….
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/291110.php
The only person with a semiautomatic rifle at that protest was “the black guy.” Tough to find a picture of “an ACTUAL white dude” with a rifle unless some of the police were carrying them.
Now, on to nit-picking time:
1. The carbine in question was not a AR-15 or an M-4 Carbine; it was a Bushmaster Carbon 16. It uses the AR-15 system, but the receiver is made of carbon fiber so it’s very light.
2. The magazine in the carbine was empty, just in case some Code Pink moron or other looney-left player thought he’d try to save Da One’s life (even though the protest was outside the venue).
3. MSNBC lied, and they knew it.
ECS
August 20th, 2009 at 6:15 pm, chapoutier said:
“I am putting my money on the professionally trained guys with the bigger toys. If the military sides with the revolters, I am again saying that the fact that the other side is or is not marginally armed is irrelevant in the face of bigger, better and many more guns and things that go boom.”
The citizens of this country are more armed and ammo’d up than ever before in our history and you can thank the clown in the WH.It seems to be the only thing good he has done.
You fail to understand history, Chaps.
The Nazis never seriously considered invading Switzerland for two complimentary reasons:
1. mountainous terrain (that never stopped them in our mountainous nations, AND
2. they knew that behind every rock might lurk a Swiss with a small arm. Not artillery. NOT massed armor. Just a rifle that they knew how to use effectively.
Bigger is not especially better. Accurate, aimed fire is better. Plus, our military is substantially made up of people who would be loath to fire on Americans who had been driven to take up arms.
It is an extremity that I am working to prevent ever eventuating.
I wonder where this story belongs on this list?
I would guess chappy believes them all
in our mountainous nations
There were a dozen people carrying guns. Maybe not a rifle. But guns.
I am trying really hard not to jump back in this topic. But…
I am not the one proposing or predicting a scenario of armed revolt against the US government. I am merely humoring it. If something like that were to happen, I seriously doubt the military or police, loathe as they might be to intervene, are going to stand on the sidelines. Whatever. It is a stupid fantasy.
And your explanation defies common sense. That would be purposely concocting a lie that is 1) totally unnecessary and 2) obviously going to be exposed.
You may think MSNBC is dumb, but they are not DUMB.
Isn’t that dog way too cute to be associated with MSNBC? Oh, that’s why he’s wearing the cone of shame….
All of this and their response seemed pretty dumb to me. Thought you were in agreement on that given your previous comment.
It’s an innocent mixup. They asked him to play a doctor at a town hall, but he wanted to be the white guy with a gun instead.
Ilove this post that was on the page Michelle linked.
But isn’t it the nature of lies, that the perpetrators always think that they won’t get caught?
It’s not as if there is a history of the MSM fabricating lies, doctoring documents, etc. to one-up the opposition. They don’t play by the rules. They take a by any means necessary approach and we’re to believe that this was just some innocent mishap?
Riiiiiiight.
You’re still speculating about their motive(s).
How about addressing their confusing response to allegations that they were being misleading? What about their unwillingness to address the cropped-out skin of the black man with the gun in the footage for a story about racist whites that carry guns to rallies?
I bet they used the footage because that rifle/sight combo looks more imposing than a holstered pistol and they thought nobody would actually notice.
MSNBC personnel affiliated with that segment are DUMB, as are MSNBC personnel and others who defend it as acceptable journalism now.
When I go to the store and see a black person, I keep rubbing my hands on my pants to make certain that my wallet is still there – because I might get mugged.
But I’m speaking in general terms.
See, MSNBC. It’s ignorant, no matter how you frame it.
I never provided an explanation.
It’s fine that you believe Contessa assumed the guy was white.
Do you also assume that the producer of the segment believed the guy was white?
During the segment Contessa makes the following statement while referring to her notes TWICE,
Then, BOTH of the other segment participants agree about the guns being a racial issue.
Now, chap, are you telling me that the producer didn’t know the direction that this segment was going to take? Are you telling me that the producer didn’t know that all three panelists were going to conclude that race was the driving factor in the “guns story?”
Or, are you telling me that the producer knew about the race angle of the segment but didn’t know that the clip of the “semi-automatic” wasn’t being carried by a white guy?
Which incredible spin is it?
Now, regardless of which you pick, why wouldn’t MSNBC simply admit their innocent mistake?
Their explanation forces me to conclude that they are DUMB!
Not expressly. You have just dismissed every other explanation but the one where they purposely cropped the shot because they knew Contessa was going to make a race argument.
Either to me seems a hell of a lot less incredible than the idea that they would knowingly use a shot of a black guy and then crop it to obscure his race when they could have just as easily shown any one of the other 11 white participants who were carrying guns.
Because they are being overly defensive. Is that really a surprise? How many times do you hear of a company pull a product and at the beginning say, “We didn’t do anything wrong, but out of an abundance of caution blah blah blah…” They would rather try to obscure the mistake with a non committal clarification and hope it goes away than admit that their TV personality said something really stupid and empirically wrong.
And even if the producer knew which way the segment was going to go, you would also have to assume the producer saw the raw, uncropped, footage. I honestly have no idea if this is SOP or not. But again, I find it a lot easier to believe there was a break somewhere in the chain that for MSNBC to try to pull off something so unnecessary and easily falsifiable.
I don’t understand your point.
In the example you gave, a company attempts to downplay a wrongdoing by claiming an innocent mistake.
In this situation, MSNBC forgoes the innocent mistake claim.
OK, fine. I disagree with you, but respect your opinion enough to be more open (I was never closed) to the possibility that this was an honest mistake by MSNBC.
It doesn’t really matter if the MSNBC team “meant to” or not. We can’t read their minds and they probably would’t tell us what happened anyway.
The MSNBC crew should apologise because they gave a false impression that could have inflamed racial tensions even further. Additionally, it does a grave disservice to the very real racial problems that do exist.
Good Night.
Uh, Chapoutier did take an oath, but it means nothing to him.
That reminds me of a story where a Nazi general visited Switzerland and observed the soldiers shooting their K31s (probably the most accurate military rifle ever) and said “You only have a million potential soldiers, what if I brought 5 million troops over the mountains?” To which the Swiss general replied, “Then each man would fire five shots and go home.”
No. In my example, they are specifically admitting no fault, even though they were, and instead are trying to do a minimum amount of damage control and hoping that will be the end of the PR embarrassment. It rarely is. But they try.
But enough of this. I think we both see where the other is coming from and merely disagree about something we can’t prove either way.
Baby, the only oath that means anything to me is the one I made to love your blessed heart til the day I die.
You took an oath to love atheling till the day you die?
The whole “hating each other with the ferocity of a thousand caged lions” is just a ruse to hide our steamy e-ffair from our respective spouses.
Even if the military sided with obama which I doubt, we are having a hard time dealing with an armed nation of Iraq. Now imagine dealing with an insurgency 10 times that size.
It was a water tainter, meant to mislead viewers into assuming all Tea Party participants are violent racists. They knew the entire footage was out there; they didn’t care. All they wanted was a chance to further prejudice viewers’ minds against the Tea Party movement.
And you know what a better, easier way to do this is? Show guys 1 through 11, the ones who were white, and simply exclude the unnecessary cropped picture. Abracadabra. Problem solved. And you saved yourself all that unnecessary cropping time and anxiety over being caught.
But not as effective at portraying Tea Partiers as potentially violent, wholly unreasonable as the out of context clip of a weapon.
Her assumption was racist. Perhaps we should start screaming “profiling!” and “racism!” like Skippy Gates…
One of my favorite sayings: Assmuption is the mother of all screw ups.
Chapoutier,
This reminds me of your argument yesterday that mentioning similarities between Hitler and Obama were done (in the case of Rush) gratuitously to evoke a visceral reaction in viewers. Trying to gin up a negative response against your opponent by association with a hated figure.
Sounds like some folks are making that same argument here against MSNBC only this time, you are on the “I can see how this wasn’t what you think” side of the argument.
In both cases, someone is using the power of suggestion to say more than the actual details alone would convey. So now the Town Hall Protesters are being “slimed,” it seems.
Zackly.
That’s what I’m saying, brother. The “that’s too dumb for them to contemplate” argument holds no water for me given the antics of the MSM from Rathergate, Eason Jordan and the “They’re killing the journalists!” and on and on.
Err…I meant listeners.
Doh! Typo alert! …Bushmaster Carbon 15.
ECS
Give me a break, I saw the footage before I learned that the guy was black and I was curious as to why the head or the hands were not shown. When I found out, I was not shocked that MSNBC did this. That was a blatant, our viewers are stupid enough to fall for anything we report. Having read your posts long enough Chap, I am not shocked that you fall for it.