Who can you trust?

Friday, August 28, 2009

Who can you trust?

Whoever you put your trust in, it shouldn't be MSNBC, the 24-hour cable news channel joint­ly owned by Microsoft and NBC Universal.

In witness whereof is offered these clips from YouTube:

Got it? Three talking air-heads raising alarums and scarums about "white people showing up with guns" carrying an "assault{sic} rifle1" out­side a Presidential event in Phoenix last week, tossing in terms like "hate groups" and "rac­ism," citing "Squeaky Fromme" and "Mark Hinckly"{sic}, then predicting that with all the anger in the country, someone going to try to "hurt the President."

(The talking head of color who probably wasn't born at the time of John Lennon's murder or the attempt on President Rea­gan's life, needs, among other things, a crash course on his lone gunmen.)

Okay, the three idiots blathering are bad enough, but let's look for a moment at that "white person who showed up with his guns," whose image MSNBC had closely cropped to show just his firearms.

ABC's affiliate incorrectly captioned its cover­age, citing a "machine gun," but they had that "white man" speaking on camera... and did you notice?

He's not even close to being "white!"

Now I don't care about the firearms aspect2 of this matter so much as I care about the deceptions and outright lies perpetrated by Big Media on a routine basis.

NBC News has a long and dishonor­able history of this sort of viewer fraud, most notably Date­line NBC's November 1992 rigged crash tests.

Who is the actual culprit is another matter.

The three morons on camera?

Probably not... they are just stupid and ill-informed, and trying to fill broadcast space.

I'd be looking at the producers and the video-tape editors who framed the footage in such a way as to not reveal that the man with the guns was black.

Either way, MSNBC in particular and Big Media in general, are not to be trusted!

  1. "Assault" is an action, not an object.
  2. My longtime friend and frequent OtBB Commenter "HW," is in a snit and self-imposed exile because he was unsuc­cessful in goading me into arguing with him about this.


1. Matlynn Carville said...

Agreed. Speaking of hair-on-fire extreme and obnoxious news views, albeit from the opposite perspective, I cannot abide FOX cable news either.

I think the days of 24 all the news all the time long have run out of valid material. Shut 'em down. Ugh!

Fine by me! I dislike "shrill," and I have z-e-r-o tolerance for talking airheads talking all over one another, no matter what their slant.

2. Ray Overton said...

Comment #1 - Carrying any kind of firearm near the POTUS is plain and simply stupid and a good way to get yourself killed. As my dad constantly reminds me, there's right and then there's dead right. This is a good way to end up dead right.

Comment #2 as far as the media, there job is to create sensational entertainment that draws viewers, increasing their Nielsen ratings and their advertising revenue. Without that revenue, NBC cannot afford to pay talking heads Matt Lauer ($13 mil per year), Brian Williams ($10 mil plus per year), Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann (each $5 mil plus per year). The terms media and journalism should not be confused. The former has grown signficantly while the latter has become less important and more illegitimate.

R#1: what you and so many others have failed to grasp is that any threat to the Executive is assessed and addressed by the Secret Service which has ultimate authority in such matters. This would not have transpired had USSS not been aware of it, and deemed it to not be a threat.

R#2: I concur in all respects save that "journalism has become ... more illegitimate." Actual journalism may decrease in relevance, but it will never be "illegitimate."
– Dean

3. Ray Overton said...

I will agree if real journalism was still being taught. It doesn't matter whether it's The New York Times or The East Hampton Star, true balanced investigative journalism where the end of the story is not written before the assignment is ever given out seems to have totally disappeared. Whenever this topic is broached, all I can remember is the scene in Absence of Malice where Wilford Brimley lectures Sally Field and Paul Newman on both the rights granted to the media in Bill of Rights and the media's responsibility to exercise those rights appropriately.

As far as the guy with the assault rifle in close proximity to the President, I can almost guarantee a SS sniper had him in his sights at all times and if he had made a single wrong move with that weapon at any point in time he would have been taken out in an instant. The comments of Mr. Brimley's character were appropriate to these folks as they exercised their rights.

That was a star-making turn for blacksmith-turned-actor Brimley, and the scene is on YouTube in two parts. (The "you people in the press" speech is in Part 2.)

Again, "assault" is a behavior, not an inanimate object, not matter how scary-looking to the uninitiated. To persist in talking about "assault rifles" (for over 75 years a heavily-regulated firearm with a specific definition) and "assault weapons" (a Big Media invention, circa 1989, when Big Media discovered what an "assault rifle" really was) is a by-product of the condition known as enuresis ignavius.
– Dean

Email address is not published
Remember Me

Write the characters in the image above