Unrepentant Olbermann Refuses to Correct False Report
Keith Olbermann's slander of Bill O'Reilly was first reported by Olbermann Watch and this site. It was further advanced by TV Newser, who pointed out additional errors in Keith's "reporting". But on his Thursday night show, Olbermann ignored journalistic ethics and refused to correct his smear. Instead, he turned his fire on O'Reilly again, doubling down with a new, and dubious, tirade.
In comments first reported here, Bill O'Reilly talked about how NBC had offered him more money than Fox, but he chose to stay with FNC. This was too much for Olbermann:
I checked with the relevant bosses...The "relevant bosses"? No names? Nobody willing to go on the record to back up Olbermann on this?
...whose memory of this was like mine, sometime in 1999, more likely 2000 or 2001...Um, do you think you could vague that up a little, Keith?
...NBC made an informal overture to O‘Reilly, like if you ever want to leave, let us know. No offer, no money figure, no ton, and now he thinks we attack him every day because he wouldn‘t come work here.Aha, did you catch that last bit? O'Reilly never said that! But that's a handy way for Keith to divert from what has to be an embarrassing fact: NBC wanted to hire Bill O'Reilly.
How much credibility should we give Keith's claim that there was never a money figure involved? How much credibility should we give anything Olbermann says about Fox News? He was just caught in a whopper about Bill O'Reilly and won't even air a correction. And it's not like this is something new. The falsehoods and outright lies Keith Olbermann has spewed about FNC are legion. Here are just a few, with documentation linked:
- Olbermann lies about Liz Claman and Alexis Glick.
- Falsely asserts a Bin Laden tape was leaked to Fox.
- Ignoring video, insists O'Reilly ordered Jane Hall's mic cut off.
- Calls O'Reilly "liar" based on disingenuous blog posting.
- Fabricates and rewrites an O'Reilly interview with Nancy Soderberg.
- Concocts Fox "report" out of thin air.
- Invents nonexistent Fox News "quote" and imaginary "fervor".
- Falsifies his own words to justify lying about John Gibson.
- Attacks Brit Hume by taking quote about one event and attaching it to a different one.
- Repeatedly lies about nonexistent "doctoring" of Fox transcript.
- Slams O'Reilly for something he never said.
- Lifts unverified blog story on O'Reilly comment, errors and all.
A good reporter may encounter a tip, or two, or five, in a day’s time. He has to check them all out before publishing or reporting. --Keith Olbermann fox news bor ko
Ashley
and the ethically-challenged heads of MSNBC just let this crap continue from K"C"O.
Great job laying out the fact J$.
July 25, 2008, 2:23:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply
chris
not defending keith but bill said in the video u posted towards the end "nbc news attacks me everyday"-just listen to the clip again if u dont believe me
July 25, 2008, 3:01:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
I know he said that. But he didn't say "nbc news attacks me everyday because I didn't come to work for them". Did he?
July 25, 2008, 3:05:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply
chris
in the video clip at: 6:15 in the clip oreilly does say "now nbc attacks me everyday" so this part: he thinks we attack him every day because he wouldnt come work here.
Aha, did you catch that last bit? O'Reilly never said that! is not true!!
point: Bill actually did say: "nbc news attacks me everyday"
July 25, 2008, 3:08:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Point: Bill did not actually say "because I wouldn't come to work there." Which was the "last bit". I think the boldfacing makes that clear.
July 25, 2008, 3:21:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Dollar's post proves the Olbermann and Newshounds are made out of the same cloth. People who professed to be worried about accuracy and balance in the news should go after MSNBC before they even think about going after anyone else. Those accuracy and balance advocates who don't just demonstrate their extreme hypocrisy.
July 25, 2008, 5:47:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Ashley
That is so true. They whine and complain about Fox lying and being in the tank for Repubs, but clearly they are the ones lying and they are SOOOOOO in the tank for Obama.
July 25, 2008, 6:00:58 PM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
I caught just enough of Olbermann to see him pounding the poll numbers down his minions throat. When obamas numers are down, they don't get a single second of his time. As soon as even an obscure poll shows obama one point up, it's top billing. He's as predictable as snow in the Sierras! What a hack! :-:
July 25, 2008, 8:40:05 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Fox Fan
From the few times I've stomached Olbermann (never for more than a few minutes, blecch), I conclude that he's a hyperpartisan blowhard who kisses his own photograph while venemously spitting at people bigger than him.
Based on what I read about him here, he's the anti-Christ.
Reality is likely somewhere in between.
July 25, 2008, 10:22:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply
The Factor
HA!! Face it Keith, the only reason why MSDNC has your carnival barker act on is because O'Reilly told NBC to take a long walk off a short pier. Without Bill O'Reilly, there would be no Keith Olbermann.
July 25, 2008, 10:28:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply
vstol
Another mistake on NH that What's His Name concurs with:
Chrish-"Not clear from the report is the fact that the visit was cancelled at Pentagon request."
Despite posting the facts that disprove the above claim several times, the only response has been I've been "put on delete," without comment or reason.
I don't think they like me....or is it the truth they can't handle?
July 26, 2008, 12:38:06 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Jack Nicholson could answer that for you.
July 26, 2008, 12:41:07 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Fox Fan,
I would not call Keith the anti-Christ, but to say that he is the same as Newshounds is intself fairly damning.
July 26, 2008, 1:07:59 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
The "pentagon" story was debunked a long time ago and the minions in the dog pound refuse to accept anything other than what their fearful leaders tell them. The Pentagon said no three ring circus and obama chose not to go w/out his 300+ press secretaries. Yea, he really supports our troops. Not!
July 26, 2008, 1:08:54 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
"the Pentagon won't let Obama visit the troops but we'll memory hole that"-Carol McCain's abandoner
jr | 07.26.08 - 12:14 am | #
The MOST recent post on the thread.
July 26, 2008, 1:13:58 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
jr is patsy, by the way. He has to bring up McCains ex 15 to 20 times a day.
July 26, 2008, 1:15:21 AM EDT – Like – Reply
T Ghost
Johnny why not "link" to the fact that Scott McClellan said the WH gave Fox commenters talking points? Oh I know why. Because he said it on MSNBC and it ruins your defense that FOX is Fair and Balanced.
July 26, 2008, 6:41:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply
vstol
T Ghost | 07.26.08 - 6:46 am
1. Supply your own link.
2. McClellan has an arrangement with NBC/MSNBC
3. Fox needs no defense, their record and ratings are available for all to see and judge for themselves.
4. McClellan "seperated out," made a "distinction" between commentators and journalists. A distinction that NBC/MSNBC does not make when covering elections.
July 26, 2008, 7:23:41 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
"and the minions in the dog pound refuse to accept anything other than what their fearful leaders tell them."
T Ghost | 07.26.08 - 6:46 am | #
As I was saying.....
July 26, 2008, 9:28:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Jeez, I linked to the video of Olbermann's whole segment on it. What more am I supposed to do, provide McClellan's home address?
Oh and it doesn't "ruin" anything. As McClellan said, both sides funnel information to friendly pundits. The fact that Hannity would be a target is hardly news. Neither does his 30 minutes significantly alter the overall balance of a 24-hour news channel.
July 26, 2008, 9:29:36 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
McClellan is so detestable.
he goes on the most extreme political show in all the United States to reveal this information, which normal sane people have no problem understanding the nature of, but that we all know the Lefties will pavlovianly rant and rave about it for the next 75 years.
July 26, 2008, 10:14:10 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Chromium
Johnny:
I think the uncorrected WPITW award to O'Reilly about Florida taxes is so bad that you should start a count-UP clock about it on Olbermann Watch (so many days uncorrected). Sort of a smear-o-meter log.
July 26, 2008, 10:56:10 AM EDT – Like – Reply
John
They finally found a proper place for Keith in the world of TV journalism last night, introducing a segment on "The Soup", which also explains what he was doing out in California this week. Too bad they couldn't get Olby into that bikini or he could have had a part in the Brittany Spears segment as well.
July 26, 2008, 11:04:43 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> start a count-UP clock about it on Olbermann Watch (so many days uncorrected).
I like the idea! I'll have to talk to Mr Cox (who runs the site) about it.
July 26, 2008, 11:08:56 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Mark
I was pleased that McClellan put the matter of the distibution to FNC and the parroting of by FNC (the "night people," not the news people) Administration talking points. Many, perhaps most people knew this was happening, but the inevitable "prove it" always got blurted out. This really advances our discussions. In the US, we are not accustomed to an "aligned network". As long as we denied such a network existed, we could not deal with the formulation of ethical standards for such a network. Now that, at a minimum, the burden of proof has shifted, we can deal with the reality head-on. It should be a most engaging and useful conversation and it will mark the legitimate emergence of a new media form. Perhaps, we will have more aligned networks. Excellent prospects ahead.
July 26, 2008, 11:36:36 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Which network is the 'aligned' network? Since McClellan says this is done on both sides, that would tell us there is more to the story. And how does providing information to one or two people who account for at most 90 minutes of a program schedule mean that an entire network would be 'aligned'? What about the rest of the programming? What about the people who get information fed to them from the other side?
Sometimes it's helpful to use a little critical thinking before accepting spin.
PS: Mark, I notice that while we had our Olbermann articles at the top of the page, you were absent and did not comment. Now that neither of them is at the top, you are back. I really missed your insight on those pieces and look forward to hearing your comment on them.
July 26, 2008, 11:48:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply
steve
vstol | 07.26.08 - 12:43 am | #
I saw the article on NH you're talking about vstol, I thought about commenting but figured it wasn't worth my time since my comment would probably be deleted. Not sure what you corrected, was it the fact that the foxnews report did include the point about the pentagon's rules (Chrish conveniently didn't link to the article) or was it the fact that the pentagon didn't request that the visit be cancelled, they just had certain rules in place that Obama didn't care for?
July 26, 2008, 11:51:23 AM EDT – Like – Reply
SteveMG
In the US, we are not accustomed to an "aligned network". As long as we denied such a network existed, we could not deal
Aligned network?
You're extrapolating from a commentator or commentators on a network who reportedly received information from the White House to indicting the entire network as being "aligned".
The source for this report also said that the news people for that network were completely professional and objective.
Who doesn't know that commentators that appear on a networks are "aligned"?
Item: A recent study showed that reporters (most of them freelancers) for the major news organization gave upwards of 10-1 and 15-1 more money to Democrats than Republicans.
Does that show that the organizations they work for are "aligned" because the people working for them are Democrats?
Of course not.
Of course not.
July 26, 2008, 11:54:57 AM EDT – Like – Reply
SteveMG
Sorry, my error.
J$ made my points and I completely missed it.
July 26, 2008, 11:57:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
Do not apologize, SteveMG. It's always nice to see evidence that the old truism is accurate: great minds do think alike.
July 26, 2008, 11:58:31 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
"What about the people who get information fed to them from the other side?"
If you think 'mark' will look at both sides of an argument, you're crazy. Anyone whio watches Colmes would see he is spoon fed. That chick that moved to Nebraska, married a senatorial candidate, gained 100 lbs. The one that used to smile with glee when yelling "3000 needless deaths" all the time? Jane Flemming. She was spoon fed, as well. Olbermann? LOL! He's nothing more than a spoon fed hack.
July 26, 2008, 12:06:15 PM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
"Item: A recent study showed that reporters (most of them freelancers) for the major news organization gave upwards of 10-1 and 15-1 more money to Democrats than Republicans."
Good point, steve. I remember the survey.
July 26, 2008, 12:08:19 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
I betcha that every single one of those reporters gets talking points from the party they gave money to. I know I get emails with talking points, and I am not a reporter.
Although Chris tried very hard to make McC;lellan surrender "revelations" that are specific to Fox, McClellan would not go along with it. (BTW: the hardball interview is available on Your Tube). Basically, all McClellan said was that people on the left and right try to influence pundits and commentators who agree with them (not just as Fox). Wow! No kidding!
Although Chris denies sanctimoniously that he has ever seen a talking point, he is obviously lying through his teeth. Of course, he has seen press releases with talking points. He gets them all the time. He really doesn't give his audience much credit for intelligence, thinking that they would believe a whopper like that one,
Now that the Obama camp knows that Chris gets a tingling feeling on his leg when he is near Obama, I am sure that he will be no stranger to press releases and talking points generated by the Obama camp, and that the Obama camp will do every thing they can to influence him (see McClellan interview).
The ironic thing is that Chris is a supposedly a journalist and not a commentator. If anything, this whole affair proves that MSNBC is thoroughly aligned with Obama, but it proves next to nothing about Fox.
July 26, 2008, 12:48:08 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
"Jane Flemming"
Oh.. Chesty McTalkingPoints.
July 26, 2008, 1:03:03 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Jvette
What KO and others who hate FNC fail to mention is that though Hannity is a great defender of President Bush, he has on numerous occasions expressed a difference of opinion with the WH and Republicans in Congress. Two prime examples....The immigration reform and spending.
He is a conservative and like most of us conservatives he tends more toward the Republicans than Democrats. But, he has been very vocal when he opposes the "Republican" position, especially if it is just Democratic Lite.
MSNBC should worry about their own bias and partisan hacks. Apparently their obsession with all things Fox hasn't added to their ratings. Maybe if they weren't all such juvenile punks, they would get more viewers.
July 26, 2008, 3:00:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply
vstol
My latest deletes at NH:
I understand now why I was "put on delete."
The entire report is founded on the Fox News website report failing to make clear "the fact that the visit was cancelled at Pentagon request."
If it's proven that the Pentagon never requested that the visit be cancelled, the entire thread is mute and NH is once again shown that it posts inaccurate reports.
Censorship at its best.
vstol | 07.26.08 - 3:21 am
vstol | 07.26.08 - 11:28 am
July 26, 2008, 3:35:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mark
Johnny:
I skip over Olbermann articles for the most part. I truly dislike and and direspect the man, so I find little to interest me. Also, I so seldom watch him, that I don't think that I have much to offer. I did, however, return to the States early yesterday, after a horrible ordeal at EWR, and watched Ingraham in place of O'Reilly. I feel I could comment on that, but beyond "critical, negative whiner who needs to open her mouth when she is speaking", I can't imagine I would have much to offer.
I would like to know the specifics about the "others" from McClellan, however. I hope somebody follows up with that. I doubt it would amount to the FNC alignment with the Administration (as McClellan established) and the RNC (as seems obvious), but I would welcome being surprised.
July 26, 2008, 4:12:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
I doubt it would amount to the FNC alignment with the Administration (as McClellan clearly established is not the case) and the RNC (as seems dubious), but I would welcome being surprised.
Mark | 07.26.08 - 4:17 pm | #
FIXED!!!!
July 26, 2008, 4:34:29 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
You can keep claiming McClellan said FNC is aligned with the administration. You can say it five, ten, fifty times if you like. But that isn't what he said. So please try to be careful to distinguished the alleged behavior of one or two people with an entire news channel. McClellan was careful enough to make the distinction. You should too.
And as for the Olbermann articles you habitually "skip over" (including the ones at Olbermann fan sites you have frequented?), perhaps you could indulge a whim and read the two Olbermann articles we posted here over the past few days. Just this once, make an exception from your avoidance of all things Olbermann. I'm sure the readers here would be interested in your reactions.
July 26, 2008, 4:35:01 PM EDT – Like – Reply
david smawley
Mark concludes his first paragraph with " I can't imagine I would have much to offer." I agree with you Mark.
July 26, 2008, 4:39:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Mark,
You really should listen to the interview. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_PW7MxZJkM
Matthews tried hard to get McClellan to say the administration was scripting Fox commentary. That is exactly what McClellan did not say. All he said was that many groups are out there trying to influence commentators to their point of view.
I mean that is really shocking. Wow!
Frankly, if you listen to what he said and not what your liberal leaders are telling you he said, you would realize that he said absolutely nothing about Fox specifically.
Comeon. Is anything he said new to you? You didn't realize that all sorts of organizations try to influence people to their beliefs. You didn't realize that all sorts of organizations put out talking points and distribute them to anyone who will listen.
Get real Mark. Think an observe for yourself. Quit parroting liberal talking points and quit believing everything liberal propagandists tell you.
July 26, 2008, 4:47:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mark
Thank you, Danny, but I watched the interview twice. I listened particularly carefully the second time, because I was so surprised the first time. My understanding is informed and reasonable. Perhaps, you heard something you didn't like and have developed a theory which supports your own view. It is distinctly possible. Since I am not an apologist for FNC, it may just be possible my view is the correct one. I appreciate your advice, however.
July 26, 2008, 5:01:34 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mark
Out of deference to you, Johnny, I read the two articles. And? A "he said - he said" exchange between two despicable, egomanical twits, conducted through intermediaries .... That certainly adds to the level of discourse, doesn't it? Guess what? I don't believe O'Reilly. I don't believe Olbermann. This isn't an either-or matter, and it is a matter of less than the slightest interest to me. If O'Reilly got in a sailboat and fell off the edge of the Earth screaming he was right about the Earth not being round, my life would be impacted not in the least. If Olbermann spontaneously exploded on the air one night, I wouldn't know until some person lacking a meaniningful life criticized the direction in which his head flew and I wouldn't care. The O-Reilly-Olbermann crap is old, tired and pointless.
July 26, 2008, 5:12:40 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> I don't believe O'Reilly. I don't believe Olbermann.
It doesn't matter who you believe. It only matters if Olbermann lied, or reported erroneously about O'Reilly words. And whether Olbermann should therefore issue a retraction or a apology.
This is an issue of honesty in reporting pure and simple. Can you possibly find the inner strength to admit that Olbermann at the very least broadcast a false story about O'Reilly and he should therefore correct it?
It seems to me you are very exercised over opinion commentators agreeing with the White House, and not at all bothered by an alleged journalist who broadcasts false reports and doesn't correct them. Do you think you could summon up the will to comment on Olbermann's false story and whether he should correct it? Because as the videos show, there is no doubt that it was a false story, regardless of whom you "believe".
July 26, 2008, 5:20:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Mark,
I can't prove that you didn't hear the interview, but there is no way that you LISTENED to the interview.
No there is also absolutely no possibility that your view is the correct one. Words do mean things and there is no way that you could have gotten what you said out of McClellan's actual words.
Matthews tried very hard to get McClellan to dish dirt on Fox and he would not play along. He really did not say anything that was specific to Fox or that any non-ignorant person already knows. Of course organizations put out press releases and talking points. Of course, organizations try to influence people who they think agree with them. Many organizations have Public Relations departments. So much so, that public relations is a discipline taught by many Universities. That is the kind of thing they d
Refer me to the place in the interview where McClellan once said that even Fox commentators use the administration public relations material verbatim. He never said it. He made no startling revelations. He really only belabored the obvious.
You are outraged over the wrong things. You should be outraged over the fact that leg tingling Matthews (who unlike the people that McClellan spoke of holds himself out to be a journalist, not a commenter) tried to throw a cheap shot at a competing network who is beating his a$.
And you should be outraged over the fact that Matthews in his attack, he told a bald faced lie. The possible future Democratic nominee for the senate has never seen that crap (meaning talking points)?
give me a break!!!
July 26, 2008, 5:22:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Mark,
Also, I have totally rebutted your initial post. I have been very specific as to why I am sure that McClellan did not say what you said he did and why there is no possible way that you are correct "in your view" (as you put it) If you think you can show me where McClellan said anywhere in the interview that "Fox is aligned with the administration" . . . if you make an argument.
However, I suggest that you quit mindlessly repeating the same points over and over again . . . as if they had not been rebutted.
If you continue to do what you are doing people might think that you have adopted the "big lie" theory of propagandizing. And people might suspect you of being a Stalinist or a Nazi.
It would be bad if someone here were to write a comment at Olbermann's site that you are a Stalinist or a Nazi, wouldn't it?
July 26, 2008, 5:34:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mark
By all means, Johnny, Olbermann should issue a retraction. That's a tough call. Any other retractions in order, you suppose? Certainly not from Doocy, Carlson, O'Reilly or Hannity, I mean. Any from people who don't share their views, I mean?
Off-topic politics Edited By Siteowner
July 26, 2008, 6:07:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
No, Mark You are neither dazzling me with your brilliance or baffling me with your BS.
I have rebutted (probably that is not strong enough . . . totally refuted is better) everything you said in your original post. Either muster some kind of intelligent counter argument (which I would really like to see) or just admit that you really have nothing thoughtful to say on this subject and that you will cede the floor to people who do.
In any case cut out the extraneous BS and the mindless parotting.
That would satisfy me.
BTW: Unlike you, I have never called anyone any names . . . certainly not at the Olbermann site.
July 26, 2008, 6:29:30 PM EDT – Like – Reply
david smawley
Danny, here's the problem with trying to engage Mark, he is not interested in what you think or say. He is here to trash FoxNews and the people who appear on the network. He has an agenda and it is to dismiss folks like us that are FoxNews fans and apologists - his words.
If I were you I would ignore him and engage others who are interested in a fair exchange of ideas.
Keep this George Bernard Shaw quote in mind: "I learned long ago, not to wrestle with a pig, you get dirty and besides, the pig likes it".
July 26, 2008, 6:48:50 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mark
Yes, Danny, you are the Master of the Civility and the Prince of Humility. Please never think otherwise. And, you are absolutely correct, McClellan's unequivocal "feed to Fox News pundits" and his repeated stuttering "I think" with reference to other networks and personalities, without naming the networks or the personalities, are squarely on the same footing. I know when I say, "John Wilkes Booth shot President Lincoln at the Ford Theatre.," and "I think Mrs. O'Leary's cow started the Chicago fire.," I am speaking with the same force and authority, the same certitude and clarity. But, then, context, tone and vocabulary ought count for nothing.
July 26, 2008, 6:51:23 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mark
Did Shaw not also say:
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.,"
or would that be too troubling to consider, David?
July 26, 2008, 6:57:43 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Vince P
Off-topic political reply Edited By Siteowner
July 26, 2008, 6:57:47 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mark
Off-topic political reply Edited By Siteowner
July 26, 2008, 7:00:17 PM EDT – Like – Reply
johnny dollar
> Doocy, Carlson, O'Reilly or Hannity
What in the wide world of sports does that have to do with Olbermann. Of course each of those persons has issued apologies and corrections for mistakes made. So your point is not only irrelevant, it is counter-productive. Geez, there's only so much disingenuousness I can take and I think I've had my fill for the day.
July 26, 2008, 7:02:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply
david smawley
Oink Mark, I got your attention and the attention of those who can see through the smoke you throw up here.
July 26, 2008, 7:04:36 PM EDT – Like – Reply
david smawley
must take my own advise and engage other folks on this site.
July 26, 2008, 7:06:25 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mark
Then, let me be very clear, expressing this is in the simplest, shortest terms, Johnny: OLBERMANN OUGHT TO ISSUE A RETRACTION!
I hope that helps in some small measure.
July 26, 2008, 7:13:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
And, you are absolutely correct, McClellan's unequivocal "feed to Fox News pundits" and his repeated stuttering "I think" with reference to other networks and personalities, without naming the networks or the personalities, are squarely on the same footing.
Mark,
Hilariously, you are making my my point for me. Obviously, you did not not LISTEN to the interview.
No he was not unequivocal when he uttered the words "feed to Fox News pundits." In fact he never uttered those words at all.
McClellan was not unequivocal or stuttering when he spoke of sharing talking points and telling sympathetic people "where we are coming from." (what i put in quotations is a direct quote.) McClellan was not stuttering or equivocal when he indicated that service was supplied to people of all networks.
What McClellan describes are the activities of any good Public Relations department. I find that funny that you would in any way think those kind of activities are surprising . . . much less shocking or revelatory.
The closest thing anyone said to your quoted words is Chris Matthews. He said no one ever "fed me that crap". In context, this opinionated news man (distinctions between news and commenters more defined at Fox according to McClelland) crap means talking points and telling where the influencer is coming from.
What Chris said is a Bald faced lie. On that you should be outraged.
July 26, 2008, 7:26:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Yes, Danny, you are the Master of the Civility and the Prince of Humility.
You are right Mark. Compared to you I am.
July 26, 2008, 7:47:49 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Mark
No purpose will be served by carrying forward this dialogue, Danny. You are simply ignoring the clear meaning of the Matthews piece and are in a state of deep denial. My (unsolicited) advice to you, Danny, would be save denial for the big issues in life. A cable news network hardly warrants such concern.
A good evening, and a wondrous Sunday, I hope.
July 26, 2008, 8:48:45 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Danny
Mark,
You have demonstrated that YOU haven't really LISTENED to the interview in question.
You have demonstrated that you don't know what was really said in the interview in question.
You have demonstrated a woeful ignorance of ordinary PR activities.
You can't make an cogent, thoughtful argument to support "your view." The only way you can even pretend to defend your position is to quote words that were never uttered.
And yet you want to accuse me of ignoring things and of being in denial when you have no logic or facts to substantiate your assertions.
It is you who is ignoring the clear meaning of McClellan's words. Preferring not to think and observe for yourself, you would rather retreat into the Matrix like dream world that your propaganda leaders have spun for you.
Have a nice sleepy Sunday yourself. Don't worry about facts and logic.
Dream on!!
July 26, 2008, 9:34:21 PM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
To think 'mark' claims to be a sitting judge. :?:
July 26, 2008, 11:09:31 PM EDT – Like – Reply
Guest
Olby Sucks,
"To think 'mark' claims to be a sitting judge.
olby sucks | 07.26.08 - 11:14 pm |"
I missed that completely. Could you fill me in a bit?
August 2, 2008, 11:51:28 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Guest
Sorry!
The above was by me, Grammie. I guess when I switched to Fire Fox I lost my info here.
August 2, 2008, 11:53:01 AM EDT – Like – Reply
olby sucks
"To think 'mark' claims to be a sitting judge.
olby sucks | 07.26.08 - 11:14 pm |"
I missed that completely. Could you fill me in a bit?
Anonymous | 08.02.08 - 11:56 am | #
It was a while back, Grammie. She claimed to be a "public servant/ judge", had been to every single dnc convention since the beginning of time, rubbed shoulders with everybody who is somebody (democrat, of course), bla, bla, bla.
August 2, 2008, 2:04:02 PM EDT – Like – Reply
