Re: Quoth the Meter
To be clear about my description of the PolitiFact process, as it’s been described to me in limited detail, I have to adjust Monique’s paraphrase.
My understanding is that a board exists to determine what facts should be examined and what the Truth-o-Meter should read. Presumably, those two decisions are not made at the same time. It’s an assumption on my part, but I take it that the board assigns a statement to a reporter to research and then, with gathered information in hand, judges its truthfulness and tells the reporter what conclusion to justify for publication.
Of course, evidence of the final results is suggestive of a practice in which the intervening research tends to affirm the a priori political preferences of the board, but declaring that to be the case goes a bit beyond the insight that I’ve been given.
Correction made.
Further to the original subject, some concepts recently in the national news suggest themselves as a way to bring some badly needed reform to PolitiFact.
PolitiFact is clearly a state, not a private, resource which is being misused (right, Michael M?). Accordingly, it should be seized and correctly redirected. Anchor Rising graciously offers to take the reins.
We would be compensated for the considerable work of PROPERLY researching statements via the same funding mechanism as NPR: taxation. You will be relieved to hear that our salaries will not exceed those paid at any other taxpayer funded organization.
Finally, arrangements will be made to prevent an A.R. repeat of the Ron Schiller incident. Sure, we’ll continue to eschew wildly uninformed and delusional statements about organizations with which we disagree. But to be on the safe side (look at his portrait: Donald is clearly a powder keg waiting to blow), potential donators joining us for lunch will be required to undergo a thorough security screening to ensure that they are not carrying any recording devices that could later provide material
accurate aboutembarassing to Rhode Island’s “premier conservative blog”.Monique, in regards to the NPR issue have you heard the unedited tapes and does O’Keefe really have any credibility at all? His ethics and his editing skills leave alot to be desired.
3R, what specific complaints do you have about O’Keefe’s methods? They seem identical to other sting or candid camera operations televised widely in the past.
BobN. Have you seen the edited version of this and his last stunt with the sex boat should lead people to question his sanity and credibility.
BobN. Have you seen the edited version of this and his last stunt with the sex boat should lead people to question his sanity and credibility.
BobN. Have you seen the edited version of this and his last stunt with the sex boat should lead people to question his sanity and credibility.
BobN. Have you seen the edited version of this and his last stunt with the sex boat should lead people to question his sanity and credibility.
The tape doesn’t lie Richard. Unedited or not, there is plenty of bias material. You may not like his tactics but it’s nothing that other journalists haven’t used. He just turned it back on the so called unbiased media. Maybe your problem is he’s attacking your politics.
Sorry about the multiple posts. I have never listened to one minute of NPR. but I did read the Blaze and found their comments on O’Keefe and the controversy to be very interesting but i am sure they have some liberal bias. Does anyone approve of his loveboat sexshack attempt.
The problem of this kind of so-called journalism is that it starts with a lie. Can you believe a reporter after they have lied to gain access? I include the “work” done by the person who conducted the phone interview with the Wisconsin Governor saying he was David Koch in this category.
So undercover cops or federal agents can never have credibility because they lie about their identity? I know there is a difference. One swears to uphold the laws and Constitution but the tactic is no different. Why is credibility an issue when Schiller is recorded showing his bias to total strangers. I just think we’re all to ready to attack the messenger when the message is clear. NPR is living a lie on our dime.
Are you talking about entrapment?
Phil-before you get into entrapment,it’s a very specific defense-actually it’s an affirmative defense in a criminal case,meaning you must prove it-the state has no burden.
In simple terms,entrapment means that a person is pressured to commit an offense they had no predisposition to commit.
Merely providing an opportunity to commit an offense,including enticement to do so,is not entrapment.
I actuall saw entrapment used successfully twice in 27 years of state and federal law enforcement time.Once here in RI on a multiple drug delivery case-the defense attorney was Walter Stone and he did a damn good job.
Even though I was o the arrest team I had toadmire his conduct of the case.
BTW he never acused the police of entrapment,but rather the informant.
3R, why didn’t you answer the question I asked you and merely tried to change the subject with more of your baseless assertions? Don’t you have an answer?
Obviously the only thing Phil knows about “entrapment” is the spelling.
Your pointy-headed liberal “thought leaders” got punked fair and square, and you guys can’t deal with the truth.
Every “gotcha” interview by Katie Couric or the fraudsters on NPR or 60 Minutes begins with a lie – a question whose premises are so outrageously false that it is impossible to answer politely. And they go downhill from there into full-on attack mode. The mistake most interviewees make is to try treating it with the respect it doesn’t deserve. Just like the comments from the Lefties on this blog.
Most of the leftists in RI,and I would guess elsewhere start off with assertions from the gutter-screeching about “racists”,”Brown people”etc so they try to put you on the defensive. I’ve sen this tactic used by Peter Asen,Pat Crowley,and some others particularly against Terry Gorman and others who don’t kiss their asses on the immigration issue. We see it right here on AR,and so I have a tendency to give it back,sometimes being proactive and doing so in advance(that may sound illogical but I think you know what I mean)and it goes way beyond the immigration question. It also surfaces on the same sex marriage dispute.Once you’re accused of racism,bigotry,or fascism,why bother debating? The mainstream media has a problem with this also. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen as rude,miserable a person as Chris Matthews when it comes to interviews. Even Lawrence O’Donnell isn’t as bad and he’s an avowed socialist.O’Donnell is very aggressive,but Matthews has a slimy,lying out his ass quality unmatched by anyone I can think of. Olbermann and Ed Schultz don’t really do interviews. Maddow relies on being smarmy and too clever by half,but none of them come near Matthews-I just would like to see someone he’s pulling his act on put his nose through the back of his head. The 60 Minutes people frequently slant the whole process so the interviewee is immediately on the defensive. The whole aftermath of the Tucson shooting rampage is a classic example of leftist manipulation of the truth(lying) regarding a particular event. I have noticed that in informal exchanges with leftists that I’ve had,particularly Jerzyk,Pichardo,and their crew they try to put words in your mouth or attempt to get you to to fall for word trickery.You have to be very cognizant of the “game” when dealing with these people.Kinda like what… Read more »
Bobn I referred you to the blaze article for a very specific list of what was wrong with this. There are some major gaps in the tape and many of the answers are not really as they appear if you see the unedited version. The question is stll out there for you to answer about okeefe and his sexboat caper. Furthermore could you please provide some examples of the lies Katie couric used to get those gotcha interviews started. Even if that assumption is true does that make it okay for okeefe to do .
Sorry, Richard, I’m too busy to follow your breadcrumb trail. Why don’t you just say what you mean?
You didn’t even have the decency to specify which Blaze article.
To lazy Bobbin to check story out and to lazy to provide proof of the lies used by Katie Couric in those gotcha interviews you wrote about.
To lazy Bobbin to check story out and to lazy to provide proof of the lies used by Katie Couric in those gotcha interviews you wrote about.
That’s busy, punk. Don’t project your leftist slacker attitude on me.
I shall respond to you as you did to me: spend an hour watching 60 Minutes or Meet the Depressed and if you don’t see what I’m talking about it will only be because you don’t want to see it.
O’Keefe provided the unedited version so I guess he wasn’t trying to hide anything. What part of bias media living a lie on the taxpayers dime is not evident from the unedited version.
Hey BobbiN no need to get all keyboard warrior. I have seen Katie couric and meet the press. If you are saying she lacks credibility or that she lies in gotcha interviews then be specific and factual. I pointed out an entire article in a right wing website that clearly questions okeefe methods and creditability. If that is to much work for you to do then you are just lazy. No one has answered my first question about Okeefe and his sex boat escapde. That alone should give him a zero on the creditable scale. My guess is that your not lazy but you don’t want to face the fact that he us a hack . Now commence the attack.
I read the Blaze article. While it raises some issues of fairness, it does not dispute that the most outrageous statements made by Schiller and his colleague about the Republicans and the Tea Party were their own views and accurately quoted. The catch-all disclaimer “this is not the company’s opinion but my own” is a reflexive statement in such situations – and while it may be his own opinion, consistent listening to NPR indicates that nearly all of his colleagues on the air share those opinions. So you may not like O’Keefe’s methods but his results are inarguable. The key points made in his expose are valid.
I wonder if you object equally strenuously to Michael Moore and Spike Lee, whose editorial antics are far more outrageous. If so, perhaps you would like to condemn them publicly here.
Spike Lee actually has made some really good films.He’s an a**hole,but talented.
Michael Moore is a blivet.I doubt he’d even be worth two cents as an organ donor.He should give it a try however.