The Bizarre Story Of A USDA Worker

Remove all ads!

Have a nice day, T2.

Shep Smith called out his own network for their part in the story:

Here's more:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/shep...d-website-and-even-this-network-over-sherrod/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/21/shepard-smith-unloads-on_n_655013.html

---------- Added 0 hours, 22 minutes and 45 seconds later... ----------

"I got caught spreading bad information?" My, my don't you sound "self-rightous" yourself.

No I didn't. Stop spreading bad information yourself. I was not attacking him, but pointing out that FOX had indeed "drove" the story. The 3 days didn't matter to me, despite your foolish bleating.

See?

Hang in there, T2. I hope your day gets better.

 

My day is just fine. Your excuses do not affect my disposition at all. I simply pointed out pettiness in your argument and you took it personally. Sorry you felt insulted but I've come to believe you perceive insult at the drop of a pin ... so I really don't lose any sleep over your retaliatory comments.

The Shep Smith stuff was good though.

Edit: I'm anticipating a "knock it off, Bozo's" to come at any moment....

 

So, now you are going to blame me for trying to give you a bad day? Sounds like it doesn't need any help from me.

Funny, how you can see your faults in others.

Your attacks were personal and you know it, home boy. However, you can always take it to PM if it suits you.

---------- Added 0 hours, 18 minutes and 50 seconds later... ----------

This is great segment and very funny. But listen, T2, Willie comments that the "clip" that caused the issue is "months old." It is two minutes in. This is the second time on TV I have heard someone comment that the clip in question is "months old."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/38378454#38378454

---------- Added 0 hours, 22 minutes and 37 seconds later... ----------

Yes, he has had it since March, T2. But he's not clear if it is the actaul tape, or the edited version. I took it to mean the edited tape, because in the same instance he "claims" that he "did not edit it." That would mean that he had to have the edited version (but I doubt him).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072201265.html

 

Sherrod speaks out on the bias at FOX:

At least that was her take, but you may hold a different opinoin, which is your right, T2.

http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201007210037

 

Love Love Love!

Oh, and for the record, this lady may not be a racist herself, but the NAACP is, IMHO, chock full of racists and hypocrites. Test: If a white person were to say "I have no problem with colored people" on television, I can see the hysterics now. He'd be strung up by his dingaling (virtually speaking) before the complete sentence had even left his mouth. Yet the name of the NAACP includes the two magic words "colored people" in it. If the term is that outrageously hurtful and problematic they would have changed it years ago. The fact is that it isn't, really, especially if someone takes the time to look at the context in which it is delivered, but these PC psychopaths are just chomping at the bit to take someone down for tiny little word usage issues -- nit picking, really -- and it makes me sick.

In this instance, Sherrod got shafted. It's a disgrace, and likely criminal to boot. I join T2 in saying I hope she gets a good lawyer and gets boola rich. But the fact is that every day people are getting screwed over by the PC police for failure to comply with the left's high handed demands, and it's just as wrong when it happens to a White guy or a Hispanic as when it happens to Sherrod. God willing, this case will end up as a blow against PC horse____ in the public sphere.

 

Rachel Maddow smacks down O'Reilly for "biased" reporting at FOX.

http://www.indecisionforever.com/20...ality-disorder-over-shirleysherrodracismgate/

People's points of view are different: Where some see "idiots being duped," some others may see reporting that is biased and driven by agenda, (AS I HAVE CLEARLY ILLUSTRATED), rather than being just "duped idiots." Nevertheless, both points are still value judgments.

 

Chandos, I've never disagreed with the content of your statements. I've never sided with anyone on this issue except Sherrod from the first time I heard it -- which was several days before this thread started.

 

Then what are we arguing about? My problem with NOG was that he "implied" that FOX never ran anything on it. That is why I included the clips from FOX in the original post.

Normally, I would have taken it to mean that he just hasn't seen anything on it on FOX, except that he put the emphasis on "anything." The italics are NOT mine, but his. That was where I said "he was wrong," not with the three day timeline as you keep insisting. I didn't even think of that until you brought it up. Note: I only put the italics on "you" to illustrate the emphasis.

 

Actually, try again. Both Bill O'Reilly's show and Sean Hannity's aired after she resigned, and Hannity's was even talking about it in the past tense. O'Reilly's was taped beforehand and does call for her resignation, but the claim that FOX was running the story all day long and drove the situation into a frenzy is BS.

And, for the record, I used 'over in a day' because she resigned the same day, thus the impact on her career was over in a day. Everything after was follow up, and how the media drove or ignored the story is irrelevant.

I think the whole issue here is one dealing with the timeline. When I said '... until it was all over." I wasn't referencing the media frenzy, but the woman's career impact. She had already resigned before I saw word-one from FOX. On the other hand, the media frenzy hadn't even died down before I wrote that, so I definitely wasn't talking about it.

 

I can "try again," until this makes sense to you:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007210066

So on the one hand you are of course ready to condemn Obama for firing her because of pressure from FOX, which was even made clear to Sherrod when they fired her, but on the other you are saying that FOX had nothing to do with it. And yet, Shep Smith, a Fox news man, called out his own network, right on the air, on the issue.

 

One thing that I can't figure out is why the left is blaming this entire thing on Fox. They reported on it and many of their on air personalities were calling for her to be fired. However, they are in the exact same boat as The NAACP and the Obama administration. They were fooled by a fake, but for some reason there is an atttempt to make this out like it was Fox's fault. Everything Fox reported on was what was believed at the current time. I'm sure just like when a newspaper gets something wrong they probably issued a retraction (although in this case it was probably done at 3am )

 

Snook - I think it was because she was fired with her boss commenting on "FOX running it" (which was a stupid thing to do), but if you are willing to be open-minded, the "left" has been just as hard on Obama as they have on FOX. The NAACP has little to do with it except that the clip is from one of their functions. That makes them appear just plain silly, that they didn't even know what was really said at one of their own meetings.

 

What was made clear to her when they fired her was fear of what may end up on FOX, not any reaction to anything already going on. And forgive me if I don't take MediaMatter's description of 'much of the day'.

Here is a good breakdown of the time line. In short, Breitbart posts the video on the morning of the 19th. The administration asked for and she gave her resignation somewhere between 4 and 5 pm the same day, if I recall correctly. Glenn Beck came on at 5 and didn't mention the story. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and company ran with the story Monday night, Hannity somewhere around 6 I think, and O'Reilly didn't even get on-air until 8. That was FOX's first mention of the story. At worst, they ran with it all night, but regardless, it was after she was fired, not before.

 

The NAACP rushed to condemn her just as quickly as the Administration and FOX did, and I suspect they probably had more influence on the decision than fears of Beck. I'm not 100% sure of that, but I strongly suspect it. I posted the link in another thread, but it really belongs here: Glenn Beck.

 

NOG - My understanding is what was said to her that it was "going to be on FOX tonight," since Beck had already mentioned it on his radio program during the day. You can believe whatever source makes you feel better, but the Mediamatters source looks pretty accurate to me. And FOX'S own Shep Smith pretty much called it right.

 

As on the other thread her boss specifically mentioned "FOX," not the NAACP. And as someone commented the argument about FOX and the NAACP is just another way, deflection, to let Breitbart (the guy who actually ran the clip) "off the hook."

 

So she had never heard of Andrew Breitbart until very recently, but is already certain that he wants to bring the country back to a pre-civil rights era.

 

Actually, in all the quotes I've seen, her boss specifically mentions Beck, who didn't touch the topic. I'm not sure I buy it at the higher levels of the administration, though. They have to know that FOX and Beck are going to attack them no matter what. The NAACP, on the other hand, is their 'friend'.

 

Sorry, actually, Beck talked about it on his radio program during the day. Here let me post it for you a second time:

Now place fingers in ears, and keep repeating, "No! NO! NO!"

You are certainly right about that. And you are right that both reacted poorly. But I'm not ready to give ANYBODY a pass on this one, I don't care which politics they play.