Bill O'Reilly / Fox Slices and dices video of Harry Reid (1 Viewer)

[pbrauer]

The video was of O'Reilly during one of his Talking Point Memos. At the 2:30 mark he shows a video of CNN's Dana Bash asking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid questions. During this the screen flashes when a transition of scenes takes place. You can tell portions of the dialog are missing because of the shutdown time is displayed on the CNN jumps forward. Watch the video and the transcript got from the CNN website and you will see Fox's Fair and Balanced dishonesty. Note: The bolded part wound up on Fox's editing floor.

BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go toclinical trials. The House is specifically going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH.

Given what you said, will you at leastpass that? And if not, aren't you playing the same political gamesthat Republicans are?

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER:Listen, Senator Durbin explained that very well. And he did ithere. He did it on the floor earlier, as did Senator Schumer andStets (ph).

What right do they have to pick and choosewhat part of government is going to be funded?

It's obviouswhat's going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible,wow!

What this is all about is Obamacare. They areobsessed, I don't know what other word I can use. I don't know whatother word I can use. They are obsessed with this Obamacare thing.It's working now and it will continue to work and people will love iteven more than they do now by far.

So they have no right topick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child whohas cancer, why wouldn't you do it?

REID: Listen(INAUDIBLE) what do --

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEWYORK: Why pit one against the other?

REID: Why do they-- why -- why would we want to do that?

I have 1,100 people atNellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have the -- theyhave a few problems of their own. This is -- to have someone of yourintelligence suggest such a thing (INAUDIBLE) --

BASH: I'mjust asking a question.

REID: -- isirresponsible.

(CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)
​

 

[code1211]

The video was of O'Reilly during one of his Talking Point Memos. At the 2:30 mark he shows a video of CNN's Dana Bash asking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid questions. During this the screen flashes when a transition of scenes takes place. You can tell portions of the dialog are missing because of the shutdown time is displayed on the CNN jumps forward. Watch the video and the transcript got from the CNN website and you will see Fox's Fair and Balanced dishonesty. Note: The bolded part wound up on Fox's editing floor.

BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go toclinical trials. The House is specifically going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH.

Given what you said, will you at leastpass that? And if not, aren't you playing the same political gamesthat Republicans are?

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER:Listen, Senator Durbin explained that very well. And he did ithere. He did it on the floor earlier, as did Senator Schumer andStets (ph).

What right do they have to pick and choosewhat part of government is going to be funded?

It's obviouswhat's going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible,wow!

What this is all about is Obamacare. They areobsessed, I don't know what other word I can use. I don't know whatother word I can use. They are obsessed with this Obamacare thing.It's working now and it will continue to work and people will love iteven more than they do now by far.

So they have no right topick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child whohas cancer, why wouldn't you do it?

REID: Listen(INAUDIBLE) what do --

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEWYORK: Why pit one against the other?

REID: Why do they-- why -- why would we want to do that?

I have 1,100 people atNellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have the -- theyhave a few problems of their own. This is -- to have someone of yourintelligence suggest such a thing (INAUDIBLE) --

BASH: I'mjust asking a question.

REID: -- isirresponsible.

(CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)
​

How did the edited parts of the clip change the meaning of the exchange in your view?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

How did the edited parts of the clip change the meaning of the exchange in your view?

The missing part is what Reid was responding to. It was a question raised by Schumer:

"Why put one against the other?"

The whole exchange goes like this:

HARRY REID: Listen, Sen. Durbin explained that very well, and he did it here, did it on the floor earlier, as did Sen. Schumer. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded? It's obvious what's going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don't know what other word I can use. They're obsessed with this Obamacare thing. It's working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?

CHUCK SCHUMER: Why put one against the other?

REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. This is -- to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you're irresponsible and reckless --

Come On, No. Harry Reid Doesn't Hate Kids with Cancer - Abby Ohlheiser - The Atlantic Wire

Emphasis mine.

 

[Dickieboy]

The missing part is what Reid was responding to. It was a question raised by Schumer:

"Why put one against the other?"

The whole exchange goes like this:



Come On, No. Harry Reid Doesn't Hate Kids with Cancer - Abby Ohlheiser - The Atlantic Wire

Emphasis mine.

While your correct in analyzing the transcript if you watch the video Reid was speaking directly to Bash and appears to not have even heard Shummer's comment.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

While your correct in analyzing the transcript if you watch the video Reid was speaking directly to Bash and appears to not have even heard Shummer's comment.

I don't interpret it that way. As someone who requires a little more time than the average bear to put a sentence together, I understand that you can't always deal with interruptions by stopping and acknowledging the person who interrupted you as if it was a normal part of the conversational flow. Furthermore, Schumer wasn't the one in front of the microphones, he wasn't the one the reporter was asking question, and he's not the freaking Senate Majority Leader.

My interpretation is that Reid, being on the hot-seat and therefore feeling a lot of pressure, responded to Schumer's question as if it came from the person he was focusing on (the reporter) rather than stopping and turning and speaking to the Senator from New York directly.

Schumer was right next to him, and spoke loudly enough that he was clearly heard on the feed despite the fact that he wasn't right in front of the mikes. As such, I don't believe Reid's failure to look at Schumer changes the meaning of the exchange.

 

[pbrauer]

While your correct in analyzing the transcript if you watch the video Reid was speaking directly to Bash and appears to not have even heard Shummer's comment.

I agree with TED, now why do you think Fox eliminated 11 seconds from the dialog, huh?

 

[Deuce]

It's ok. That's not "News" programming, you see. It's entertainment. So when O'Reilly's show lies to the viewers, those viewers are sure to check up on what is said for sake of being fair and balanced.

 

[Dickieboy]

I agree with TED, now why do you think Fox eliminated 11 seconds from the dialog, huh?

Because I don't agree with TED or you and feel that Fox interpreted as I did as stated previously...but Hey, if you want to continue to hate of Fox News have at it big boy...

 

[Oftencold]

I don't interpret it that way. As someone who requires a little more time than the average bear to put a sentence together, I understand that you can't always deal with interruptions by stopping and acknowledging the person who interrupted you as if it was a normal part of the conversational flow. Furthermore, Schumer wasn't the one in front of the microphones, he wasn't the one the reporter was asking question, and he's not the freaking Senate Majority Leader.

My interpretation is that Reid, being on the hot-seat and therefore feeling a lot of pressure, responded to Schumer's question as if it came from the person he was focusing on (the reporter) rather than stopping and turning and speaking to the Senator from New York directly.

Schumer was right next to him, and spoke loudly enough that he was clearly heard on the feed despite the fact that he wasn't right in front of the mikes. As such, I don't believe Reid's failure to look at Schumer changes the meaning of the exchange.

I interpret it exactly that way, since as we see, Reid is willing to let all these other federal activities languish rather than perform the duties of an adult and negotiate with the duly empowered Senators with whom he disagrees. O'Reilly and Fox's interpretation is therefor materially correct.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I interpret it exactly that way, since as we see, Reid is willing to let all these other federal activities languish rather than perform the duties of an adult and negotiate with the duly empowered Senators with whom he disagrees. O'Reilly and Fox's interpretation is therefor materially correct.

Yes, because obviously sticking to your guns means you have no interest in saving a child's life.

As far as I'm concerned, both parties are equally responsible and are playing games with discretionary spending, but I don't think any of them wants anyone to die from their squabbling.

 

[Oftencold]

Yes, because obviously sticking to your guns means you have no interest in saving a child's life.

As far as I'm concerned, both parties are equally responsible and are playing games with discretionary spending, but I don't think any of them wants anyone to die from their squabbling.

Maybe people should have thought of things like this before making politicians responsible for so many facets of our lives? Before granting them such power? Before assuming that distant and insular committees would always perform in manners wise and compassionate towards people who they'll never encounter? Before assuming there is some sort of infallible moral filter that would never allow cold, uncaring and cynical people to be appointed to or elected to powerful positions? Before forgetting that history abounds with examples of small ruling bodies doing horrific things, often while believing themselves to be acting in the best interests of a nation?

I do think that there are plenty of people in politics that would be delighted, not if a specific child died, but if quiet a few faceless-to-them children died to advance their cause. Of course they would. These are statists. They order the Military to drop bombs and fire misses to advance their agendas. I'm sure that a number of them would be content with allowing other people's children to die for similar reasons. It makes good press, after all.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I do think that there are plenty of people in politics that would be delighted, not if a specific child died, but if quiet a few faceless-to-them children died to advance their cause. Of course they would. These are statists. They order the Military to drop bombs and fire misses to advance their agendas. I'm sure that a number of them would be content with allowing other people's children to die for similar reasons. It makes good press, after all.

Okay. If you have specific evidence that Reid is such a person, present it. Otherwise, please keep your baseless accusations about the true meaning of his words to yourself.

 

[pbrauer]

Because I don't agree with TED or you and feel that Fox interpreted as I did as stated previously...but Hey, if you want to continue to hate of Fox News have at it big boy...

You and Fox have a right to interpret anyway you desire, however when part of the dialog is taken out (three times, btw) the bias is toward your way of thinking. It's dishonest!

 

[Dickieboy]

You and Fox have a right to interpret anyway you desire, however when part of the dialog is taken out (three times, btw) the bias is toward your way of thinking. It's dishonest!

Opinion noted...

 

[pbrauer]

Opinion noted...

Sure it's an opinion, but it's a well reasoned one. Please tell me why the words in bold were edited out of the video?

BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go toclinical trials. The House is specifically going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH.

Given what you said, will you at leastpass that? And if not, aren't you playing the same political gamesthat Republicans are?

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER:Listen, Senator Durbin explained that very well. And he did ithere. He did it on the floor earlier, as did Senator Schumer andStets (ph).

What right do they have to pick and choosewhat part of government is going to be funded?

It's obviouswhat's going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible,wow!

What this is all about is Obamacare. They areobsessed, I don't know what other word I can use. I don't know whatother word I can use. They are obsessed with this Obamacare thing.It's working now and it will continue to work and people will love iteven more than they do now by far.

So they have no right topick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child whohas cancer, why wouldn't you do it?

REID: Listen(INAUDIBLE) what do --

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEWYORK: Why pit one against the other?

REID: Why do they-- why -- why would we want to do that?

I have 1,100 people atNellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have the -- theyhave a few problems of their own. This is -- to have someone of yourintelligence suggest such a thing (INAUDIBLE) --

BASH: I'mjust asking a question.

REID: -- isirresponsible.

(CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)
​

 

[Oftencold]

Maybe people should have thought of things like this before making politicians responsible for so many facets of our lives? Before granting them such power? Before assuming that distant and insular committees would always perform in manners wise and compassionate towards people who they'll never encounter? Before assuming there is some sort of infallible moral filter that would never allow cold, uncaring and cynical people to be appointed to or elected to powerful positions? Before forgetting that history abounds with examples of small ruling bodies doing horrific things, often while believing themselves to be acting in the best interests of a nation?

I do think that there are plenty of people in politics that would be delighted, not if a specific child died, but if quiet a few faceless-to-them children died to advance their cause. Of course they would. These are statists. They order the Military to drop bombs and fire misses to advance their agendas. I'm sure that a number of them would be content with allowing other people's children to die for similar reasons. It makes good press, after all.

Okay. If you have specific evidence that Reid is such a person, present it. Otherwise, please keep your baseless accusations about the true meaning of his words to yourself.

. . . And the trap snaps shut. I didn't specify any particular politician, or even party. Would you like to explain for the class why my description of despotic functionaries put you instantly in mind of Senator Reid?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

. . . And the trap snaps shut. I didn't specify any particular politician, or even party. Would you like to explain for the class why my description of despotic functionaries put you instantly in mind of Senator Reid?

Because you and I had been discussing Senator Reid, the subject of the thread. Per your own words:

I interpret it exactly that way, since as we see, Reid is willing to let all these other federal activities languish rather than perform the duties of an adult and negotiate with the duly empowered Senators with whom he disagrees. O'Reilly and Fox's interpretation is therefor materially correct.

Have fun prying that trap off your ankle.

 

[Dickieboy]

Sure it's an opinion, but it's a well reasoned one. Please tell me why the words in bold were edited out of the video?

BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go toclinical trials. The House is specifically going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH.

Given what you said, will you at leastpass that? And if not, aren't you playing the same political gamesthat Republicans are?

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER:Listen, Senator Durbin explained that very well. And he did ithere. He did it on the floor earlier, as did Senator Schumer andStets (ph).​

This was omitted because the response did not address the question which was directed SPECIFICALLY at Reid

What right do they have to pick and choosewhat part of government is going to be funded?

It's obviouswhat's going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible,wow!

What this is all about is Obamacare. They areobsessed, I don't know what other word I can use. I don't know whatother word I can use. They are obsessed with this Obamacare thing.It's working now and it will continue to work and people will love iteven more than they do now by far.

So they have no right topick and choose.

This was omitted because most of it is hyperbolic rhetoric that if Fox has used it they would have been accused of painting Reid unfavorably...and feeding the trolls.

BASH: But if you can help one child whohas cancer, why wouldn't you do it?

REID: Listen(INAUDIBLE) what do --

This was omitted because it is incoherent and insignificant.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEWYORK: Why pit one against the other?

This was omitted again because the question was directed SPECIFICALLY at Reid not Schumer.

REID: Why do they-- why -- why would we want to do that?

I have 1,100 people atNellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have the -- theyhave a few problems of their own. This is -- to have someone of yourintelligence suggest such a thing (INAUDIBLE) --

BASH: I'mjust asking a question.

REID: -- isirresponsible.

(CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

No comment required as not bolded but...it appears that Reid attacks the questioner's intelligence here. Wasn't it Socrates who said something like 'once the debate is lost the loser resorts to slander'?

 

[pbrauer]

This was omitted because the response did not address the question which was directed SPECIFICALLY at Reid



This was omitted because most of it is hyperbolic rhetoric that if Fox has used it they would have been accused of painting Reid unfavorably...and feeding the trolls.


This was omitted because it is incoherent and insignificant.




This was omitted again because the question was directed SPECIFICALLY at Reid not Schumer.



No comment required as not bolded but...it appears that Reid attacks the questioner's intelligence here. Wasn't it Socrates who said something like 'once the debate is lost the loser resorts to slander'?

 

[Kobie]

Attempting to defend Fox in this instance is simply absurd. There is no justification for that edit of the video. None. And it TOTALLY changes the context of Reid's statement.

 

[Dickieboy]

How do you feel my opinion is less reasoned that yours? because it's different? If so where is this tolerance that liberals are renowned for? I respect your opinion and have no problem if yours and mine differ...

 

[Dickieboy]

Attempting to defend Fox in this instance is simply absurd. There is no justification for that edit of the video. None. And it TOTALLY changes the context of Reid's statement.

How so specifically?

Further of what value is this comment from Reid?

...This is -- to have someone of your intelligence suggest such a thing

Please include context if you feel necessary.

 

[Deuce]

This was omitted because the response did not address the question which was directed SPECIFICALLY at Reid



This was omitted because most of it is hyperbolic rhetoric that if Fox has used it they would have been accused of painting Reid unfavorably...and feeding the trolls.


This was omitted because it is incoherent and insignificant.




This was omitted again because the question was directed SPECIFICALLY at Reid not Schumer.



No comment required as not bolded but...it appears that Reid attacks the questioner's intelligence here. Wasn't it Socrates who said something like 'once the debate is lost the loser resorts to slander'?

Yes please continue trying to justify editing quotes and removing context! :lamo

Fun tip: If you have to lie about what the other guy said, you haven't won the debate.

 

[Kobie]

How so specifically?

It's been explained a million times.

Further of what value is this comment from Reid?

Please include context if you feel necessary.

Yeah, he's sniping at Bash. So what.

 

[Dickieboy]

It's been explained a million times.

HUH? You (or anyone else) has explained how 'it TOTALLY changes the context of Reid's statement' a million times before? Wanna try again, specifically (as previously requested)?

Yeah, he's sniping at Bash. So what.

Seems quite undignified for the Senate majority leader...IMO