- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 16,164
- Reaction score
- 5,060
- Location
- St Thomas, VI
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
liblady, why will you not answer this simple question:
If Fox News published its web story before Sherrod resigned, what does that mean? Why is it important?
Grim has lied in his post, and his own link PROVES it.
FOXNews.com - Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer
now, this clip contains this: The Agriculture Department announced Monday, shortly after FoxNews.com published its initial report on the video, that Sherrod had resigned.
THUS PROVING THAT FOXNEWS.COM DID INDEED PUBLISH THE STORY ON JULY 19th, AS MEDIA MATTERS REPORTED.
so, grim and others, what now? apologies?
um....BLASTED.
it means grim lied, that's what it means. other than that, it means they published a story without vetting it.
Too bad Fox published it after her resignation.
Does that mean you are lying, or are you from the Pelosi, Reid and Dean school of progressive politics, where lying is a strategy, not a virtue?
it means grim lied, that's what it means. other than that, it means they published a story without vetting it.
As I have stated numerous times on the other thread, I have never claimed the story was published any other day but the 19th. Fox News published their story at least an hour AFTER Shirley Sharrod resigned from her job. Sharrod stated so herself on CNN. The announcement from the USDA of her resignation didn't come until hours later.
I believe it is you who needs to apologize and retract you post.
Well, grim didn't lie; he backed himself up thoroughly. You mistake the time of announcement of her resignation with her actual resignation.
Neither did Fox publish a story without vetting it. They reported accurately exactly what happened. It's all there in the story. Tell you what -- take the actual story they published (which is available on Media Matters) and explain exactly what in it is "unvetted." Give the actual text. Show specifically where the story is wrong. What did they say, and how was it wrong? Show it.
But even then, taking for the sake of argument that it was wrong, and it was unvetted -- then what? Why is that important? You keep avoiding that question. If Fox was wrong . . . then what? C'mon. Why is it so important that the story was posted before she resigned? Why is the timing important?
foxnews did not know of her resignation when the original story was published. period. that's the point,
and semantics are a chicken**** way of debating.
foxnews did not know of her resignation when the original story was published. period. that's the point, and semantics are a chicken**** way of debating. grim's "backup" consists of a statemenht that proves that. even foxnews says they got it wrong. i'm finished with the dishonesty here. i really didn't think you would actually DEFEND a liar.
But that doesn't mean she resigned after the story was posted. It only means Fox News didn't know she resigned when they posted the story. So what?
No, "chicken****" is refusing to answer a simple question you've been asked many times: if Fox News published the story before she resigned, so what? Why is it important? What does it mean? Why does it make a difference?
I asked you that LONG before Grim started attacking Media Matters's timeline, so it's not about that. Why is the timing important this entire affair?
Why do you ignore this question? What are YOU chicken of?
This matters.....why?
The curious thing is that Sherrod is going to sue the man who posted the excerpted video, but not the people who forced her to resign. Very, very curious....
Regarding OP -- If it isn't a rule violation to call out a user like this, it should be.
Maggie, here's my problem with it. If Breitbart KNEW there was more to it and INTENTIONALLY left out the rest of the story in order to paint her as a racist, I would completely agree with you.
However, something tells me that's might not be the case.
What is interesting is that the NAACP had the ENTIRE VIDEO and yet did not immediately provide her boss or the White House with that proof. The White House pressured her to resign based on fear that she would "be on Glenn Beck". They forced her to resign based on 50% of the information WHICH THEY COULD'VE GOTTEN FROM THE NAACP.
Something just seems funny about it. Either the administration is completely moronic and just fires people willy-nilly because they're afraid of Glenn Beck or there's something more behind this.
The White House would benefit from Breitbart being silenced, ya know....
it means grim lied, that's what it means. other than that, it means they published a story without vetting it.
So Grim caused the NAACP and White House to fire a woman based on a rumor? Can you IMAGINE how that would fly in most businesses? "Hey...I heard you did something and it might make us look bad...resign or you are fired"...But...thats not what happened..."I dont care...you are still fired..."
I know this gets silly...but the simple fact is EVERYONE INVOLVED acted. CNN reported. MSNBC reported. But the NAACP and White House balme FOX for doing what THEY THEMSELVES did? What is this absolute obsession over whether or not Fox reported something at some time or another? The fact is Breitbart posted the video and EVERYONE that acted, acted. This Fox obsession is just amazing.
So Grim caused the NAACP and White House to fire a woman based on a rumor? Can you IMAGINE how that would fly in most businesses? "Hey...I heard you did something and it might make us look bad...resign or you are fired"...But...thats not what happened..."I dont care...you are still fired..."
I know this gets silly...but the simple fact is EVERYONE INVOLVED acted. CNN reported. MSNBC reported. But the NAACP and White House balme FOX for doing what THEY THEMSELVES did? What is this absolute obsession over whether or not Fox reported something at some time or another? The fact is Breitbart posted the video and EVERYONE that acted, acted. This Fox obsession is just amazing.
As I said, I think a lot of, maybe most, people don't actually know what it is they're so, so angry about. Are they really angry about Fox News's opnion people expressing negative opinions about Sherrod? That it was done on the basis of a selectively-edited video? Seriously? Seems to me that a more appropriate response would be to laugh at them, to be delighted in their stupidity.
No, the anger has to be coming from somewhere else, and I do believe it's because they think, on some level, that Fox is to blame for what the NAACP and the White House did to Sherrod -- or because they're angry about what happened to Sherrod but can't bring themselves to muster that anger at the NAACP or the White House, so they direct it at Fox News. Or a combination of both. Or, perhaps, with some, it's because they, too, believed the story without checking and are embarrassed and angry about that.
It's an obvious effort to destroy Fox News. It's pathetic.
I said what I thought was probably going on in all their heads here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...tack-fox-sherrod-story-10.html#post1058884084
Did you watch Gibbs and his official 'apology"? Holy crap...what a sleezebag.
Heres the FUNNY part...and I mean laugh my ass off no LMAO abbreviations...
I couldnt tell you a single story that has been presented by Keith olberman, Rachel Maddow, or ANY of the MSNBC cast. I think they are sleazebag journalsists on the order EVERYONE on the left assigns to Fox.
yet these people that HATE Fox News...good lord...they cite story, details, specific hosts of shows. Its CLASSIC tiny dick syndrome...and I think its HILARIOUS. If they HATE them so much why are they so obsessed with this ONE news source???
But FoxNews.com did run a story about the existence of the video, titled "Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer" at 5:58 p.m. on Monday, an hour before the Agriculture Department announced Sherrod’s resignation.
Since the story was first posted, it has been updated to reflect Sherrod's resignation, but its original version was republished by another website, and posted in a timeline created by Media Matters, the liberal media monitor.
FoxNews.com was not the only news organization to publish web stories about the video that Monday afternoon. WCBS-TV, New York's CBS affiliate, published a web story about the video that was linked to by the Drudge Report around 4:30 p.m. Monday afternoon. Like the other web stories, the CBS affiliate's story was updated the next day to reflect Sherrod's resignation.
Clemente noted that, although FoxNews.com did put out a story before Sherrod's resignation was announced, it was published after she actually resigned, since it has been widely reported that she was pressured to get her resignation in before Glenn Beck's 5 p.m. show on Fox.
Now it's time to find out whether you are a person of integrity, or just another in a long line of liberals that put politics before truth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?