NBC Attempts to Manufacture Some anti-Muslim News

[cnredd]

You know, the reverse also happens. Here in Australia a major "current affairs" (more like visual tabloid - the kind of show with stories on the cheapest supermarket and the latest crooked builder who's ripped people off) got in trouble for fixing a story they'd done on Muslim youth in Australia. They hadn't got anything seditious, insidious or anti-West (gee, what a surprise) so edited it to fit their sensationalistic intent. One clip in particular, of a Lebanese descended youth discussing that the major problem he'd experienced was that Muslim youth will never be able to integrate in some respects as much as their non-Muslim friends because their religion forbids them from drinking alcohol, was edited right down, simply to "We will never integrate."

However, the complete footage somehow found its way into the hands of a rival network and the s**t hit the fan for them. :lol:

That's not the reverse...

That sounds exactly like what I'm talking about...

If these people want to report objectively, what they should do is follow the path and see where it leads them...

Instead, they already CHOSE the destination and tried to fix the path to make it lead to that destination...

It's a Michael Moore tactic...here's an example...

Fahrenheit shows Condoleezza Rice saying, "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11." The audience laughs derisively. Here is what Rice really said on the CBS Early Show, Nov. 28, 2003:

Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East....

Moore deceptively cut the Rice quote to fool the audience into thinking she was making a particular claim, even though she was pointedly not making such a claim. And since Rice spoke in November 2003, her quote had nothing to do with building up American fears before the March 2003 invasion, although Moore implies otherwise.

 

[aquapub]

If they do present it in an incendiary manner that labels all NASCAR fans as ignorant racists, as you guys seem to be claiming, than this would compromise the experiment and I think there would be reason to castigate the network, but until then, perhaps it would be best to provide links and cite sources to justify your bias against the network, as opposed to merely railing against liberals in general.

One problem with this:

They wouldn't be dropping a line at NASCAR unless they thought they'd catch something. Liberals notoriously misjudge working people for angry, violent bigots. This is not a random accusation, it is consistent reality. NBC is liberal (which can be verified several different ways OTHER than this), so they made the same dumb presumption that this was a feasible fishing spot. If Democrats want to find bigots, they should start with the former Klansman they have heading the Senate for their party.

 

[disneydude]

They obviously dropped a line at NASCAR hoping that they would catch something, but that still doesn't make it wrong.

As long as it is reported as an undercover piece and the parameters of the "sting" operation are presented, it is a legitimate way of capturing a news story.

Ethics come into play when they try to present it as a story other than the way it was captured.

If presented properly, people with half a brain can decide for themselves whether is was an actual "capture" of a reaction or if it was "created".

But....of course the targeted NASCAR because they thought they would get the reaction they were hoping for.
But I don't think you can generalize it to all NASCAR fans

 

[aquapub]

It's a Michael Moore tactic...

Have you seen Farenhype 911? They use several liberals to confirm his lies...Like the teacher who was in that classroom (who voted for Gore) and disputes EVERYTHING Moore said about what happened in there, and that Gore campaign worker who explains the legitimacy of Election 2000, for example, and Clinton's former aids, and a celebrity who voted for Clinton twice and is a registered Democrat.

Unlike Democrats (apparently), we hinge things on credibility. This film has got it.

 

[aquapub]

They obviously dropped a line at NASCAR hoping that they would catch something, but that still doesn't make it wrong.

Nobody is claiming it's wrong for them to reveal their liberal bias. I prefer it.

 

[aquapub]

But I don't think you can generalize it to all NASCAR fans

The hell you can't.

Reason #1 these liberals went after NASCAR is that most of them vote Republican (They must have read that sham "study" Che was trying to peddle on this site about how Republicans are more racist than Democrats-the one conducted by partisan Democrat donors).

These people own guns, they hunt, they fish, they are patriotic, they work for a living (which is more than you can say for most Democrat constituencies), they are usually Christians...

There are MANY things you can legitimately generalize about these people.

 

[disneydude]

How is that "Liberal Bias"

Is it "Liberal Bias" when news agencies do an undercover sting exposing dishonest mechanics? I guess if you are the dishonest mechanic that gets busted in the sting than you might consider it "Liberal bias"

Is it "Liberal Bias" when the news agencies do an undercover sting exposing sexual predators who arrive at a location expecting to meet an underage child? I guess if you are the sexual predator you might consider it "Liberal bias"

But otherwise I don't see how you construe this as "Liberal" or "Conservative" bias. It seems to me that you just want to slap a label on it.

 

[disneydude]

The hell you can't.

Reason #1 these liberals went after NASCAR is that most of them vote Republican they are usually Christians...

I think you are reading WAY too much into NASCAR fans. I and many of my friends are NASCAR fans and we are all about as far to the left as you can get. I think it is YOU who are stereotyping NASCAR fans. True there are many who are conservative but I don't think you can just throw out that generalization.
(And BTW, none of us hunt or own guns, but I do think 1 of us does fish)

 

[cnredd]

They obviously dropped a line at NASCAR hoping that they would catch something, but that still doesn't make it wrong.

It does make the implication that NASCAR fans are a hub of racism...

Why didn't they go to a black church?

As long as it is reported as an undercover piece and the parameters of the "sting" operation are presented, it is a legitimate way of capturing a news story.

"As long as it is reported"...That's the key here...There IS no report!!!!...Where's the public story?...Where's the film of it?...

Ethics come into play when they try to present it as a story other than the way it was captured.

Ethics in journalism?...HA!

If presented properly, people with half a brain can decide for themselves whether is was an actual "capture" of a reaction or if it was "created".

Once again, you throw out a caveat...IF...if if if if if if...it is "presented properly"...vergiss's example is just one that shows when it's NOT...

But....of course the targeted NASCAR because they thought they would get the reaction they were hoping for.

And that's not offensive to anyone who is a NASCAR fan?...

But I don't think you can generalize it to all NASCAR fans

And when someone says, "Black people steal" or "Jewish people are cheap", they don't mean "ALL black people" or "ALL Jewish people" either...

So I guess saying those things are fair, too?...

 

[aquapub]

How is that "Liberal Bias"

Is it "Liberal Bias" when news agencies do an undercover sting exposing dishonest mechanics?

No. Liberals aren't the only ones who would ever think mechanics might be crooked. Liberals ARE the only ones who routinely smear our culture as one of degenerate bigots with violent tendencies; Liberals ARE the only ones so out of touch with the working man that they would ever even expect to get anything from this.

 

[aquapub]

I think you are reading WAY too much into NASCAR fans.

There's no need to "read into" any of this. This is statistical.

 

[aquapub]

Why didn't they go to a black church?

I was thinking the same thing!

Why would they not portray things as they ARE instead of manufacturing sentiment right along Democrat party lines?

Why not send an unarmed white guy into the ghetto and see how long HE lasts? Why not send a woman to Iran with a strand of hair showing (gasp)?

Two groups the Left has on its side are blacks and Muslims. So anything that makes Muslims or blacks look as violent as they are (for blacks, this only includes ones in OUR culture-foreign blacks are smart, hard-working and far more successful than the ones from here who get taught to be professional victims) is going to get downplayed or swept under the rug entirely. Anything that makes average white (especially males) people from Middle America look like raging bigots gets showcased.

This is how one Matthew Shepard (gay guy beat to death) every ten years makes up for constant violent behavior from Muslims and American blacks. This is how one James Byrd every decade makes it to sainthood with around-the-clock media frenzy while a Muslim prevented from blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge (thanks to the Patriot Act) gets almost no attention; why a Muslim who plows his rental vehicle into crowds of Americans gets called a perpetrator of a "hit and run" as opposed to "hate crime" or even "terrorist act" as would be used to describe any crime against blacks or Muslims.

 

[hipsterdufus]

How is that "Liberal Bias"

Is it "Liberal Bias" when news agencies do an undercover sting exposing dishonest mechanics? I guess if you are the dishonest mechanic that gets busted in the sting than you might consider it "Liberal bias"

Is it "Liberal Bias" when the news agencies do an undercover sting exposing sexual predators who arrive at a location expecting to meet an underage child? I guess if you are the sexual predator you might consider it "Liberal bias"

But otherwise I don't see how you construe this as "Liberal" or "Conservative" bias. It seems to me that you just want to slap a label on it.

Investigative journalism is now reclassified as "liberal bias"

Pure, simple and very Orwellian.

 

[vergiss]

That's not the reverse...

That sounds exactly like what I'm talking about...

I meant the opposite of the situation in question.

I'm studying documentary-making at the moment, actually. It's annoyingly easy for a filmmaker or journalist to manipulate footage in order to get what he wants.

 

[cnredd]

I meant the opposite of the situation in question.

I'm studying documentary-making at the moment, actually. It's annoyingly easy for a filmmaker or journalist to manipulate footage in order to get what he wants.

Yup...

I THINK I've posted this before...It's something I've kept in notepad...

I got to watch a stinging behind the scenes piece about Micheal Moore and his techniques in one of my broadcasting classes and it was very disturbing, this particular piece was about some "investigative" news show he had awhile back, one technique was to get cameras in someone's place of business and start shooting footage without that owner's permission, this footage was unusable because it was a public establishment, this wasn't meant to be used as it was a tool to infuriate said owner until the man would chase Moore out of the business into "public domain" where anything and everything used on camera is fair game and not subject to a release of the footage, by this time the person being violated is naturally going to be so furious that they will be shouting, ranting, and perfect for making a case that they are "guilty" of whatever charge Moore wanted to imply, that is just dirty.

 

[akyron]

So, if an auto-repair shop is known to be crooked, sending an undercover reporter in "makes" the crookedness happen?

What makes the distinction between "going undercover to SEE what happens" and making something happen?

Afaict, they're just going in to "see what happens." Where should they go to observe anti-Muslim and anti-Arab discrimination somehwere other than where it exists?

I missed the part where there was this "known to be crooked" premise was occuring towards muslims at the races.
Was there a preponderance of muslim nascar fans being discriminated against? If so then im for the investigation.
IF not then the NBC media were just trying to stir shiite up to create trouble/news like they have on several occasions within the last couple of years.

 

[cnredd]

I missed the part where there was this "known to be crooked" premise was occuring towards muslims at the races.
Was there a preponderance of muslim nascar fans being discriminated against? If so then im for the investigation.
IF not then the NBC media were just trying to stir shiite up to create trouble/news like they have on several occasions within the last couple of years.

The same media outlet that intentionally exploded gas tanks on cars about a decade ago to show that the positioning of the gas tanks were dangerous in a collision...

Remember that one?...They got crapped on for it, but apparently they thought people are too stupid to remember...

Or just too stupid to care...

Welcome to history repeating itself...

 

[akyron]

The same media outlet that intentionally exploded gas tanks on cars about a decade ago to show that the positioning of the gas tanks were dangerous in a collision...

Remember that one?...They got crapped on for it, but apparently they thought people are too stupid to remember...

Or just too stupid to care...

Welcome to history repeating itself...

a couple of more recent, less deadly, and equally stupid
somewhat less than truthful news stories.