Free Markets, Free People

MSNBC: Manufacturing Racism

You may have seen it by now, but this simply can’t pass without comment. MSNBC has carefully used footage of a man at a Obama townhall who is carrying an AR-15 and a sidearm to charge racism and imply threats of violence against Obama (HT: Hot Air).

The weapons are legal to carry. But that’s not really the story. As you will be unable to tell in the following clip, the man carrying the guns is black.

That’s just outrageous. Watch this to see why:

Calm. Articulate. Exercising his rights. Black. And, according to the newscaster, one of a half-dozen openly carrying.

But back to the point, and you can hear it in the “analysis” after the very carefully cropped clip is shown, MSNBC and the left want so badly to make this discontent with government in general and the Democratic agenda specifically about race that they’re reduced to manufacturing “evidence” and making implications based on it.

That is just pitiful. And you know full well that all three of those drones pushing the racism line knew full well their example didn’t conform to their racist story line. However, it did give the one commentator the opportunity to bring up the “rise” in right-wing militias and the possibility that someone will try to “hurt” Obama.

When you are reduced to manipulating images to make a false point, you’re no longer a news organization, you’re a propaganda outlet. There’s a reason that MSNBC is the least watched of the cable networks.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

29 Responses to MSNBC: Manufacturing Racism

  • Obviously all those attempts on the lives of previous white presidents were just practice.

  • Did they thank Dan Rather for help with fact checking their story?

  • I want to laugh at this, but it’s not funny any more. The press has chosen sides. That actually makes it more likely that we’ll see Dale’s result come to pass, since one side in the debate feels pretty much shut out, and misrepresented to boot.

    (I will now resist the tempatation to tweak Jon H. over this issue, though I still think he deserves it.)

    • Eh? What did Jon deserve? I missed that. (Link?)

      • I covered the old discussion for Pogue in this thread a few months ago. Just head down to the two comments where I do an extract, and you can read the old threads if you like.

        Basically, Jon said back in 2006 there is no pervasive media bias, and that many of their mistakes are simply sloppiness. My response is (1) sloppiness and bias are not mutually exclusive, and (2) the sloppiness tends to go heavily one way.

        On one of the old threads, I created a list of mistakes made by the media that they were later forced to retract, things like Tailwind and the CBS memos. I pointed out that all of the original mistakes damaged Republicans, the military, business, etc. None damaged liberals, Democrats, labor, etc. Jon had no answer to that, but to me it is a clear metric about the bias of the media. If there really were mostly just sloppy, their mistakes would not be so one-sided.

        (For logic-challenged readers, yes, I know the press will attack a Democrat like Spitzer when the evidence is overwhelming. But they don’t make mistakes covering those guys and accuse them of things they later have to retract. They dot every i and cross every t when going after Democrats and liberals. For those on the right, they are predisposed to believe the worst, so they don’t feel the need to be so careful in their checking.)

        Mostly, though, I’m just past that whole discussion. After the media’s performance during the Obama campaign and during the first six months of his adminstration, anyone who denies left-leaning bias on the part of the mainstream media is delusional, and no amount of evidence will convince them.

        • UCLA poly sci dept actually did a study that proved media bias.

          They ranked Congress left to right, then tabulated the sources each Congresscritter used (RAND, CATO, etc). That allowed them to rank the sources. They then tabulated the sources used by various news outlets (not in the opinion pages, but the actual news reporting). This basically allowed them to rank the news left to right objectively matched to politicians.

          They demonstrated a definite left bias in the news.

          Besides that, it is obvious. Jon’s the guy that gave Mona a chance to blog here, for those that rememvber her, that says a lot.

    • “The press has chosen sides.”

      To some extent, I agree, but it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It addresses market forces in a way — conservatives don’t want to be force-fed news shaded by liberal bias, and they have recourse by going to a different source. The Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Washington Times, USA Today (I think), Forbes, The Economist, etc. are all conservative-leaning news outlets. Most of the rest are liberal. The Washington Post is mostly liberal, but also is balanced by some conservative writers and is more conservative on certain issues. It is also kept honest to a large degree by The Washington Times, which forces it to cover things it would otherwise neglect.

      The real problem arises when a news outlet (or their reporters/editors), just like any other business, is incompetent, deceitful, or unscrupulous, as proven here by MSNBC. This is worst in 24-hour news outlets, i.e. cable news, where there is a high incentive to manufacture compelling news. Just the same, some outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal, do a phenomenal job of keeping opinions and bias to the editorials and provide great balance in their reporting.

      • I’m down with all that. It’s not the choosing sides that bothers me. It’s the dishonesty of choosing sides and then pretending to be objective, non-partisan observers.

        I talked to someone from the Nashville Tennessean about four years ago about this. She assured me most vociferously that her paper was not biased and treated both sides equally. Anyone who reads the Tennessean knows that’s preposterous. They are a very, very left-of-center paper.

        • Sorry, didn’t get finished. If you think the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, USA Today, and The Economist are conservative, I think you’re in left field. Certainly the Economist used to be, but their endorsement of Bill Clinton and Obama, and their shilling for first HillaryCare and now ObamaCare shows where they are today. The rest have never been conservative by any definition I can give it.

          • Thank you – The Boston Glob, CONSERVATIVE? Eh gads, not that I ever remember. My wife swears I used to avoid the need for coffee in the morning to get my heart pumping by reading the Globe.

            Occasional insights into conservative thought, but conservative? Not hardly. We didn’t call it he People’s Republic of Massachusetts for nothing, and the Boston Globe was to Boston what Pravda and Izvestia were to Moscow.

          • Saying a newspaper is “conservative-leaning” (or liberal-) doesn’t mean that every one of its stories, reporters, or op-eds is going to toe the party line. I may be mistaken about the Globe, I haven’t read it much. In my opinion, USA Today is at least fairly moderate. The Chicago Tribune is, however, staunchly conservative. After the Washington Post and Times, that is the paper I read the most, and I assure you it is very conservative. The Economist is an unusual case, but it is independently minded. It’s European, so you have to take that into account, but it is generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal — which puts it in line with American libertarianism on a lot of issues.

          • USA Today is at least fairly moderate.

            Agreed that they’re not in New York Times territory. But I see plenty of articles there that betray left leaning attitudes, and very few on the other side. Calling them moderate is not the same as calling them conservative.

          • “Calling them moderate is not the same as calling them conservative.”

            We’re getting tied up in semantics here, which is admittedly my fault for a couple of bad examples. Another undoubtedly conservative newspaper with a large circulation is The Plain Dealer in Cleveland.

            Anyway, my point was that there are enough newspapers, magazines, radio programs, and news channels that a consumer can tailor their intake to their own preference, especially since so many offer free online content nowadays. Don’t get me wrong. I agree there is an overall liberal bias in the media. I also don’t think it is as bad as it was in the past, though, largely because more alternatives are available to essentially everyone. Technological advances like the internet have mitigated the neighborhood effects that once gave media outlets monopolies in certain areas.

            In the end, people only have their own intelligence and savvy to judge issues. For the reasons above, it is harder for a news source to get away with shenanigans like what MSNBC pulled here.

          • The Economist has been slowly drifting leftward and losing quality as well.

            I have seen some seriously “un-economic” positions in that magazine, not just about healthcare, either.

            I am about done with them.

        • Billy HollisIt’s not the choosing sides that bothers me. It’s the dishonesty of choosing sides and then pretending to be objective, non-partisan observers.

          Absolutely. I hate being lied to.

      • The Boston Globe is conservative leaning????!!!!

        Not in this universe.

  • MSNBC is clearly following the philosophy of news reporting: “Fake, but accurate” I wish only the worst for these reporters.

  • —> Eh? What did Jon deserve? I missed that. (Link?)

    Besides believing in global warming Jon believes that the MSM has not chosen sides.

    • Believeing in GW is one thing, AGW something else, and supporting cap and trade, Kyoto, etc., something else yet again.

  • Whatever planet MSNBC is from, I hope they go back there. In what possible universe does legally and openly carrying a gun make you a racist intent on assassination?

    Hint to MSNBC: assassins hide their weapons.

  • When I saw some coverage of the gun-totin’ guy on DCNN, I chuckled to myself about how frustrated the lefties had to be because they couldn’t use the images to flog the “angry white male” meme. How wrong I was! A little careful editing of the video and voila! Instant incipient hate crime.

    What’s next? “Reenactments” or “dramatizations” of angry white males being paid by the insurance industry to plot the murder of TAO? Maybe a breathless expose of a book about how angry white males, who nailed the last messiah to a cross, plan to take over the world? Call it “The Chronicles of White-on”.

  • The good news is – it behooves the other networks to pin them to the wall for this…to eliminate them as credible competition for a decreasing viewing demographic…Faux news sure isn’t going to let it go unmentioned.

    Popcorn anyone?

  • Due to the “Progressive”/”Liberal” continual abuse and misuse of words, Racism ceases to mean anything meaningful to anyone.

    English is a rich language; however it’s power emanates only from it’s proper usage, to chose words concisely and in-context.

    The Left’s vice of torturing our language with Pretzel Logic has deluded and cheapened both the conversation and the tools to have a constructive one. They only seem to thrive in the art of self-destruction.

  • Charles Johnson comments but disregards the news manipulation and instead blasts the group behind it. I haven’t looked into them and they may be reprehensible but I sure wish he would have addressed the propaganda.

  • Why on Earth does anyone need to carry such a potentially devastating weapon in public ?