Obama screwed upFollow

And I responded to your post by saying that not *all* the media mentions were just references to the story as you (and others) claimed. I am not supporting Varus's statement Joph, I'm disagreeing with your statement. I provided a specific example that disproves what you said. I'm not required to defend Varus. You *are* required to defend your own statement.


Brokaw's interview of Giuliani did not reference Cohen's statement. It was not a reference to the slogan, nor a report on the slogan. He held up a button with the slogan on it, and asked Giuliani to respond. That's a whole different thing...

Your fingers aint broke! ;)

but just in case...




That's a few steps past just reporting on something someone else said. He's not asking for comments on the statement, but rather using it as a backdrop for a follow up question. At what point does someone in the media stop reporting on something and begin repeating it? I think this statement is more of the latter and less of the former.

Are you saying that "Meet the Press" is not part of "the media"? I never said it was presented as fact in a news report. Neither did Varus for that matter. He said it was repeated "in the media". You said it wasn't. I provided a link showing someone "in the media" repeating the statement.

Given that the entire point was that you insisted that all mentions in the media were "reports on" the statement, it's kinda silly to toss out this interview because it wasn't a "news report". You do see how that's circular reasoning (and darn irrelevant).



Strawman much?

The question was whether there were instances of "the media" repeating the comparison of Obama and Jesus (via the "community organizer" statement) in a manner beyond simply reporting on it. The Brokaw interview clearly meets that criteria.



More strawman. When did I make that argument? Even in your first statement on this, you didn't use that phraseology. You said "comparing Obama to Jesus". Stop changing the words to suit you.




No. It wasn't. You just made it up. I disagreed when you stated that the media only reported on the event of Cohen use of the statement, "Which is leagues different from the media comparing Obama to Jesus."

That was my claim. That there were instances of the media repeating the statement comparing Obama to Jesus. A claim which I've proven.

Sheesh!



Yes. Wow. Blatantly creating a strawman at the last minute in order to avoid admitting that you overstated your position is pretty darn pathetic.


Maybe you should follow your own advice about re-reading the thread? Cause you totally lost it here.

Yes. But at the same time he lent weight to the legitimacy of the complaint Joph. When you repeat an argument and then ask someone to respond, not to the argument, but as though the argument as "true", you are in effect expressing agreement for the argument itself.

If an interviewer told Obama that many conservatives viewed his decision to speak on Arab TV as his first interview as some kind of capitulation to Muslim extremists, and held up a bumper sticker saying "Obama supports terrorism!", and followed that with a question like: "In retrospect, do you think it was wrong of you to do a first interview on Arab TV?", don't you think many people (including yourself) would be jumping up and down about how the interviewer gave weight to the slogan "Obama supports Terrorism!"?

I'm positive you and many many others would be pretty pissed about that Joph. Brokaw did not need to make a point of reading the words of an opposition slogan when asking the question he asked. In exactly the same way it would be unnecessary to quote an opposition slogan about Obama to ask about the interview he gave. By doing so, you are repeating and giving weight in the public eye to the slogan.

Can we please stop pretending that repetition of slogans and "message" does not have an impact on public perception? It doesn't matter if it's a news story just reporting on something, a article quoting a source, or an interviewer quoting it in the leadup to a question. If you repeat phrases enough times, people remember them and make the associations being stated. Regardless of what other things are said around them. If you repeat on the news every single night "We don't believe this, but <insert political statement here>", you'll increase the number of people who *do* believe whatever you said. This is well known in communication circles. It's why advertising works. It doesn't matter what you say, it's that you repeat the product line enough times.


And yeah. The media does a great job at getting the liberal message and talking points out there. And it very clearly *is* unfair. Why be shocked when by most estimates 80-90% of all people working in "the media" self report themselves to be Liberal. Of course that's going to bleed through. They're going to take every possible opportunity to put whatever clever phrase they found out for mass consumption. You're pretty naive if you honestly think that Brokaw's reasons for repeating that slogan were purely about the question he was asking...

Isn't their party platform "It's unfair, deal with it"?

I think varrus' new name is a slur on Bob Marley, and for that reason alone, I think he should be re-banned.

At least until he gets a more suitable username, like RacistCnut or something.

Yeah that wouldn't be the American way.

Just prop up an extreme dictator to such an extent that the country rises up in a fundamentalist, islamist, anti-western theocracy. Like you did in '79

Alternatively, just a thought; you could keep the fUck out of it and let them revert to an inward-looking quiet place like Jordan or Eqypt.

Oh both our great nations can proudly wear the "I undermined a middle-east nation" lapel-pin

And don't you know that anyone who likes Obama and believes that religion shouldn't be legislated is a godless heathen and therefore hates anyone who represents spiritualism??