(Close Window)
Topic: Tomorrow on MSNBC: How Democrat Abraham Lincoln Freed the Slaves
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 13, 2013 11:13AM)
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/06/12/msnbc-brands-george-wallace-a-republican/
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 13, 2013 01:17PM)
Sloppy work on both sides of the aisle http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2009/06/25/2968314-libel-by-label-a-brief-history-of-fox-news-accidental-democrats
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 13, 2013 02:39PM)
Wallace, a Dixiecrat if there ever was one, did, however, offer to switch to the Republican Party to be Barry Goldwater's running mate:

[quote] ...Bill Jones indicated that Wallace agreed with Goldwater's anti-communist stance but opposed the Republican's proposal to make Social Security a voluntary program. Jones stressed that Wallace had sacrificed his own presidential aspirations that year to allow a direct GOP challenge to President Johnson. It was later disclosed that Wallace proposed at the meeting with Martin to switch parties if he could be named as Goldwater's running-mate, a designation later given to U.S. Representative William E. Miller of New York. Goldwater reportedly rejected the overture because of Wallace's lack of strength outside the Deep South.[25][/quote]

In his 1968 run for office he ran on the American Independent Party ticket.

Also note that MSNBC has corrected their error, something rarely seen at Fox.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 13, 2013 05:47PM)
Well, clearly it was an honest mistake. It's not like they'd have run the piece if they'd known he wad a Democrat.

Hey now!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 13, 2013 07:51PM)
I'm certain they would have run it as it was the anniversary of Wallace's infamous stand blocking blacks from entering the university (as well as Kennedy's famous civil rights speech and the assassination of Medger Evers). Wallace was hardly beloved by the the national Democratic Party. He was, as I noted earlier, a Dixiecrat who, on national issues, was even more to the right of the then much more moderate Republican party.

In other words, he would have been right at home in the right wing of today's Republican party.

In the end, though, Wallace, unlike other Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond, did not leave the Democrats but instead renounced his prior racist views, asked for forgiveness, and went on to appoint a record number of African-Americans to positions in his administration.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 13, 2013 10:28PM)
Bob said: Also note that MSNBC has corrected their error, something rarely seen at Fox.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The reason being is that Fox rarely makes mistakes. :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 14, 2013 08:37AM)
Why does it always have to be something lime well Fox does this? Why can't they be judged just on what they do and not compared to what someone else does bad? They correct it good on them. Leave it at that why attack?

It is like children do on a playground.

Or betteebyer Jeffery Dahmer saying "well I am not so bad. Gacy killed way more kids than I did". As if it somehow mitigates the behavior.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jun 14, 2013 09:47AM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-14 09:37, Dannydoyle wrote:
Why does it always have to be something lime well Fox does this? Why can't they be judged just on what they do and not compared to what someone else does bad? They correct it good on them. Leave it at that why attack?

[/quote]

I agree, Danny. MSNBC made an error and corrected it. The real question is whether this was done with integrity, not whether someone else is better or worse.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2013 11:07AM)
I was going to defend my attack on Fox, but on reflection, Danny is correct. I should have just pointed out that the error was corrected and left it that.

I am trying to improve!

:eek:
Message: Posted by: Kevin Connolly (Jun 14, 2013 06:02PM)
MSLSD is still on TV? You're kidding, right?
Message: Posted by: Kevin Connolly (Jun 14, 2013 06:08PM)
MSNBC Chief Phil Griffin: "We're Not The Place' For Breaking News."

Case closed.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 14, 2013 06:56PM)
Not surprised that you would quote that out of context. That was said after FOX and CNN gave incorrect breaking news stories because they didn't bother verifying their information first. MSNBC, in contrast, puts more importance on getting the facts first, rather than being first to break the story.
Message: Posted by: ringmaster (Jun 14, 2013 08:18PM)
It's unlikely that most people under thirty five would imagine that George Wallace was a Democrat, assuming they had any idea who George Wallace was. This could very likely include the Graphic Editor.
Remember, prior to 1952 the GOP the Party of Lincoln, other than during FDR's term had a solid lock on Black votes. That changed at the 1952 convention, when the Tennessee delegation brought Black WWI hero and lifelong party activist Lt. George W. Lee to the convention as their honored guest. The alterative (Nixon) Tennessee delegation started a floor fight (and several fist fights) to have them ejected. After a noisy and very public
vote the Tennessee regular delegates were physically removed by armed guards on live TV.
Three years later Lt Lee was shot in the head three times while driving home after midnight. Memphis police ruled it an accidental death.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jun 15, 2013 08:44AM)
I'm not up on the history of American political parties, but from what I have seen, it does not appear that the Republicans and Democrats of today have a whole lot of policy continuity with their 19th century predecessors. Is this right? Is there a "standard explanation" of the change (it it's real) or does it just appear to be drift over time?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2013 09:12AM)
There's absolutely been a change. Theodore Roosevelt, for example, was a Republican who today is considered by many to be the father of the progressive movement. A major shift in modern times, though, took place after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when large numbers of southern Democrats and former Dixiecrats re-aligned themselves with the Republican Party. Another was the strong evangelical influence that ironically began with Democrat Jimmy Carter's campaign, but shifted strongly to the right when Reagan ran against him.
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (Jun 15, 2013 10:30AM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-14 19:56, mastermindreader wrote:
Not surprised that you would quote that out of context. That was said after FOX and CNN gave incorrect breaking news stories because they didn't bother verifying their information first. MSNBC, in contrast, puts more importance on getting the facts first, rather than being first to break the story.
[/quote]

I'm forced to agree. MSNBC does verify their information. And then they plan specifically how to change it to fit their agenda.

Something about a 911 audio tape of George Zimmerman comes to mind.

But I'm sure that couldn't have been MSNBC. Like you said, they put more importance on getting the facts first.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 15, 2013 12:16PM)
Actually, it wasn't MSNBC, but rather on a few programs owned by their parent company, NBC. Those involved with the editing were disciplined and or fired. I don't recall any dismissals ever having occurred at Fox for many more similar incidents, such as when they intentionally altered photos of tea party rallies to grossly overstate crowd sizes, or when they put a false full page ad in major newspapers stating that none of the networks covered the first rally, when in fact ALL of them did.

As to the current lawsuit against NBC:

[quote]The network said that the Today show and Miami edits took place in two separate incidents involving different people. A Miami-based NBC News producer lost her job, WTVJ reporter Jeff Burnside was fired,[353] and two other employees were disciplined.[354][355] Lilia Luciano, who was the reporter on broadcasts containing both edited versions of the audio,[348][356] was also fired, and her aired reports on the Trayvon Martin story, along with the misleading audio, were removed from the Today website.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Misleading_audio_editing_by_NBC
Message: Posted by: RobertSmith (Jun 16, 2013 09:15AM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-15 13:16, mastermindreader wrote:
Actually, it wasn't MSNBC, but rather on a few programs owned by their parent company, NBC. Those involved with the editing were disciplined and or fired. I don't recall any dismissals ever having occurred at Fox for many more similar incidents, such as when they intentionally altered photos of tea party rallies to grossly overstate crowd sizes, or when they put a false full page ad in major newspapers stating that none of the networks covered the first rally, when in fact ALL of them did.

As to the current lawsuit against NBC:

[quote]The network said that the Today show and Miami edits took place in two separate incidents involving different people. A Miami-based NBC News producer lost her job, WTVJ reporter Jeff Burnside was fired,[353] and two other employees were disciplined.[354][355] Lilia Luciano, who was the reporter on broadcasts containing both edited versions of the audio,[348][356] was also fired, and her aired reports on the Trayvon Martin story, along with the misleading audio, were removed from the Today website.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Misleading_audio_editing_by_NBC
[/quote]

Splitting hairs that it was the parent company. If you'd like I can run down the list of glaring editing and/or outright falsifications that MSNBC has had.

Mind you, arguing with me that Fox News has done it too is useless as I'm not suggesting Fox doesn't do things like that. I'm merely refuting your suggestion that MSNBC is more diligent in verifying facts. They aren't.

[quote]Bob wrote: MSNBC, in contrast, puts more importance on getting the facts first, rather than being first to break the story. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 16, 2013 09:32AM)
Fox's accuracy is relevant to the question of whether MSNBC is "more" diligent.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 16, 2013 10:15AM)
What really surprises me, though, is how CNN has become increasingly sloppy in racing to "break news" before verifying it. And, of course, the print media is not much better. (I'm thinking about the two innocent guys whose pictures were splattered all over the front pages of the NY Post following the Boston bombing.)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jun 16, 2013 10:15AM)
Silliness notwithstanding, there is a large difference between errors, corrected errors, editorial failure, deliberate falsification and indifference to the facts.

"Nyaa Nyaa" [insert press source you despise here] is baaaaaad" is both uninteresting and unhelpful.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 16, 2013 10:59AM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-16 11:15, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Silliness notwithstanding, there is a large difference between errors, corrected errors, editorial failure, deliberate falsification and indifference to the facts.

"Nyaa Nyaa" [insert press source you despise here] is baaaaaad" is both uninteresting and unhelpful.
[/quote]

And Freudian slips that represent a worldview.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jun 16, 2013 12:01PM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-16 11:59, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-06-16 11:15, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Silliness notwithstanding, there is a large difference between errors, corrected errors, editorial failure, deliberate falsification and indifference to the facts.

"Nyaa Nyaa" [insert press source you despise here] is baaaaaad" is both uninteresting and unhelpful.
[/quote]

And Freudian slips that represent a worldview.
[/quote]

After 10 minutes of "where's waldo's mom?" searching, I can't find it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 16, 2013 12:31PM)
It's inconceivable that Wallace could have been a Democrat, because only Republicans are racists.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jun 16, 2013 12:33PM)
[quote]On 2013-06-16 13:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It's inconceivable that Wallace could have been a Democrat, because only Republicans are racists.[/quote]
Wallace wasn't a racist.

Wallace was a traditionalist. I think that they're allowed to be Democrats.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 16, 2013 02:11PM)
Why did Karl Marx telegraph Lincoln and congratulate him for defeating the south anyway?