Mitt Romney is under fire for an ad he released in New Hampshire after it became known that the spot contained an out of context quote by President Obama. The media didn’t hesitate to pounce on the error and of course liberal stalwart and former MSNBC employee Cenk Uygur was quick to note the contextual discrepancy. On the November 23 rd 2011 of The Young Turks, Uygur expressed his outrage: The main lie in the ad when they quoted Obama saying, “If we keep talking about the economy we’re going to lose.” Now, you want to know what the reality is? That was Obama in 2008 quoting a John McCain advisor. The early part of that sentence which they cut out of the video was, “a John McCain advisor says if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose. So you could not quote him more out of context. That is an absolute lie Obama did not say that about his own campaign…it’s the exact opposite of what the reality is. And Uygur was right. The line was taken completely out of context and should never have made it to air. Uygur’s outrage is rather disingenuous, however, when you consider one of his previous experiences with context in political campaign ads. If we think back on the most egregious cases of “out of context” quoting in recent history, Former Florida Congressman Alan Grayson’s ‘Taliban Dan’ ad from 2010. If you’ll remember, this is the ad in which Grayson quoted opponent Daniel Webster at a church function saying, “Wives submit yourself to your husband” and “she should submit to me, that’s in the bible”. The full context of the quotes , however, clearly show’s that Webster was specifically saying NOT to quote those passages in the bible. At the time, Grayson took a considerable amount of flak for the ad except for one person who had nothing but praise, Cenk Uygur. Take a look at this clip of Uygur calling Grayson’s ad a “show of strength” on September 27th of 2010: Looks like Cenk was for full context before he was against it. On a side note, congratulations to Current TV on it’s acquisition of Cenk . Considering his consistency issues, I’m sure that’s going to work out as well as his tenure at MSNBC. Update 11:08am: Lee Doren points out to me that Cenk later pulled a mea culpa on his praise of the Grayson ad saying that Grayson was right on the substance of Dan Webster’s positions but that he was ”Breitbarting it” with the editing. Credit where it’s due.
Follow this link:
Cenk Uygur’s Context Problem
On Wednesday, The Blaze posted a lengthy report looking at the ethics of undercover journalism. The comments on the post show a lively debate and wide-ranging views on what is considered ethical and acceptable in pursuit of a scoop. Plenty of readers felt the new NPR exposé justified any ethical misgivings involved in producing it. Others felt that those seeking truths should hold to higher standards. When undercover video like the NPR story first surfaces, we often look to see if there is raw video of the material used to produce the report as a basis for evaluating the accuracy of the representations made. And we decided to do that in this case. The Blaze’s Pam Key , who produces most of our original videos, is experienced in reviewing hours and hours of raw audio/video to find key sections that can then be used in proper context. Her review of the NPR exposé identifies a number of areas to examine. Do these areas reveal problematic editing choices? Are assertions made in the video misleading? Are the tactics used by the video producers unethical? Clearly the NPR executives, particularly Ron Schiller, show poor and, at times, despicable judgment. Do any of the revelations from the raw video ameliorate that? Do their wrongdoing justify any wrongdoing by the video producers? These are sometimes difficult matters to consider, especially for those who are pleased with the outcomes produced by the release of video reports like this; however, the ethical implications can be significant. And as we say around The Blaze watercooler…the truth has no agenda. Perspective and context are essential elements in bringing truth to the forefront. To exclude or alter them can obscure truths rather than reveal them. We’ll allow you to watch sections of the edited video that has been widely distributed…and then to compare those sections with the raw video that has been laudably released by the video producers. 1. Muslim Brotherhood connections Much of the consternation over this video centers on the question of why would NPR executives meet with a group connected to Muslim Brotherhood. Did they know? And if Muslim Brotherhood is mentioned, how are the ties characterized? Is the edited video misleading on these points? In this first section, the narration describes the players and says the NPR executives were preparing to meet with the members of “Muslim Education Action Center.” The narrator then describes the MEAC as a “Muslim Brotherhood front group.” It does not explain how the NPR executives would have a basis to believe they were meeting with a Muslim Brotherhood front group. The raw video helps us evaluate how the NPR execs might perceive the men. The men describe themselves as board members but indicate that they are at lower levels in the organization…one of them explaining that he is relatively new to the board…the other saying he works in mostly an “observation basis.” You will see that in this clip. Further, we compare the edited video with the raw video on the important section of how the actors describe the role/connection of the Muslim Brotherhood to their efforts. The edited video includes a reference to some of the original founders of MEAC being members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America. Is this the only reference and basis for the NPR execs to consider MEAC to have a Muslim Brotherhood connection? The raw video also includes a longer section of description that seems to downplay connections of the MEAC group to the Muslim Brotherhood as popularly perceived. 2. Does Ron Schiller react to “Sharia” mission statement with amusement? The narrator notes that the MEAC website includes this phrase: “We must combat intolerance to spread acceptance of Sharia across the world.” Sharia is defined as “the sacred law of Islam.” But the interpretation of that definition has many variations across many Islamic traditions. That alone would not be a firm clue for the NPR executives of the group’s beliefs. Of greater concern, though, is how the video is edited at this juncture. So after saying that the MEAC website advocates the “acceptance of Sharia,” the video cuts to the NPR exec saying, “Really? That’s what they said?” The cadence is jovial and upbeat and the narration moves on. The implication is that the NPR exec is aware and perhaps amused or approving of the MEAC mission statement. But when you look at the raw video you realize he was actually recounting an unrelated and innocuous issue about confusion over names in the restaurant reservation. 3. How does Schiller describe Republicans? Schiller’s negative comments about Republicans and conservatives have gotten a great deal of attention. He clearly says some offensive things, while being very direct that he is giving his own opinion and not that of NPR. Still — a wildly stupid move! But you may be surprised to learn, that in the raw video, Schiller also speaks positively about the GOP. He expresses pride in his own Republican heritage and his belief in fiscal conservatism. 4. The “seriously racist” Tea Party NPR exec Ron Schiller does describe Tea Party members as “xenophobic…seriously racist people.” This is one of the reasons why he no longer has a job! But the clip in the edited video implies Schiller is giving simply his own analysis of the Tea Party. He does do that in part, but the raw video reveals that he is largely recounting the views expressed to him by two top Republicans, one a former ambassador, who admitted to him that they voted for Obama. At the end, he signals his agreement. The larger context does not excuse his comments, or his judgment in sharing the account, but would a full context edit have been more fair? See what you think: 5. Are liberals more educated than conservatives? You may also have seen a section of the video where Schiller describes liberals as more educated than conservatives. But the raw video shows a section where Schiller is hesitant to criticize the education of conservatives and the other executive, Betsy Liley, is outspoken in her defense of the intellects of Fox News viewers. Would it have been fair to include the broader range of the executives statements? The impression of the original video, that the execs were only hostile toward Republicans and conservatives, is incorrect. 6. Does NPR need federal funding? Let’s look now at one of the other sections most featured in news reports about the original video — the comments about federal funding for NPR. Schiller says that NPR, “in the long run,” would be better off without federal funding and that most of the stations would survive a loss of such funding. The implication is that Schiller does not believe federal funding for NPR is important. In the raw video, however, Schiller explains the risk to local stations in more detail and why NPR is doing “everything we can to advocate for federal funding.” 7. Audio issue number one In the release of the raw video, there are two sections where the audio becomes an issue. In this first clip the video (complete with “timecode” stamp) continues to play while the audio goes into some kind of glitchy loop. This could be an actual glitch, though not one I’ve seen like this in 25 years of working with video editing. It could also be a “glitch” edited into a loop to cover a section of the recording on purpose. In any case here it is: 8. Audio issue number two The video producers “redacted” a 1:24 section of the audio. They explain that this is for the “safety of a reporter illegally in foreign country.” The implication from the editing is that Betsy Liley is describing the activities of the reporter in question: The Blaze contacted NPR to see if Liley recalls the nature of her comments here, but thus far they have been unable to accommodate our inquiry. Conclusion: Anyone looking at the edited version of the Project Veritas video would be concerned about the conduct and views expressed by the NPR representatives. But should we also be concerned about the deceptive nature of some of the video’s representations? Some will say no — the end justifies any means, even if unethical. Others may be bothered by these tactics and view similar projects with a greater degree of skepticism. In our posting yesterday on the ethics of undercover journalism, we found a range of views. One interesting view is held by Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard. Barnes believes it is always wrong for a journalist to lie: “It‘s dishonest for anyone in journalism to pretend to be someone they’re not.” But Barnes also believes this applies only to journalists. “This rule doesn’t apply to folks outside the profession,” he told The Blaze. Barnes views the O’Keefe production as a “political hit job and a quite clever and successful one at that.” Barnes may not realize that O’Keefe describes his work as “investigative journalism,” and thus by Barnes definition — unethical. And that is only on the issue of going undercover. But even if you are of the opinion, as I am, that undercover reporting is acceptable and ethical in very defined situations, it is another thing to approve of editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented.
See the original post:
Does Raw Video of NPR Expose Reveal Questionable Editing & Tactics?
Shocking undercover video emerged yesterday of a New Jersey Planned Parenthood manager coaching a fake pimp and prostitute on how to bypass reporting laws and suggesting how the couple could run their child prostitution ring. While Planned Parenthood initially defended itself (by saying it had reported the U.S. Attorney General), yesterday afternoon it said it would take appropriate action . By last night, we found out what that action would be: the group has fired the manager. The manager, identified in the video as Amy Woodruff, advised the couple to lie about their young prostitutes’ age and even explained how the girls could be used to entice customers if they couldn’t have sex. “We were profoundly shocked when we viewed the videotape released [Tuesday] morning, which depicted an employee of one of our health centers behaving in a repugnant manner that is inconsistent with our standards of care and is completely unacceptable,” Phyllis Kinsler, executive director of Planned Parenthood of Central Jersey, said in a statement released at 10:20 p.m, NJ.com reports . “We have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of behavior, and the employee in the video was immediately suspended from her duties [Tuesday] morning and was terminated [Tuesday] evening,” Kinsler said. “We are fully committed to delivering high-quality reproductive health care to the women of our communities, complying with all laws, and upholding the highest ethical standards.” Still, NJ.com says Kinsler questioned the editing of the group behind the video, Live Action. In response to that criticism, the group has released the full, unedited footage of the undercover operation. NJ.com says the NJ Attorney General Paula Dow asked the Division of Criminal Justice to investigate whether the manager should face legal action. “At first glance, I find these allegations to be very disturbing,” she said in a statement. Additionally, her spokesman said Gov. Chris Christie’s office as well as some legislators had referred the matter to her attention. “New Jersey taxpayers and every state and federal elected official and law enforcement agency throughout this country should be outraged,” Marie Tasy of New Jersey Right to Life told NJ.com, adding that Planned Parenthood does not deserve taxpayer funding. Last year, Christie cut state aid to 58 family-planning facilities across New Jersey. Read more from NJ.com.
More:
Update: Planned Parenthood Employee Fired Over Fake Pimp Vid
Above Stephen Broden’s desk at his campaign headquarters in Desoto, TX hangs a painting of a child covered in an American flag. “Have you thought about freedom lately?” the picture asks. Considering the recent controversy surrounding Broden, one could say the answer for him is undoubtedly “yes.” Broden is the Dallas-area politician and pastor who was quoted by local media as saying that violent revolution is an option that is “on the table,” especially if he and fellow Republicans lose in November. But those comments, he says in an exclusive interview with The Blaze, have been starved of their full context, causing a national backlash that has been painfully echoed by some of his friends. The controversy started on Thursday when WFAA-TV interviewed the U.S. House candidate in Texas’s 30th district about some past comments. Those remarks included a statement in 2009 regarding the way to go about changing inadequate leaders: “We have a constitutional remedy here, and the framers said if that don’t work — revolution.” WFAA’s Brad Watson asked Broden if he stood by the remarks, and reported Broden’s response as follows : Broden said Thursday that revolution, in his view, first comes at the ballot box. But he said violent overthrow is an option. “Our nation was founded on violence; the option is on the table,” he said. “I don’t think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.” Cue all hell breaking loose. Worlds colliding. Jaws dropping. Arms flailing. Cue Stephen Broden wondering how what he thought he made so clear could be portrayed so poorly. Broden doesn’t deny he talked about revolution on Thursday. He doesn’t deny he said overthrowing the government is “on the table.” He did, and he still believes it. But he does deny that he said such an option should be considered now, at this time, or in the near future. What hasn’t been reported are the words he said in addition to the ones that have now become infamous. Words that make it clear he’s not advocating an imminent government overthrow or an epic November loser’s party that would end in a power struggle. Words such as “crazy,” “absurd,” and “outside the scope of reason and logic” to describe the idea that he is calling for such a thing if he loses. Words such as revolution is only an option “under the worst of circumstances,” is a “last resort,” and “we are not at that point.” “I think the Declaration of Independence spells out what those circumstances are very clearly,” Broden says in a deep, velvet voice. “That it is when abuse takes place for an extended period … or if there is a despot who is exercising or running rough shot over our liberties and our freedoms and extracting them from us, then we have a right to go beyond just the ballot box — we can go to resistance.” Multiple times, and in different ways, he says we are not there: “I have never said that we are at the point of having a despot, or having a tyrannical individual who is terminating our rights by terminating our Constitution.” Rather, what the country is experiencing now is what the Declaration of Independence calls “light and transient causes.” And those, Broden says, are dealt with “through the ballot box.” “I repeated that over and over again,” Broden says regarding his interview with Watson and WFAA, “absolutely I made it clear. But through his editing you will never see that I said that. You will never see that I said to him ‘we are not at that point;’ that is not the option that we exercise at the front end of what [the Founders] call ‘light and transient causes.’ … You exercise your right at the ballot box.” Joining the young child as sentries on his wall are the Bush family and an American eagle, watching over him as he makes his case: “I made that clear to Brad [Watson]. But that doesn’t make for exciting television. What makes for exciting television is that Broden says that violence is on the table.” Broden seems anything but violent. He is well spoken and passionate but gentle. He’s also well versed in the founding documents, and quotes from them frequently when explaining his position. Despite the recent controversy, that position still includes the option of government overthrow. “It is on the table because the founding fathers put it on the table,” he says, and refers to the Declaration of Independence’s statement that the people have the right to “alter,” “abolish,” or “throw off” oppressive government. Still, he is quick and careful to quote the document’s caveat: abolishment and overthrow can only ever be considered after a “long train of abuses.” Still, “If you remove it from the table what other options do we have if in fact we encounter a tyrannical move from an individual or group of people who would rob us of our liberties?” Throughout the interview, his molasses voice never cracks — as if James Earl Jones had joined you for coffee and broke into frequent, yet relevant, recitations of the Declaration. Even when talking about how the situation has made him question some of his friendships, he remains calm. “Some of my friends took at face value what was said about me as opposed to saying, ‘I know him, I will investigate this first before I make any statements about it,” he says amid the books and printed blog posts on his desk. He calls it “surprising” but refuses to name anyone in particular: “I was thrown under the bus and everyone backed up.” He acknowledges later he has heard what Glenn Beck — who has hosted Broden on TV and at events in the past and questioned the pastor’s comments but also their context — has to say , but only second-hand. According to Broden, he made his overthrow distinction clear to Watson and the Dallas Morning News, which originally endorsed him but withdrew that endorsement Friday. In its un-endorsement , the Morning News said that Broden had “back-tracked” but that the paper couldn’t support him because it questioned his judgment. “I answered all of their questions as honestly as I could,” Broden says regarding a follow-up meeting with the Morning News’s editorial board on Friday. “I don’t know how they received that, [but] it sounds like they didn’t receive it well at all.” Later he suggests that his answers to Watson and the Morning News didn’t fit into their version of politically correct, and for that he was villainized. Yet he has no regrets: “I’m sorry I’m not politically correct here. I think I’m constitutionally correct and I’m correct as it relates to the principles that are outlaid in the Declaration of Independence.” According to Broden, neither Brad Watson nor WFAA have reached out to him, but he also has not attempted to contact them. That may be because he is upset about the way the interview was conducted. He paints a picture of the interview as more of set-up or ambush (my words, not his) rather than a meeting. He says he was originally given the impression that he was attending a meeting about his stances on Social Security and entitlement reform. But when he walked into the interview room Watson greeted him with a TV monitor, and then began showing Broden former speeches and issuing “rapid-fire” questions in a combative way. “It was kind of a contentious conversation with him talking over me,” he says. “I thought he took sort of a Sam Donaldson approach to questioning me,” referring to the longtime ABC news anchor known for his combative tone. Watson still hasn’t responded to The Blaze’s requests for comment Broden is now trying to put the controversy behind him and focus on the campaign. He likes his chances of beating longtime incumbent Eddie Bernice Johnson. While he says it would be an “upset,” he believes his campaign has been riding a wave of momentum. “People have had it,” he says of his district’s attitude toward Johnson, who has represented the district for 18 years. Perhaps surprisingly, she’s not attacked his revolution comments. Broden thinks he’s been successful conveying his message of a better business environment and better education to his potential constituents. And he’s hoping revolution at the ballot box starts in Texas’s 30th district. If the outpouring of support he’s received from the public since Thursday is any indication, he may be right. “I’ve gotten calls from all over the country and here locally as well,” he says. “People have been very, very encouraging and supporting.” Support has especially poured in from those who have “read the Declaration.” “I am just encouraged by how the public has responded,” he explains, carefully enunciating every word. Yet the excitement over support from strangers is quickly overshadowed by a thought that seems to haunt him: “but, again, my friends haven’t said very much.” As if to change the subject, the American flag-wrapped child looks on: “Have you thought about freedom lately?”
Read the original post:
Exclusive: Stephen Broden Talks With The Blaze About Relationships, Rights, and Revolution
