snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 31 March 2014, 02:26 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,640
Reporter Hillary Clinton Doesn't Deserve a Free Pass from the Media

David Brock is wrong — the nation and her prospective campaign will be better off if journalists investigate her worst tendencies.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-media/359672/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 31 March 2014, 03:37 AM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,917
Default

The comments on that one are interestingly all over the map (without sounding completely insane).

No one deserves a complete "free pass" from the media, but it's always wise to consider the source of stories. And there's a proven track record of 'sources' for many of the negative allegations regarding the Clintons turning out to be unreliable and agenda-driven, so I think journalists should certainly not rush to print them without more fact-checking. (I'm referring of course to actual journalists; we all know what certain parts of the media are going to do.)

I do wish Brock were a little less agenda-driven himself. I read his original book Blinded by the Right and enjoyed it, and identified with many parts of the story - had things gone slightly differently I could have followed a similar political path. I found The Republican Noise Machine, his exposure of the right-wing's highly successful efforts to hijack and confuse public discourse, to be unreadable, unfortunately - it may be a valuable reference, but the sheer amount of detail bogs it down. And I highly approve of his efforts to expose inaccuracy in the media, but he's long since abandoned any pretense of objectivity in the matter, and Media Matters has simply turned into the "Get Fox" organization. Which may still be valuable to some degree, but makes it also suspect as a source.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 31 March 2014, 11:58 AM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

Media Matters does not pretend to be nonpartisan, but most of what they do involves quoting people verbatim, or, better yet, posting a video, and then commenting on it. They also provide links for facts in their commentary. I'm more comfortable with partisanship when it is well sourced.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 31 March 2014, 02:56 PM
Darth Credence's Avatar
Darth Credence Darth Credence is offline
 
Join Date: 28 October 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 3,405
Default

I don't go to Media Matters, so I have no idea how trustworthy they are. That said, just because they quote people verbatim or post videos and comment on them does not make them reliable. Think of quoting someone verbatim by saying that Obama told people "you didn't build that", or the videos put up by Breitbart.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 31 March 2014, 03:35 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,640
TV

The point is that Media Matters posts clips showing exactly what people on Fox News are saying, in the full and original context. They don't use second-hand (or worse) excerpts presented out of context, as many others are wont to do.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 31 March 2014, 03:59 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Credence View Post
I don't go to Media Matters, so I have no idea how trustworthy they are. That said, just because they quote people verbatim or post videos and comment on them does not make them reliable. Think of quoting someone verbatim by saying that Obama told people "you didn't build that", or the videos put up by Breitbart.
Right. I suppose I should have added that they don't do that. And they provide a link to go to the original source so that you can see the full context. And maybe that I'm smart enough to know that things can be taken out of context, so I don't consider a source reliable when they do that.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 31 March 2014, 04:32 PM
Johnny Slick's Avatar
Johnny Slick Johnny Slick is offline
 
Join Date: 13 February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,628
Default

I'm sorry, but this article is little more than a hit piece, and touches on one of the most disagreeable aspects of HRC "critiques" that are out there. The woman is ambitious, driven, and yes, sometimes rather ruthless. These are qualities good politicians are supposed to have. Why is it that we only worry about this when the politician in question is a woman?

Quote:
Her “if-you’re-not-with-us-you’re-against-us” attitude even infuriated some congressional liberals. “You don’t tell members of the Senate you are going to demonize them” if they disagree with you, declared New Jersey Democrat Bill Bradley, who accused Hillary of working on “the assumption that people with questions are enemies.” Lawrence O’Donnell, then a key aide to New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, said that Hillary’s threat to “demonize” health care opponents “colored [Moynihan’s] perception of Hillary, and how she operated, for the rest of his life.”
This is flat-out cherry-picking and making her look like a "queen bitch" or something. The fact of the matter is, she was rather well-liked in the Senate for being someone who worked hard and who was willing to speak to folks on both sides of the aisle. That being said, politics is politics, and sometimes you make enemies. If the *worst* you can find about her is that the senior Senator from her state tone-trolled her, that's not a real criticism in my book.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 31 March 2014, 05:14 PM
Singing in the Drizzle Singing in the Drizzle is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 4,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
Right. I suppose I should have added that they don't do that. And they provide a link to go to the original source so that you can see the full context. And maybe that I'm smart enough to know that things can be taken out of context, so I don't consider a source reliable when they do that.
I agree with you. Especially when the news quotes someone so far out of context that it is not even a quote. While I did not Obama and did not vote for him this stunt just made me sick of the news. They quoted what Obama said as he was quoting someone else with out the part that said he was quoting the someone. Is there even a word for this quote of a quote.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 31 March 2014, 05:16 PM
Sylvanz's Avatar
Sylvanz Sylvanz is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,936
Default

I find the notion of Hillary getting a "free pass" from the media pretty damned amusing. Since when has anyone in the media ever given Hillary Clinton a "free pass".
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 31 March 2014, 05:30 PM
musicgeek's Avatar
musicgeek musicgeek is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2005
Location: Fairfield, CT
Posts: 5,557
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singing in the Drizzle View Post
While I did not Obama...
I have not now, nor have I ever, Obamaed!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 31 March 2014, 05:40 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,425
Default

I experimented with Obama a time or two, and didn't like it. I didn't Barack and I didn't try it again.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02 April 2014, 10:14 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,917
Default

Incidentally, with regard to Brock: when I was looking up the titles of the books I referred to in my earlier post, I saw he had a more current title called The Benghazi Hoax (co-authored with Ari Rabin-Havt & MMA). It's a short book, but Amazon was selling the e-book for 99 cents, so I picked it up.

It's a decent read when it comes to rebutting the main conservative talking points about the issue, but it could have used more context. A starting chapter detailing what is known to have happened, a timeline, would have been helpful. In the conclusion, he writes:

Quote:
While partisan noisemakers schemed to create headlines, officials within the government have worked quietly but tirelessly at doing the responsible things - first rescuing the bulk of the Americans there, then burying and honoring the dead, then learning what went wrong to better protect U. S. diplomats, cooperating with congressional panels and implementing recommendations for better security, and finally, pursuing justice against the terrorist who carried out the attacks.
Well enough, but it doesn't address those actual questions: What did go wrong? What improvements are being made? Who was responsible and what progress has been made in pursuing them? Brock would probably argue that these are outside the scope of the book, which is focused on showing how Republicans in Congress and the right-wing media have used (or ignored) cherry-picked facts and debunked allegations to build a scandal out of nothing for the main purpose (he feels, and I tend to agree) to discredit Hillary Clinton prior to the 2016 presidential campaign. But the extra context would have made the story both more dramatic and easier to follow, and omitting details about actions taken after makes one wonder if the follow-through has been less than it ought to be.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03 April 2014, 11:27 AM
Ramblin' Dave's Avatar
Ramblin' Dave Ramblin' Dave is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 13,120
Kenya

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanz View Post
I find the notion of Hillary getting a "free pass" from the media pretty damned amusing. Since when has anyone in the media ever given Hillary Clinton a "free pass".
My thoughts exactly. Every time I hear someone on Daily Kos whine about how "they'd never get away with this with a white president," I feel completely safe in assuming that person is too young to have been politically aware in the '90s. Every time the right wing NFBSK machine cooked up some new attack on both Clintons, the mainstream media fell for it and ran with it for weeks before word leaked out that there was no there there.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04 April 2014, 06:42 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,917
Default

I did recently reread some of my old blog posts from the 2008 election, and I admit I didn't know whether to laugh or cry that part of my reason for favoring Obama for the nomination was that so much anti-Clinton hatred existed, while Obama might actually have a chance at being more of a uniter. I ought to have known better....(not that this is the fault of either Obama or either of the Clintons; though I strongly suspect that one of the reasons for the particular hatred of Bill Clinton lies in how successful his Presidency actually was...)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04 April 2014, 06:50 PM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicgeek View Post
I have not now, nor have I ever, Obamaed!
I did but I didn't inhale.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07 April 2014, 11:12 PM
IlGreven's Avatar
IlGreven IlGreven is offline
 
Join Date: 12 March 2001
Location: Risingsun, Ohio
Posts: 794
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanz View Post
I find the notion of Hillary getting a "free pass" from the media pretty damned amusing. Since when has anyone in the media ever given Hillary Clinton a "free pass".
Yeah...if this qualifies as a "free pass", I'd hate to see what "In-depth scrutiny" is...though it's probably what they thought Sarah Palin got with gotcha questions like "what newspapers do you read?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramblin' Dave View Post
My thoughts exactly. Every time I hear someone on Daily Kos whine about how "they'd never get away with this with a white president," I feel completely safe in assuming that person is too young to have been politically aware in the '90s. Every time the right wing NFBSK machine cooked up some new attack on both Clintons, the mainstream media fell for it and ran with it for weeks before word leaked out that there was no there there.
That's what I like to play with whenever someone brings up race. All I say is that Republicans are attacking Obama because he's, well, y'know...a Democrat.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07 April 2014, 11:57 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,917
Default

I do think some of the attacks on Obama are influenced by his race, just as some of the attacks on Clinton are influence by her gender. But considering how Bill Clinton (among many others) was treated, I'm sure there would still be plenty of attacks if they were both white males. They just might be of a somewhat different character.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08 April 2014, 12:52 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,837
Default

Yeah, why they are attacking him is different from *how* they are attacking him.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08 April 2014, 12:55 AM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 8,833
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IlGreven View Post


That's what I like to play with whenever someone brings up race. All I say is that Republicans are attacking Obama because he's, well, y'know...a Democrat.
I agree but if comments attached to on-line news articles are anything to go by Obama being in the Oval Office has brought out the inner racist in a lot of people who probably wouldn't have been quite so "Obama is the ebil" otherwise and I suspect these same people would have felt the same way had he been Republican.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08 April 2014, 10:56 PM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,670
Default

Slightly hijacking on the race-based insults tangent, I've seen a few tasteless depictions of Obama as a monkey, and plenty of criticism in response to that. On the one hand, Bush came in for his fair share of exactly the same thing. On the other, there's plenty of cultural context behind portraying black people as less-than-human primates, to the point that's probably just something you should never do, regardless of whether your intent was to reference that awful context or just riff on the president's intelligence, which was the spirit in which the Bush-as-monkey cartoons were made.

Going back to Clinton, there's been some concern-trolling from the right about her age, despite the fact that John McCain is 11 years older and they had no problem running with him six years ago. I can believe they'd latch on to anything they could find to criticize about a male presumptive Democratic candidate, but I wonder whether that--or his appearance--would be as high on their list. I mean, Clinton's been in the public eye for a long time and has said plenty of things on the record to piss people off; is a body-shaming KFC parody really the best you can do?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So, it's Easter: Is Hillary Clinton Running for President Yet? snopes Soapbox Derby 1 31 March 2013 09:22 PM
Harriet Tubman (Hillary Clinton version) snopes Questionable Quotes 2 28 August 2008 10:32 PM
Hillary Clinton in Kosovo snopes Politics 64 11 April 2008 07:57 PM
(Hillary) Clinton quotes snopes Questionable Quotes 16 07 September 2007 04:22 AM
Dick Morris on Hillary Clinton snopes Politics 3 14 August 2007 03:55 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.