Little Green Footballs

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Edited interviews for me, and not for thee


Old Chuckles is having a few problems with the recent TV interview with Sarah Palin:

ABC News Hid Important Parts of Palin Interview

It won’t come as a surprise to LGF readers, but Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin was heavily edited by ABC News to make Palin appear more hawkish and less knowledgeable. Mark Levin has the complete transcript, and what ABC News tried to pull here is a textbook example of media malfeasance: Gibson Interview.

Also see: ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview.

The interview was so egregiously biased, even UPI is calling out ABC News for their blatant double standards: ABC’s Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire.


Fair enough, however, it does come as a surprise that Charlie should complain.. After all, the source on media in the Middle East he relies on the most does that kind of stuff quite a lot of times..

//UPDATE: Not only does he entirely trust this bogus and sad excuse of a media outlet, he also urges his little green army to give them money:


Anonymous said...

Has Chuckles forgotten that the UPI is owned by the same folks who own the Washington Times?

Red Tulips said...

What a joke. You quote for Norm Finkelstein as "proof" of anything?

What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously, I want to know what is wrong with you.

The man publicly said "We are all Hizballah," and is an open and proud Hizballah supporter. Yet you quote him as a source and expect people will pay heed to your words?

You are beyond pathetic.

No words can describe the level of inanity of this post.

The Sphinx said...

It's funny you know, the moment the name "Norman Finkelstein" is mentioned, you go haywire. Never mind the fact that the page shows some heavy editing from Memri to try and portray the man (whose own parents were in concentration camp) as a holocaust denier.

The question is simple: Is it fair for Chuckie to complain about interview editing, when his most trusty source does exactly that? Yes or no?

Spluttering out some outraged insults does not go through as a valid answer by the way. For once in your life, address the point of the post itself, instead of flying straight past it.

Lex said...

I can play it again, but the bolded words were in the interview I saw. Either way I'm PALIANATED.

Anonymous said...

@The Sphinx

You might as well give up, people like red tulips aren't even in it for the fact, check this link out:

"MEMRI is highly reliable - they provide quality translations of the juiciest bits. Naturally, everyone on the left hates them for it, because the juicy bits really are greatly so, so they come with lying attack pieces with little evidence like this one."

MEMRI is awesome because it only displays the 'juicy bits', facts be damned!

stvip said...

The editing is reasonable and done for brevity, nothing significant was left out, and there's nothing unusual or unethical about this process in the manner applied. So what's your point? The same goes to your other attempts at showing MEMRI gaffes, by the way. There's nothing inappropriate at play.

Personally, I am not outraged by your endorsement of the likes of Finkelstein, because it only serves as additional confirmation of what I already knew about you. No surprises, hence no shock or outrage.

The Sphinx said...

Stvip, no disagreement on the brevity part. In fact, with hours of material, editing is necessary. However, when it comes to (deliberate?) mistranslations and lies meant to serve ones own agenda at the cost of others, as is the case with Memri, there's nothing left of appropriate journalism.

And my point is simple (For the third time already): If that kind of nonsense is fair game for Charles Johnson, then he shouldn't be complaining about the Palin interview. After all, you yourself said it has been subject only to some harmless and appropriate editing.