Rachel Maddow Calls B.S.

Here’s a fun clip from Rachel Maddow that focuses on how the “pimpgate” ACORN story and the “climategate” hacked-email stories were basically made-up controversies:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

30 Responses to “Rachel Maddow Calls B.S.”

  1. NorthernLite Says:

    I watch her every night and love her show. The video above is a great example of why I do.

  2. enkidu Says:

    “stop making stuff up”

    good luck with that

  3. Bishop Clark Says:

    This video is great.

    I usually ignore people who think that ‘email’ is pluralized is ‘emails’, because it suggests the speaker is an uneducated bumpkin. Dunno if she makes that laughable gaffe, but I certainly noticed the Fox News people did often.

    Now I hope she doesn’t, for she’s using words that make sense. She’s using logic and stuff. How odd.

  4. Craig Says:

    Do you ignore people who say “that ‘email’ is pluralized is ‘emails’”?

    How about people who say “dunno”?

    Ha! I get your point, but it’s almost inevitable that people who use the grammar angle as a putdown, end up making their own errors.

    We all make such mistakes regularly. You’ll get pretty lonely in your tower of grammar correctness.

  5. Smith Says:

    I’m bothered more by “‘email’ is pluralized is ‘emails’” than “Dunno”.

  6. enkidu Says:

    I just sent you two emails:

    one about intertube humor
    and another about grammar

    dunno if you got em yet
    jlmk

  7. shcb Says:

    She’s kind of a story half full type of person isn’t she? They should pair Maddow and Hannity in one show, then they could each tell half the story in their own snarky style, very entertaining.

  8. NorthernLite Says:

    Actually in last nights show she schooled Hannity big-time. She showed his “outrage” over the original heavily edited pimp/ho videos and then showed the actual whole videos. Including the one Hannity used heavily that actually ends with the Acorn guy calling the police as soon as the pimp/ho actors left.

    It was awesome.

  9. shcb Says:

    That’s what I mean, then he would “school” her by showing Fox people saying that in that one case they did call the cops, and he could mention that she “forgot” to mention that ACORN was in a heap big bunch of trouble way before this for voter fraud, it would be a hoot, they could simocast it on both networks. I would be like a bad journalism reality show.

  10. shcb Says:

    I thought it was funny that she told a story about leaving out half the story… by leaving out half the story.

  11. NorthernLite Says:

    I don’t think Hannity would last one minute debating her on anything. It’d fun to watch though.

  12. enkidu Says:

    Yes, I think Ms Maddow did indeed only tell half the story.  The true half.  The wwnj bullshit ‘half’ of the story she left for dear ol wwnj, hannutty, coulter, rush, beck, fox, savage, rosen and sgt slaughter. I like her more than Keith for sure (less histrionics, better humor)

    ACORN? Never heard of them until the wwnjs made them into the most recent target. Tho I do recall signing persistent (or cute) voter registrars forms or petitions with made up names (fraud! nope, just making annoying person leave me alone) or in the case of the cute ones, my real name and number.

    I am pretty sure Elmer Q Fudd never actually voted in that pivotal election in ’80 (or did he?!?!!)

  13. NorthernLite Says:

    Yeah she presented both sides last nite; Hannity’s fabricated version of the story and then the actual story as played out on the videos.

  14. shcb Says:

    … her version :)

  15. NorthernLite Says:

    Her version/the real version… whatever, same diff :)

  16. shcb Says:

    No, not really, she picks the portion of the video she likes and then comments on that portion like that was all that was said. She didn’t mention that the House of Commons based the report on one day of oral testimony did she? She didn’t mention that ACORN is in trouble in several states for voter fraud, these are real criminal investigations where people may go to jail, she says they faked the ACORN sting, no it was real, these people really were telling this girl and this guy how to do something illegal. Maddow is good, she is very persuasive, but she is as full as shit as they come.

  17. NorthernLite Says:

    I don’t think you understand the purpose of her piece. It was to show how the right-wing universe manipulated video to make it seem like all these horrible things were happening. That was the point of the piece and she nailed them pretty good. Nowhere does she deny the things you’re saying and the real wrongs that have occurred. Her report was to show how easily Hannity allowed himself and his viewers to be fooled. That’s the point.

  18. shcb Says:

    But they weren’t fooled, if you look at the whole story.

  19. NorthernLite Says:

    One could even say that what Hannity and co. did was very similar to what these Wikileaks folks did with the Apache video knarly posted the other day…

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/military-raises-questions-credibility-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/?test=latestnews

  20. shcb Says:

    I’m not sure I understand. I don’t want to go down the wrong path, can you elaboranate (damn nuns)

  21. NorthernLite Says:

    Remember the video knarly posted the other day of the air assault in Baghdad? Well it seems maybe that video was edited to make the situation look as worse as possible (which I think you hinted at after he posted it). I’m saying that’s what Hannity and company did with the ACORN videos too.

    Basically I’m saying that I’ll agree with you that the air assault video was edited for maximum affect if you’ll admit that that’s what was done with the ACORN video as well. Then we’ll go for a beer lol.

  22. shcb Says:

    Hell, we don’t have to agree to have a beer, what would we talk about until the alcohol took effect. I would agree that both videos were edited for effect to the extent that is possible without loosing credibility, and that is ok to a point. I’ve used the selling a used car analogy before, not telling someone there is a little rust on the front fender is one thing, not letting them see the side of the car that is totaled or not telling them the engine is ruined is another. I don’t think the Wiki people crossed that line with editing but may have crossed it with the comments, I haven’t watched either the short or long video from Wiki, just the link Knarly put up, I’m just going off what others have said, maybe I’ll get to look at them in the next day or two.

    My beef with Maddow is saying that the guy is dressed as a pimp in one shot and not in another is reason enough to exonerate ACORN for the damning part of the video. In the first place was he dressed as a pimp at one office and not at another and she used the two clips and then said that Fox was misrepresenting what happened. That is disingenuous on her part. Let’s say she is right and the guy never went into any of the offices dressed like a pimp, was it just some theatrics? It still doesn’t nullify what ACORN did, if she wants to chide Fox for being unprofessional by using theatrics in the opening segment, that is ok.

    Mull that over a little and then we’ll talk about the wiki video, I have some thoughts but I’m having a little of a hard time making them coherent.

  23. knarlyknight Says:

    NL,
    With due respect, wikileaks is nothing like Fox news editing. Wikileaks presented TWO versions for public review: 1) the full unedited 38 minute video, and, 2) the edited version with explanatory notes.
    See for yourself: http://www.collateralmurder.com/

    I’d suggest that the military squandered their credibility here with their initial “misaccurate” statements on the incident in 2007, an issue that, sadly, Fox “News” does not deem worthy. Also, I believe the full video is available, no thanks to the military. Also, from the numerous incidents where where American ground troops have planted weapons on or near corpses, the military’s account of any weapons found on the scene after the fact lacks credibility.

    I’ve examined the video several times in real time with these conclusions:
    1. From a distance, and in real time, the camera looks like a rpg launcher, especially as the photographer steadiest the camera against the building wall corner and/or takes cover by the building corner. (2 minute 30 mark in the long video version) however, slow that down and look carefully and it is clearly far too short for a launcher and is revealed at the 3:18 minute mark just before the shooting to be a camera and NOT a rpg launcher, but by then the trigger fingers are too hot wired to stop.

    2. This is a city and a war zone, characterized by constant random and intermittent violence. Yes, ambulances should be marked as such so they are not subject to military attack (side issue, why does “our side” aka America, attack hospitals and shut them down during seiges as in Fallujah?). Just as relevant as marking ambulances, when some random guy stops to assist a severely bleeding, unarmed person a few minutes after a firefight that is not a legitimate military target. It is stupid and criminal to assume they are not just one of the 8 million dumb-ass civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and who is just trying to make things better.

    3. The long play video is far more insightful and interesting than the edited wikileaks version.

  24. knarlyknight Says:

    oh, #4. there are two men with rifles following the camera man and his assistant near the beginning of the 38 minute video.

    What I find weird is that there are absolutely no people on rooftops or looking out of windows… although, in a bizarre juxtoposition, a woman and child are seen walking down the street in the middle of the action…

  25. knarlyknight Says:

    Rick Rowley, there the day after the attack provides an independent perspective on what a normal group of Iraqi’s milling about in the street was like in 2007 when every household had a kalishnakov for their own security.
    If you can’t stomach Amy Goodman (and I can’t) flip to the 7:30 minute mark for the start of Rick Rowley or about the 8:50 mark for Rick talking about Iraqi’s on the street.
    The first part of the video is backgound and eyewitness reports of the attack filmed the day after the attack by Rick’s crew.

  26. knarlyknight Says:

    video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1ZlUJ5esrg&feature=player_embedded#

  27. NorthernLite Says:

    I agree knarly, I didn’t mean to imply that they were as devious as Fox in their editing. I was just trying to get shcb to see my point. I don’t think the force used was at all justified.

    Also, I learned something pretty neat the other day, you guys might already know this but I’ll share it anyways. You can link to specific parts in videos on YouTube by adding the following to the end of the url:

    #t=ms

    Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63mb_zyi6lE#t=2m55s

    That’s where I was last Thursday :)

  28. shcb Says:

    I got a hangover just looking at that, glad you young guys are there to take over for me.

  29. knarlyknight Says:

    NL – great tip! Thanks.

    shcb – yea, hangovers suck.

  30. enkidu Says:

    you can also save youtube files to your hd (go to activity monitor, find the big file coming in from youtube, make sure it finishes loading completely! then, double click to save to disk, rename as yournamehere.flv and viola! you may want to convert it to a specific digital video format rather than .flv. handbrake works great on mac and is free)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.