More Media Manipulation Using Doctored Audio Tape

[Hobbes]

http://go.bloomberg.com/health-care-supreme-court/2012-03-29/gop-ad-uses-doctored-scotus-audio/


Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren both ran the doctored audio tape On Fox even after they knew it was altered.

 

[dennishoddy]

Why no comment from these folks?


Sean Spicer, an RNC spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ad. Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment. The solicitor general's office is part of the Justice Department.
The Democratic National Committee declined to comment on the video, and requests for a comment by Obama's re-election campaign received no immediate response.

 

[Glocktogo]

http://go.bloomberg.com/health-care-supreme-court/2012-03-29/gop-ad-uses-doctored-scotus-audio/


Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren both ran the doctored audio tape On Fox even after they knew it was altered.

What do you mean by "ran"? Do you mean they ran the ad? Of did they actually run the obvious ad as "news" outside the ad breaks? Were they commenting on the ad? I'm confused.

 

[mugsy]

Hmmm..I too am a little confused. It appears that some are riled at..the RNC maybe (?) for running the ad. While I will not defend deceptive advertisements, it looks surprisingly like many other political ads I have seen that tend to show the opponent in the worst possible light compared to the glowing, wise statements of the candidate himself.

There is also, to my simple mind, a whole world of difference between a political ad that stretches the truth versus a news agency that alters news footage to create an appearance of guilt or infamy around a news subject. The news alteration might have been a rookie error by a technician but I still think it merits an investigation. This ad by the RNC - can't say it got me very riled. Maybe my expectations are too low or I am too jaded.

 

[Hobbes]

What do you mean by "ran"? Do you mean they ran the ad? Of did they actually run the obvious ad as "news" outside the ad breaks? Were they commenting on the ad? I'm confused.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203300001
It starts at 1:50 into the Hannity clip and starts right away in the Greta clip.

 

[Hobbes]

Here's Joe Scarborough doing the same thing the next day.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201203300002

 

[Glocktogo]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203300001
It starts at 1:50 into the Hannity clip and starts right away in the Greta clip.

OK, to me "doctored" means it was altered from the original content. I just watched the Hannity and Greta (ugh) clips. Both of them discuss and prominently displayed a paid political advertisement. They aren't trying to pass the selectively edited audio in the ad as factual, they're merely commenting on the production of the ad as news. In other words, this isn't Fox altering or editing tape of the SCOTUS hearing and passing it off as news.

While we're at it, both Media Matters and Bloomberg are partisan owned and operated. Media Matters isn't even bashful about it:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

So, unless you've got impartial evidence that Fox actually altered the audio in the RNC advertisement, I'd say this dog won't hunt.

Too bad you didn't bother cross checking everything yourself before you posted it. Perhaps you should investigate the partisan slant in ALL major media outlets and see what you come up with? This one doesn't even compare.

 

[Hobbes]

OK, to me "doctored" means it was altered from the original content. I just watched the Hannity and Greta (ugh) clips. Both of them discuss and prominently display a paid political advertisement. They aren't trying to pass the selectively edited audio in the ad as factual, they're merely commenting on the production of the ad as news. In other words, this isn't Fox altering or editing tape of the SCOTUS hearing and passing it off as news.

While we're at it, both Media Matters and Bloomberg are partisan owned and operated. Media Matters isn't even bashful about it:

So, unless you've got impartial evidence that Fox actually altered the audio in the RNC advertisement, I'd say this dog won't hunt.

Too bad you didn't bother cross checking everything yourself before you posted it. Perhaps you should investigate the partisan slant in ALL major media outlets and see what you come up with? This one doesn't even compare.

I didn't say Fox altered the videotape.
I said they played it as real audio of the SCOTUS hearings when they knew it was altered audio tape.

And for the record, I added a second example from MSNBC so obviously I wasn't implying Fox altered the tape.

But at the end of the day, millions of viewers of both networks were mislead into believing that the solicitor general stumbled and bumbled in a way that he didn't.

 

[dennishoddy]

Why no comment from these folks?


Sean Spicer, an RNC spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ad. Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment. The solicitor general's office is part of the Justice Department.
The Democratic National Committee declined to comment on the video, and requests for a comment by Obama's re-election campaign received no immediate response.

I'll repeat. No response from the other side?
They obviously know its BS.

 

[Hobbes]

Go back to sleep guys.

I didn't mean to wake you.