NY Times Deceptive Editing of Bundy Remarks

[Cozarkian]

I apologize if this has been posted, but I tried various searches and was unable to find a thread discussing this, and given some of the posts I've seen in recent discussions, I think it is relevant.

Basically, the NY Times and Media Matters edited out remarks by Clive Bundy that demonstrate he was advocating in favor of blacks and Hispanics and against government oppression, not accusing blacks of having a criminal culture.

Here's one link for the unedited text of the remarks: http://www.infowars.com/unedited-video-shows-bundy-making-pro-black-pro-mexican-comments/

To be clear, I'm not suggesting Mr. Bundy is some paragon of non-racist virtue. Rather, I think it is disturbing that prominent media organizations can make extremely deceptive edits with virtually no backlash and in this case, actually achieve their objective of discrediting a person by resorting to deception rather than reasoned argument.

 

[realibrad]

You seem to think that the area in bold letters means something. Saying that blacks might have been better off under slavery than government welfare. Its not some horrific edit because it was not important to the racist part.

You can't say "I love blacks" and the follow it up with "but man, they might be better off as slaves than on government welfare". If you don't understand how that is racist, then you don't understand what racism is.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You can't say "I love blacks" and the follow it up with "but man, they might be better off as slaves than on government welfare". If you don't understand how that is racist, then you don't understand what racism is.

<<----this!!

 

[Cozarkian]

You can't selectively believe him when he says things that sound racist while refusing to believe his prior, non-racist comments. Here, is so-called racist comments were an attempt to explain his prior, supporting remarks. They aren't eloquent remarks, but they aren't racist in context. Here, I'll do an edit of some of his important earlier remarks:

I was in the WATTS riot ... people is thinking they did not have their freedom; ... and they didn&#8217;t have them.

We&#8217;ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don&#8217;t want to go back; we sure don&#8217;t want the colored people to go back to that point

Clearly he is saying that civil rights for blacks have advanced from the past and that we shouldn't go back to those times when they had fewer freedoms.

Without the context of these earlier statements, Clive Bundy appears to be saying "negroes are lazy good-for-nothings that sit around on their porch aborting babies and committing crimes because they can live off government subsidies and don't need to learn a valuable skill like picking cotton. They'd be better off as slaves because at least then they'd be doing something useful and would have something to be happy about."

However, when you add in the earlier paragraphs, it becomes clear he isn't criticizing blacks for having a culture that makes them worse than slaves, he is criticizing the government for oppression. He's blaming the government for deliberately keeping blacks in a downtrodden state and arguing that we need to keep fighting for their civil rights.

Or in your choice of words, he isn't saying "I love blacks but they should be slaves," rather he is saying "I love blacks and we need to fight for their rights because the government is trying to turn them into worse than slaves."

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

What a strange topic to start a new thread about. This has been discussed fairly comprehensively in the other Bundy thread, in which the OP is a participant.

 

[Cozarkian]

What a strange topic to start a new thread about. This has been discussed fairly comprehensively in the other Bundy thread, in which the OP is a participant.

I wasn't aware it was discussed in that other thread. I joined it solely in the last few pages on a very narrow legal issue of whether pointing a gun at someone from a distance qualifies as assault. I don't recall being involved in that topic in any of the earlier discussions.

Regardless, this warrants its own topic, because the purpose is to explore deceptive journalism, not to discuss the political, social and ethical ramifications of the Nevada Ranch standoff.

 

[Stewox]

I apologize if this has been posted, but I tried various searches and was unable to find a thread discussing this, and given some of the posts I've seen in recent discussions, I think it is relevant.

Basically, the NY Times and Media Matters edited out remarks by Clive Bundy that demonstrate he was advocating in favor of blacks and Hispanics and against government oppression, not accusing blacks of having a criminal culture.

Here's one link for the unedited text of the remarks: http://www.infowars.com/unedited-video-shows-bundy-making-pro-black-pro-mexican-comments/

To be clear, I'm not suggesting Mr. Bundy is some paragon of non-racist virtue. Rather, I think it is disturbing that prominent media organizations can make extremely deceptive edits with virtually no backlash and in this case, actually achieve their objective of discrediting a person by resorting to deception rather than reasoned argument.

Thank you for having a brain with more than 2 minutes of attention span :wub:

You can't say "I love blacks" and the follow it up with "but man, they might be better off as slaves than on government welfare". If you don't understand how that is racist, then you don't understand what racism is.

That's what WERE TRYING TO TELL YOU - THE MEDIA MADE HIS QUESTION INTO A STATEMENT

HE WASN'T SAYING they would be better of as slaves

HE WAS THINKING, ASKING THEM .... IF .... HE WAS COMPARING TWO OPTIONS AND ASKING "ARE YOU BETTER ON THIS OR THAT?"

THE MEDIA CHANGED HIS WORDS FFFFFFFS ... that's why I look like I'm running around this forum with my head cut of to try to explain what's going on behind the scenes, IT'S A WAR and they can't stand that liberty is winning and they are willing to do everything to keep their readers BLIND.

THE SECOND, The second I saw the "bundy racist" news i knew it's going to take the whole narrative of the discussion, I knew it's going to basically destroy everything I have explained since I started the thread, all the guys will just switch like robots and never look back, SEE HOW WELL IT WORKS - the whole forum now literally believes bundy is racist because of that, the media was WAITING to get something they can spin and they got it, and we're not perfect, if I was there I would have TOLD bundy to not even start a discussion like that in front of all the media snakes ...

EVERYONE SHOULD SEE THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hbtKYEnyYo IT'S A WAR FOR CRYING OUT LOUD

/endcaps /endrant /has-to-shut-down-pc-due-to-storm

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

OOOOH Stewie's got a new beau.... No love like crazy love.

 

[feralkid]

 

[shira]

Let be really explicit:

Saying . . .

And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

. . . is racist. It doesn't matter how you introduce your statement or how you end it. If your statement contains those two sentences, it's racist.

 

[brycejones]

^^^^^^ See above.

 

[brycejones]

/endcaps /endrant /has-to-shut-down-pc-due-to-storm

The NWO is sending bad weather Stew's way to keep him off the internet.

 

[Cozarkian]

Let be really explicit:

Saying . . .

. . . is racist. It doesn't matter how you introduce your statement or how you end it. If your statement contains those two sentences, it's racist.

It does matter. This isn't some well-spoken, educated person. It's someone who has trouble expressing his thoughts in words, so you have to look at the context carefully.

He's arguing the government is oppressing minorities and is hyperbolizing that the government treats them worse than slaves. He doesn't literally mean blacks might be better off as slaves and is in no way suggesting that they should be made slaves again.

An ill-advised hyperbole does not make someone racist.

A deliberate, journalistic edit to hide the fact that seemingly-racist comments were actually an ill-advised hyperbole by someone advocating for the very group of person he is accused of hating, is however, an egregious ethical violation.

 

[Theb]

The NWO is sending bad weather Stew's way to keep him off the internet.

You were supposed to tell him about that. Now you'll be sent to a FEMA Death Camp.

 

[Theb]

Oh dear, I wasn't supposed to say anything about the FEMA Death Camps.

I guess I'll be joining you.

 

[Greenman]

You seem to think that the area in bold letters means something. Saying that blacks might have been better off under slavery than government welfare. Its not some horrific edit because it was not important to the racist part.

You can't say "I love blacks" and the follow it up with "but man, they might be better off as slaves than on government welfare". If you don't understand how that is racist, then you don't understand what racism is.

Then I don't understand what racism is.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It does matter. This isn't some well-spoken, educated person. It's someone who has trouble expressing his thoughts in words, so you have to look at the context carefully.

He's arguing the government is oppressing minorities and is hyperbolizing that the government treats them worse than slaves. He doesn't literally mean blacks might be better off as slaves and is in no way suggesting that they should be made slaves again.

An ill-advised hyperbole does not make someone racist.

A deliberate, journalistic edit to hide the fact that seemingly-racist comments were actually an ill-advised hyperbole by someone advocating for the very group of person he is accused of hating, is however, an egregious ethical violation.

doesn`t matter at all...it`s still racist!!

 

[Subyman]

I don't see what him being racist has to do with the core issue which he is fighting against. It gets annoying to have someone's character assassinated to draw attention away from what they are fighting against in the first place. It happens on both sides, just like Julian Assange.

 

[mrjminer]

I don't see what him being racist has to do with the core issue which he is fighting against. It gets annoying to have someone's character assassinated to draw attention away from what they are fighting against in the first place. It happens on both sides, just like Julian Assange.

The NYT is always an impartial source of information, as is evidenced by their typical selection of "NYT Picks" of only comments in agreement with their stated opinions presented as fact. For instance in this case, 1 / 37 of their selected comments. Of course, to remain impartial, they then selected a comment directly responding with criticism to that sole comment and listed it at the top of their picks, but how else would one expect them to remain an impartial, factually-based source of information and not just a tool for retards to cite as truth?

Clearly no character assassination found

 

[cuafpr]

doesn`t matter at all...it`s still racist!!

it very much matters and takes it from a racist comment to an ill advised question b.c. people are stupid....

 

[Bitek]

Two infowars posters now? God help us...

In addition to the above, it is also racist as Bundy is making an absurd caricature of "the Negro" as a homogeneous group of lazy good for nothings who just sit around having abortions and living in squalor off govt cheese.


He also said due to not properly learning to pick cotton (presumably not learning the value of work, which you are not paid for...)

You say he meant its not the lack of slavery that made them human trash, it's govt subsidies that made the Negro human trash. Oh, OK, I feel you bro. Yeah what he really meant is so much better....

 

[DrDoug]

For the OP:

There was no "editing" of Bundy's racist statement by the NYT, he said what was quoted. What you might mean to claim is that the NYT "selectively quoted" something Bundy said, deliberately dropping the rest of Bundy's statement in an attempt to make him look bad. Unfortunately for Bundy, nothing he said prior to (or after) his racist statement mitigates what he said. IMO Bundy is a full on good ol' boy racist. I don't think he is a hateful racist though, but rather he's just an ignorant racist.

Selective quoting is a specialty of the right (see what James O'keefe & Breitbart did to Shirley Sherrod for one quick example). There is no reason to selectively quote the crazy right in this country, their own words do enough damage.

 

[nehalem256]

Two infowars posters now? God help us...

In addition to the above, it is also racist as Bundy is making an absurd caricature of "the Negro" as a homogeneous group of lazy good for nothings who just sit around having abortions and living in squalor off govt cheese.

Well if considering racial minorities to be "homogeneous groups" now counts as racist then he is in good company with liberal supereme court justices *cough* Sotomayor *cough*

 

[fskimospy]

Already discussed. What he said is still incredibly racist. Stop trying to excuse bundy's behavior.

Every element of what Bundy has done in this, from the theft of grazing rights, to the violation of numerous court orders, to the threatening of federal officials, to the repugnant racism is all horrible. The man is just a vile individual.

 

[realibrad]

You cant say that it was hyperbole when you place everything in context, Ironic I know.

Below is what you are saying is hyperbole.

"And I&#8217;ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?"

Now, before this, he talks about what he saw. Everything that he listed was objectively negative. All of this is happening under welfare and not slavery. So he paints the picture of bad things. And after all of this, he adds the below statement


"You know they didn&#8217;t get more freedom, uh they got less freedom &#8211; they got less family life, and their happiness -you could see it in their faces- they were not happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips &#8211; so that&#8217;s all government, that&#8217;s not freedom."

So to break it down. First they had slavery, and now they have welfare in his view. He explains how he does not think welfare is as good of a situation as slavery, because under slavery they had more happiness.

Furthermore, even the site you links posts this as a statement and not a question.

"They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton."

I am a libertarian. I do believe that a welfare state is a bad Idea. I enjoy Thomas Sowell. Having said that, its pretty easy to see that the comments are racist.