NY Times Deceptive Editing of Bundy Remarks

[momeNt]

Yep, spot on. I expect Infowars to be contacting you soon to join their staff.

I can do better than infowars. I'm pretty sure I could be a top writer for stormfront.

 

[werepossum]

If Bundy was looking to open another avenue of attack on the government then why not welfare recipients in general? Why those of a specific race to the exclusion of others? What makes those welfare recipients stand out from the majority of welfare recipients? Skin color. This had nothing to do with him opening another avenue of attack on the federal government and everything to do with drumming up support from fellow racists for his cause. The response of one of his daughters after the press went after him about how this was all the fault of the press and not her father for flapping his trap was typical of someone trying desperately to deflect from the truth.

Yeah, he's a racist. Maybe not a virulent racist but a racist nonetheless.

I'm tempted to say he picked the most sympathetic group, but I highly doubt that he's that clever, else he'd have been bright enough to not say what he said. I suspect that as he drives through the ghetto projects and sees all the black people, in his mind they are all welfare recipients even though (1) there are actually more white welfare recipients and (2) not all those people will even be on welfare. In his mind, blacks as a group moved from slavery to welfare, period, with only a relative few principled and talented individuals (such as those blacks supporting him - perhaps essentially ONLY those blacks supporting him) overcoming the transition. With such a mindset, which is probably echoed by those around him of all races, it's easy to see how he would be blindsided when everyone else was disgusted, outraged and amused to varying degrees when he voiced such sentiments. In his mind, he was attacking the federal government using what "everyone knows".

I've often wondered if Jews maybe would be better off exterminated than forced to suffer in the 21st century of debt collapse, climate change, and natural disasters.

Did we really save them? Did Hitler really hate them?

Am I doing this right?

lol Pretty much. But to make the big bucks doing it, you ought to set up a web site and marketing empire before really getting started.

 

[Cozarkian]

Clearly there are differing opinions, in light of the context created by the removed portions of the testimony, as to whether Bundy's comments are racist.

I assert that supports my position that the NY Times violated principles of journalism by engaging in selective editing. The NY Times could easily predict that at least some people would argue Bundy's comments were not racist if they had been given the opportunity to see the entire transcript. Nonetheless, they denied their readers/viewers the opportunity to make an informed decision by publishing only the portion that supported the NY Time's views.

Depending on your interpretation of the entire quote, you may disagree with me as to the extent of that transgression, but there was a transgression, and we are far too tolerant of news organizations when they engage in this kind of behavior.

 

[realibrad]

Clearly there are differing opinions, in light of the context created by the removed portions of the testimony, as to whether Bundy's comments are racist.

I assert that supports my position that the NY Times violated principles of journalism by engaging in selective editing. The NY Times could easily predict that at least some people would argue Bundy's comments were not racist if they had been given the opportunity to see the entire transcript. Nonetheless, they denied their readers/viewers the opportunity to make an informed decision by publishing only the portion that supported the NY Time's views.

Depending on your interpretation of the entire quote, you may disagree with me as to the extent of that transgression, but there was a transgression, and we are far too tolerant of news organizations when they engage in this kind of behavior.

What context do you think was created? Are you saying that the positives said before establish the next comment as hyperbole? If so then respond to my previous post.

If your argument is that people should always be quoted in full, then things would simply take too much time. I don't see the part they left out as removing the context of the racist part.

You could type a 5,000 word essay on how bad racism is, but if one sentence is racist, then that sentence is racist.

 

[Cozarkian]

What context do you think was created? Are you saying that the positives said before establish the next comment as hyperbole? If so then respond to my previous post.

First off in just the original quote, he said "I often wonder," not "I think they were." So we already have a question as to whether he actually believes they were better off as slaves or is just trying to make a point.

Now, let's put it in context. In the portion that was removed, he indicates we have progressed in our treatment of minorities from the time of the Watts riots, when minorities had less freedom. This statement is inconsistent with the belief that blacks have less freedom now than they did as slaves. Thus, we have two possibilities:

1. He was lying when he said we've progressed since the Watts riot,
2. He was using the "I wonder if they were better off as slaves" comment as hyperbole to make a point.

The second explanation makes far more sense.

Interestingly, if he is racist, it would make sense for him to lie about the "we don't want to go back" comment, but it still wouldn't make sense for him to lie about claiming we've progressed. If he truly thought we haven't progressed, he would have said "I was in the Watts riots, and we still haven't gotten the colored people the freedom they wanted back then. And that's a shame." This comment would have been just as self-serving to hide his racism without including an additional lie that doesn't help make his point.

The only reason to say "we've progressed" is if he truly thinks that, and the only way to reconcile the subsequent contradiction is to recognize the use of hyperbole.

 

[D-Man]

His mind is beyond help I've come to realize. The only thing that will fix his brain is a bullet. But I would never advocate violence as a solution because I'm not a conservative. Thus I've just had to accept that he will continue to be one of the biggest pieces of shit in this nation and quite likely THE biggest piece of shit on this board.

What kind of double speak is this you suggest shooting him? And then suggest you do not advocate violence. Then you go on to suggest a conservative would. You truly are a sick individual.

 

[realibrad]

First off in just the original quote, he said "I often wonder," not "I think they were." So we already have a question as to whether he actually believes they were better off as slaves or is just trying to make a point.

Now, let's put it in context. In the portion that was removed, he indicates we have progressed in our treatment of minorities from the time of the Watts riots, when minorities had less freedom. This statement is inconsistent with the belief that blacks have less freedom now than they did as slaves. Thus, we have two possibilities:

1. He was lying when he said we've progressed since the Watts riot,
2. He was using the "I wonder if they were better off as slaves" comment as hyperbole to make a point.

The second explanation makes far more sense.

Interestingly, if he is racist, it would make sense for him to lie about the "we don't want to go back" comment, but it still wouldn't make sense for him to lie about claiming we've progressed. If he truly thought we haven't progressed, he would have said "I was in the Watts riots, and we still haven't gotten the colored people the freedom they wanted back then. And that's a shame." This comment would have been just as self-serving to hide his racism without including an additional lie that doesn't help make his point.

The only reason to say "we've progressed" is if he truly thinks that, and the only way to reconcile the subsequent contradiction is to recognize the use of hyperbole.

You have established a false dichotomy which lead you to the problem.

He can still think blacks were better under slavery, and still think that things have improved from the time of the watts riots.

He seems to be saying that the home life for blacks under slavery was better than the home life under government welfare. That is not contradicted by his statement that things have gotten better after the watts riots.

Example. For the past 5 years in a row, I lose $100. One year I lose $500, the next year I lose $1. Things got better from the time I lost $500, but I still lost $500 over the previous years.

To Bundy, he thinks life got worse for the blacks after slavery, but improved slightly after the riots. He says civil rights are a good thing, but seems to question the good things lost under slavery. The fact that he think there were good things under slavery is the racist part, not the fact that he likes civil rights.

Bundy did not think his statement was racist, but it still was. I understand there is cognitive dissonance in the fact that he wanted civil rights, but thought there was good under slavery, but its still racist.

 

[Cozarkian]

You have established a false dichotomy which lead you to the problem.

He can still think blacks were better under slavery, and still think that things have improved from the time of the watts riots.

He seems to be saying that the home life for blacks under slavery was better than the home life under government welfare. That is not contradicted by his statement that things have gotten better after the watts riots.

Example. For the past 5 years in a row, I lose $100. One year I lose $500, the next year I lose $1. Things got better from the time I lost $500, but I still lost $500 over the previous years.

To Bundy, he thinks life got worse for the blacks after slavery, but improved slightly after the riots. He says civil rights are a good thing, but seems to question the good things lost under slavery. The fact that he think there were good things under slavery is the racist part, not the fact that he likes civil rights.

Bundy did not think his statement was racist, but it still was. I understand there is cognitive dissonance in the fact that he wanted civil rights, but thought there was good under slavery, but its still racist.

Wow, just absolute wow. You know what, I call BS. There is no way you actually believe that Bundy's comments about a lack of freedom at the time of the Watts' riot and progression from that point is a claim that slavery > welfare > state of civil rights at the time of Watts riot.

I think you are just enjoying this debate and were laughing your ass off the whole time you typed that response.

 

[realibrad]

Wow, just absolute wow. You know what, I call BS. There is no way you actually believe that Bundy's comments about a lack of freedom at the time of the Watts' riot and progression from that point is a claim that slavery > welfare > state of civil rights at the time of Watts riot.

I think you are just enjoying this debate and were laughing your ass off the whole time you typed that response.

Then help me figure out this...

Bundy talks about all the things that were lost that were good under slavery. Then he talks about improvement after watts.

"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?"

He already established that he does not like government subsidy. The 2nd question is rhetorical in context, thus implying that the things they lost under welfare were better under slavery.

He established an either or to improve their lives. Welfare "or" slavery as a means to improve their life.

You have argued that he did not say anything racist, instead he was taken out of context. I have already established why it was not hyperbole, and nobody has posted as to why I would be wrong.