>> ^mikeydamonster:

Find it super funny that ppl are ripping on an article because they saw a five minute video featuring totally biased bullet points of said article. When a journalist (see: Cenk) uses a whining baby voice to describe his subject (NYT), well, I tend to take that shit with a grain of salt. How can people talk about "crap" news when the source their citing is know for constantly berating their opponents and literally can't go one minute without calling someone stupid?
In summation, if you didn't read the article and formulated an opinion on it by this sensationalist clip, you are, by definition, ignorant.
If anyone's interested in the "smear piece": http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/1
7/world/americas/ecuador-to-let-assange-stay-in-its-embassy.html?smid=pl-share


Finally someone points out the ass-raping of journalisnm as perpetrated by the TYT cabal and the fawning over he same by their faithful, information starved drones. What is truly sensational is the lack of demand for information and substance from those who control the airwaves.

>> ^VoodooV:

I like how @shinyblurry admits to the power of suggestion, but clearly has decided one way.
Two things I found interesting is that in @mtadd's clip:
1) the chanting occurs right AFTER Ryan just gave a long speech, AND Romney props him up for it so it would certainly be reasonable for them to chant Ryan.
2) the audio is just plain shitty, though it is odd that right before the moment of interest occurs, the volume goes up (sadly, it just amplifies the shittiness of the audio instead of making things easier to hear). I can certainly see how you might think you hear Romney, but one thing that does stand out is that despite how similar their names sound in that context, you never hear the "ney" part of Romney's name in any of that chanting. Ryan Ryan, RomNEY, RomNEY. You just never hear any of that emphasis on that last syllable, which suggests they're saying Ryan.
In the end though, it just really doesn't matter and it just proves my previous post. They're going for the sensationalism. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's a manufactured controversy designed to stir people up. Just like the birther phenomenon, just like whatever it was in Bush's suit when he debated with Kerry. It's just like Fox getting caught encouraging and directing the tea party protests and making it seem like there were more there than there actually was. It's manufactured outrage.
The reality is that Romney is losing because he's boring and out of touch and he hasn't presented any concrete ideas and he needs Ryan to stir people up (gasp..more sensationalism vs substance, whoduvthunkit) It wouldn't matter if you caught MSNBC red-handed doctoring the video, it doesn't change the reality.
If anything, giving this controversy air time is still a net negative for Romney. You're just playing the same blame game the right is accusing Obama of. Doesn't make Romney look any better even if MSNBC held a press conference and admitted to a coverup. "And I would have won if it weren't for that meddling press" Ut oh Scooby Do!
You're picking at nits while the house is burning down all around you.
It's not an issue of left vs right, it's an issue of low ratings, or high ratings. end of story.


I decided to believe what the crowd was reported to say, as well as the people who were actually there said happened, and also what my ears hear:

@3:35 p.m.: Ryan pauses for a moment while the crowd begins to chant, “Romney, Romney, Romney …”

@3:36 p.m.: Mitt Romney begins speaking to the crowd. Asks them to chant, “Romney, Ryan; Romney, Ryan; Romney, Ryan …”

http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/setup-underway-for-romney-rally-at-airport/nSLFM/

Even the New York Times reported it accurately:

After Mr. Ryan whooped up the crowd in Vandalia on Tuesday, Mr. Romney moved to the front of the stage. As the crowd began chanting “Romney! Romney!” he cut them off.“Wait a second,” Mr. Romney said, instructing the audience to cheer for “Romney-Ryan! Romney-Ryan!” They did.

“There we go,” he said, pleased.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/romney-and-ryan-to-start-campaigning-together-more-often.html?_r=2&

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/another-msnbc-scandal-blaze-readers-at-campaign-event-claim-network-misled-in-video-of-rally-chant/

As far as your commentary goes, I can agree with what you're saying generally. This is all about rearranging chairs on the deck of the titanic. You are speaking of some corporate conspiracy, I am speaking to the Satanic power behind the conspiracy. I just think it's interesting that the sift got a kick out of the clip as it was falsely portrayed, and aren't actually interested in what really happened.

If you watch the cnn clip, it is clearer..this is also what the press reported:

@3:35 p.m.: Ryan pauses for a moment while the crowd begins to chant, “Romney, Romney, Romney …”

@3:36 p.m.: Mitt Romney begins speaking to the crowd. Asks them to chant, “Romney, Ryan; Romney, Ryan; Romney, Ryan …”

http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/setup-underway-for-romney-rally-at-airport/nSLFM/

Even the New York Times reported it accurately:

After Mr. Ryan whooped up the crowd in Vandalia on Tuesday, Mr. Romney moved to the front of the stage. As the crowd began chanting “Romney! Romney!” he cut them off.“Wait a second,” Mr. Romney said, instructing the audience to cheer for “Romney-Ryan! Romney-Ryan!” They did.

“There we go,” he said, pleased.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/romney-and-ryan-to-start-campaigning-together-more-often.html?_r=2&

This is what the people who attended the rally said:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/another-msnbc-scandal-blaze-readers-at-campaign-event-claim-network-misled-in-video-of-rally-chant/

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^volumptuous:
Lame.
Yes, they were shouting "Romney" which is why Mitt was trying to get them to chant "Romney" instead. Wait, what?

Uh, no. Regardless of what doctoring or whatever is going on, this is just wrong. He tried to get them to chant "Romney/Ryan".
It sounds like "Ryan" to me, at this point. The audio's not great and this just apples to this few seconds but I don't think this is doctored. If it has been doctored, that's really shitty.

It is your opinion that they are saying Romney. I've listened to it several times, very loudly, asked nearby people to listen with me, and all agree that they are chanting Ryan.

As I noted above, it was reported by people who were actually there, and by the New York Times, that the crowd was shouting Romney. Listen to the unedited c-span clip and not the doctored MSNBC clip.

Regardless, what is news-worthy is that Romney is a spectacular failure as a candidate, and that Joe Scarborough, a Republican, is ashamed of him. Criticizing a candidate isn't exactly the same thing as blatantly trying to get the other one elected though, is it?

Joe Scarborough isn't a Romney supporter and never was. He famously declared Governor Romneys campaign to be dead last april. I don't know what kind of republican he is but apparently its the kind that promotes the democrats and slams his own party:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/joe-scarborough-obama-speech-dnc_n_1864019.html

The point is that Joe takes his marching orders from the MSNBC HQ. This was clearly an attempt to play into the democratic narrative that republicans are becoming less enthusiastic about the campaign in the hope they will believe their candidate can't win and not turn out to vote. This position is in lockstep with the rest of the network coverage. It's blatant shilling for Obama. Does this surprise me or anyone? No. The entirety of the mainstream media is bitterly partisan and unashamedly so. I just thought the sift would be interested that they were lied to.

>> ^Sagemind:

I want to believe they were saying Romney and he was adding Ryan, but no matter how many times I listen to it with headphones, turned up, it just sounds like Ry-an, Ry-an, Ry-an, then Romney adds his name.
It could be either way, but to my ears, they are saying Ryan.


This is good evidence for the power of suggestion, but the crowd is saying Romney. I heard Ryan too after seeing the captions. Here is what reporters who were actually there reported the crowd was saying:

@3:35 p.m.: Ryan pauses for a moment while the crowd begins to chant, “Romney, Romney, Romney …”

@3:36 p.m.: Mitt Romney begins speaking to the crowd. Asks them to chant, “Romney, Ryan; Romney, Ryan; Romney, Ryan …”

http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/setup-underway-for-romney-rally-at-airport/nSLFM/

Even the New York Times reported it accurately:

After Mr. Ryan whooped up the crowd in Vandalia on Tuesday, Mr. Romney moved to the front of the stage. As the crowd began chanting “Romney! Romney!” he cut them off.“Wait a second,” Mr. Romney said, instructing the audience to cheer for “Romney-Ryan! Romney-Ryan!” They did.

“There we go,” he said, pleased.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/romney-and-ryan-to-start-campaigning-together-more-often.html?_r=2&

The New York Times stealth-edited their article to remove all of the objectionable content, apparently.

http://observer.com/2012/08/new-york-times-article-on-julian-assange-asylum-scrubs-its-toilet-reference/

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TYT, Julian Assange, journalism' to 'TYT, Julian Assange, journalism, new york times' - edited by xxovercastxx

My god, it's as if you can't see the difference between a news article and a commentary. Please don't project your own ignorance on everyone else.

>> ^mikeydamonster:

Find it super funny that ppl are ripping on an article because they saw a five minute video featuring totally biased bullet points of said article. When a journalist (see: Cenk) uses a whining baby voice to describe his subject (NYT), well, I tend to take that shit with a grain of salt. How can people talk about "crap" news when the source their citing is know for constantly berating their opponents and literally can't go one minute without calling someone stupid?
In summation, if you didn't read the article and formulated an opinion on it by this sensationalist clip, you are, by definition, ignorant.
If anyone's interested in the "smear piece": http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/1
7/world/americas/ecuador-to-let-assange-stay-in-its-embassy.html?smid=pl-share

>> ^thumpa28:

Crap news about a crap person then. Hardly promotion worthy.


This is actually very much noteworthy. Even if you ignore the person they are reporting about it used to be pretty much common code that if you were to rip on other entities in the "news and journalism"-buisness, you'd do it in an editorial or sth titled oppinion piece- as a writer/editor you'd want to keep a door open in case of, you know, having to look for stories on the other side of the political spectrum.

This, in journalism circles equals to the NYT publicly stating to any other potential sources: "We will not accept your stories unless they are greenlighted or/and will potentially help backstab you if you come to us with yet unpublished information".

Good luck recovering from that, NYT

Your video, Julian Assange Hit Piece In New York Times, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

New York Times = Corporate Media Lackies, Bush stooges and Iraq war enablers.

Crap news?!

It's the New York Times, baby, the New Testament for the New Age!

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/08/08/lolo-jones-reacts-to-harsh-new-york-times-article/

@Yogi No, you kind of are supposed to look at the logic if you are the Supreme Court. The result is really Congress' worry.

@GenjiKilpatrick The issue is how do you constitutionally keep Michael Moore (or some union) from running political content simply because he has the means to do so without allowing the government to stop the New York Times from running political content. A photo of Barack Obama on the front page could easily be construed as a "campaign contribution." It's certainly donated capital of some sort depending on the nature of the coverage. Currently there is no cleanly legislated delineation there. So yea, Yogi, they were worried about results. They were worried about the negative liberties result more so than the positive liberties result. This is one of those instances where I get that viewpoint.

Regardless, I'd like to see data that electoral success is a linear correlate with campaign spending regardless of absolute levels. I suspect there is an asymptote at some point. It might all be moot anyway.

@bareboards2 Sorry, being the grassroots viewpoint means working from the grassroots. Besides, the way to fight this is to just not be dumb, and convince a few others not to fall for baseless political pandering. Drop a pamphlet about how the world works out the window and you'd be doing it far more good than squandering what few resources you have on an action like this.

OK, So I watched the Whole thing...

Best quote is right at the very end:
"It was in the New York Times, It was in the local papers, It was on CNN, It's all over the internet, It's on You Tube. That's how the gospel spreads."

I see great irony in his quote.