Thanks for the promote.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
*promote

i just posted an article in sift talk about the koch brothers and the tea party.

Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
*quality

Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
*quality metaphor and Fox pwnage

Yeah, I saw it. I think that Rachel should have had at least one question that wasn't fundamentally "I found evidence that someone who worked for your organization said something sympathetic to white supremacists no less than 10 years ago, what's your response?"

However, Stein's response was "you're making that up" to all of it, and he'd just impugn her motives and credibility. She was operating on a tenuous guilt by association tactic, but he never had any response to it other than ad hominem.

Rachel had some long questions, but he definitely was trying to do a "filibuster" style interview, where he just tries to talk the whole time, without letting her ask follow ups. For the first 3 minutes or so, she didn't really get a word in edgewise until she started getting pushy.

IMO, all I really need to know about this FAIR organization is that they proudly support the new Arizona legislation -- to me, that makes me highly dubious about their motives and integrity. Moreso when their president comes on Maddow's show to basically just say she's a liar and a fraud, and BTW so is the Southern Poverty Law Center.

That's the kind of shit you expect from highly partisan organizations, not from some sort of reasonable, centrist organization.

It was painful to watch, but I don't think Rachel's really to blame -- everyone she brings on is some sort of political activist of some sort, and usually when she brings on anyone even slightly right wing, they haul out the trope about her being an unreliable partisan journalist, and just repeat that through the whole interview with increasing loudness.

It seems to work out well for them, because a lot of people come away from the interview going "wow, that was just a shouting match, I guess Rachel is just like BillO", even people who normally think Rachel is worth listening to.

I've never seen her make a factual mistake on these kind of things without issuing a correction. She's definitely got a partisan editorial stance, but I generally share her editorial viewpoint on the events of the day. I think a lot of politics these days is played on the grounds of "who's a credible voice in the media", and anyone to the right of center has a strongly vested interest in trying to diminish her credibility. It's why they never even try to really respond to her facts with anything other than "you're making that up", because it's an accusation they wouldn't dare level at a more firmly established member of the press, and that kind of shocking disrespect makes casual observers think "wow, nobody talks to real reporters that way!" and has the side effect of making people doubt her credibility.

Eh, enough with my little rant. I think the guy from FAIR is a tool, and the way he acted is what made that interview look so ugly, not what Rachel did.

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
Hey NR, did you see Rachel Maddow's interview with Dan Stein on Thursday night? What did you think? He made some points that have been bothering me about Rachel's methods recently.

E.g. taking information from 25 years ago about one person and applying it to an organisation they are a member of today. People's views can change over that length of time and she never seems to take that into account. She also alternated between berating Stein for interrupting her (lengthy) questions and talking over him when he was trying to rebut. It was very disappointing how much it reminded me of O'Reilly.

It seems to me that she provides very discontinuous reports on organisations and people she disagrees with for the sake of making her viewers disagree with them to.

Again, I'd really appreciate your views,

James

There used to be a trick to it, but not anymore. Now you should just be able to click the embed button, and click the copy to clipboard button, and paste it into the VS submit window.

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
Hey NR I've been trying to sift a few videos from msnbc recently but the sift says the embed codes are invalid. I notice that you've got a few embedded fine... is there something you do with the code to get it to work? Maybe I should be asking dag but if you can help it'd be much appreciated! Thanks, James.

Well, then maybe you should get one of those dildos. You are the change you've been waiting for, after all.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
ive never been much of a screamer. i sure HOPE obama can CHANGE that.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
No, afraid not. Why, looking for someone to give you some change you can have a screaming orgasm to?

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
do you have one of these?
http://www.quizlaw.com/blog/images/obama-dildos.jpg

No, afraid not. Why, looking for someone to give you some change you can have a screaming orgasm to?

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
do you have one of these?
http://www.quizlaw.com/blog/images/obama-dildos.jpg

Good stuff, thanks!

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Hey net, I don't have enough power to post this. Seemed pretty sift worthy, but I leave that to you.
http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,45950304001_1931954,00.html

That would be illogical.

In reply to this comment by marinara:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trey-ellis/please-mr-president-more_b_286665.html

I demand you change your avatar.

It's a bit of a pain in the ass. Assuming you use Firefox, you look at the iframe embed they provide, take the URL inside it and navigate to the URL. That will lead to a page with just the video on it. Highlight the video (or do Edit -> Select All), then right click, go to "View Selection Source", and in the mess will be an actual embed for the video that you can then cut and paste into the submit window for VideoSift.

I do it so often it's second nature by now, but it's obnoxious. At least it's possible to embed their videos, the Huffington Post ones are literally impossible to sift.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
How did you sift that? http://www.videosift.com/video/Olbermann-s-Special-Comment-on-Joe-Wilson

I ALWAYS have problems sifting NBC posts

do anything special?

I only hobbled because it looked like you were on a mass discarding run.

Thanks, I'll have to try that next time.

In reply to this comment by campionidelmondo:
Just go to the video you want to sift and get the embed code. There should be an URL in the embed code which is the src property of the iframe (src=...). Copy that URL and navigate to it in your browser. You should now see a page with only the MSNBC player on it. Assuming you use FireFox (I do, so I don't know the exact way to do this with a different browser) go to Edit -> Select All in the toolbar (or press CTRL+A) and then right click somewhere on that page and click View Selection Source from the popup menu. You should now see the source of the page including the embed object code () that you can submit here.

The "select all" is neccessary because just viewing the source would only get you the javascript that eventually produces the embed code.

Alternatively you could use the FireFox plugin Firebug to examine the video player on the blank "player only" page to retrieve the embed code, but that would take just as much time and work.

Hope this helps, hit me back if you got any questions.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
On an unrelated note, what's the trick to getting an MSNBC embed to work on the sift?

It was luck of the draw this time, I hit refresh just as it finished being posted on YouTube.

In reply to this comment by littledragon_79:
You are very quick sir on the BNF vids. Either you're more proactive than me or you're higher on the email distribution list

I've watched this whole thing unfolding, and I'm actually in the middle of reading "Audacity of Hope"...Obama's no liberal/progressive ideologue, and certainly not a party partisan.

He's not kidding about wanting a "new kind of politics" and it's driving the Democratic partisans nuts (or it was, when Obama was down in the polls). In Democratic circles, there's been constant calls for Obama to go on massive offense against McCain, but what little he's done has been very restrained, and has actually stuck to relevant policy differences.

I know VS is awash in anti-McCain video, but have you noticed how little of it is from the Obama campaign? Even the clips of TV interviews of Obama surrogates are just surrogates giving a good response to a McCain attack -- not going on the attack themselves. The McCain being one of the Keating Five is not being mentioned, even though it's directly relevant to the events of the day, and the only reason for that is that Obama's told his people to keep clear of it.

He's not like John McCain, who's just flat out betrayed his party when he disagreed, had a whim, or saw political advantage in doing so. Obama has been trying to get Democrats to learn to pick their battles more carefully, and make sure that they only really get into fights when they have to. In his book, he says that he thinks that the greatest failings of the Democratic party over the last few decades has been a lack of appreciation and respect for the conservative viewpoint, and thinks Democrats could get more of their agenda passed if they just learned the right buttons to push to make it more palatable to conservatives.

In the primaries, Obama got beaten up for the left about his healthcare plan, because it didn't include a mandate. At the time, I didn't understand why he omitted it, but now that I've gotten a better understanding of conservative ideology, I get it -- mandates are a poison pill to conservatives. His healthcare plan is something Friedman would've appreciated; it makes government put up or shut up by directly competing with market alternatives.

You should read Audacity of Hope...or at least the prologue. It filled in a lot of blanks for me about how he approaches politics, and governance.

That's probably more than you were looking for, but I get that way with politics.

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
Of course if I break everything thing down idea at a time...I do disagree with some of his ideology. BUT One can't have a shopping list when voting for president. We have two guys to choose from.

I don't want McSame.

My concerns about Obama is not about what he personally believes in but how reasonable a president he is. Can he see the big picture and make decisions that are right for the country and not just towing the party lines.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I don't know your politics, but I'd recommend voting third party, rather than not voting.

If your objections to Obama are truly about his competency, and not his ideology, watch the debates and some of his policy speeches. He's no dummy, and he'll be surrounded by the best and the brightest in every topic.

I suppose you're right.

Mostly was thinking how nutso everyone went over Jamie Lynn Spears' teenage pregnancy, and I'm thinking "daughter of VP" is probably higher social status than the Spears family.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
... kind of example this sets for the first family, and...

Aren't they, like, the 'second' family... potentially?