Haven't seen her interviewed until now, but my guess is that she is just naturally frenetic. I have some friends like her. Gotta be patient . . .
>> ^Stormsinger:

Horrible interview and interviewee. She may well just feel she has so much to get across that she has to rush through it, but she'd do better to pare it down to something that fits in the time she has.

Horrible interview and interviewee. She may well just feel she has so much to get across that she has to rush through it, but she'd do better to pare it down to something that fits in the time she has.

ahh another "interview" where the interviewer shouts down the interviewee

Stay classy Fox!

You're right, my wording is incorrect. What I meant was the "both".

@robbersdog49
Considering that the questions given were about facts and not opinions, I think it is safe to use the term "less informed", at least where the question subjects were concerned.
>> ^messenger:

Did you mean you think it's because Faux News spews nonsense or because of both? You can't have the "latter" of three things.>> ^hpqp:
The link in the first comment gives information on the interviewees' news sources. ~70% get their news from local newspapers as well (over the whole pol.id. spectrum).
I don't know how correct it is to say that watching Fox News makes you less informed, but the data clearly suggests that those who watch Fox News are less informed. Is that because FN attracts the less bright, or because it spews nonsense, or both? My guess is the latter.
>> ^bmacs27:
What about people that, oh I don't know, read news?

>> ^hpqp:

The link in the first comment gives information on the interviewees' news sources. ~70% get their news from local newspapers as well (over the whole pol.id. spectrum).
I don't know how correct it is to say that watching Fox News makes you less informed, but the data clearly suggests that those who watch Fox News are less informed. Is that because FN attracts the less bright, or because it spews nonsense, or both? My guess is the latter.
>> ^bmacs27:
What about people that, oh I don't know, read news?



It's probably wrong to think of the fox people as being less informed, rather the information they have (or are being given by fox) is wrong. Fox doesn't report news, it tells people what fox thinks should be happening in the world.

The fox people may or may not be more or less intelligent. They may or may not be able to remember what the news channels tell them. This study doesn't give any info regarding this, it just shows that people who watch fox seem to have a distorted (wrong) view of the world.

Did you mean you think it's because Faux News spews nonsense or because of both? You can't have the "latter" of three things.>> ^hpqp:

The link in the first comment gives information on the interviewees' news sources. ~70% get their news from local newspapers as well (over the whole pol.id. spectrum).
I don't know how correct it is to say that watching Fox News makes you less informed, but the data clearly suggests that those who watch Fox News are less informed. Is that because FN attracts the less bright, or because it spews nonsense, or both? My guess is the latter.
>> ^bmacs27:
What about people that, oh I don't know, read news?

The link in the first comment gives information on the interviewees' news sources. ~70% get their news from local newspapers as well (over the whole pol.id. spectrum).

I don't know how correct it is to say that watching Fox News makes you less informed, but the data clearly suggests that those who watch Fox News are less informed. Is that because FN attracts the less bright, or because it spews nonsense, or both? My guess is the latter.

>> ^bmacs27:

What about people that, oh I don't know, read news?

I didn't say her actions were evidence I meant they were suspicious. There are certain things people do when they lie, such as looking left, avoiding eye contact, stopping mid-sentence to change a statement, justifying actions for no reason(as in there is no reason to justify your actions if your innocent). She exhibits enough signs that I doubt her story. I could be wrong who knows. I sorta doubt that I am wrong however I do hope for the child's sake that I am.

But let's say your right and she got sunburned while tanning with her Mother outside. Is it any better that she took a 5 yr old to tan outside than it is to tan a 5 yr old in a tanning bed?

And speaking from experience here as I have red hair and fair skin myself. People with red hair and fair skin don't tan EVER period we burn end of story she should know better. Some people don't have the ability to tan. Their skin simply won't take it. This child will never have a natural tan the only way she will ever look tanned is through the use of spray on tanning. The fact that she would even try to let her daughter tan either in a tanning bed or outside in the sun is simply idiocy.

>> ^Stormsinger:

None of what you mention is evidence, you know. If I, or most people, get accused and arrested for something I didn't do, we quite likely get a bit defensive. And being interviewed on TV is more than enough to fuck up your train of thought if you're not an experienced interviewee. It's surprising how disruptive those lights and the pressure can be.
And once again, there are more ways to tan than in a booth. As a matter of fact, more people tan out in the sun than in a booth.
Being inarticulate when under pressure is not evidence of a crime. So far, no hint of any evidence has been made public in this case. There hasn't even been any hearsay reported. The daughter's statement of "going tanning with mommy" makes no mention of a tanning bed. I'm really rather surprised that so many people are so willing to believe the worst of this woman, with so little reason. Especially on a site that is usually more than a little rabid in their down-with-police stance. I guess that attitude only applies to young and/or attractive victims.
>> ^Auger8:
I'm sorry but it's obvious she is lying she changes her story like three times and is way way too defensive about it in the first place for someone who is innocent. First she starts to say "tanning is ok as long as.... I just like to tan.", then she says "it just didn't happen", then she says "well other parents bring their kids", then she says she got the sunburn outside. So what's the real story here lady? And why would the little girl tell her school she got the sunburn while tanning with her Mom if that's not what happened? Why would a 5 yr old lie about something like that? You think the kid was TRYING to get her Mom in trouble? No the more likely reason is that this woman who is obviously addicted to tanning decided her Fair skinned child was hideous and took matters into her own hands. Look in the mirror lady the only thing hideous around here is you and your behavior.
>> ^Stormsinger:
At least the comments here are a bit more reasonable...although a bit off track from what the actual news story is. Yes, she's damaged her appearance. Big deal....that's her choice.
What -I- find interesting is that nowhere, anywhere, have I seen the slightest shred of evidence that she actually did anything wrong. Her daughter said that she tans with Mommy. Mom, Dad, and the attendants at the tanning salon all agree that the girl never went in the tanning booth. Where's the grounds for an arrest? Because she had a sunburn? I'm pretty fucking sure there are ways to get sunburned that don't involve a tanning booth. I'm even almost sure that they might qualify as "going tanning with Mommy".

None of what you mention is evidence, you know. If I, or most people, get accused and arrested for something I didn't do, we quite likely get a bit defensive. And being interviewed on TV is more than enough to fuck up your train of thought if you're not an experienced interviewee. It's surprising how disruptive those lights and the pressure can be.

And once again, there are more ways to tan than in a booth. As a matter of fact, more people tan out in the sun than in a booth.

Being inarticulate when under pressure is not evidence of a crime. So far, no hint of any evidence has been made public in this case. There hasn't even been any hearsay reported. The daughter's statement of "going tanning with mommy" makes no mention of a tanning bed. I'm really rather surprised that so many people are so willing to believe the worst of this woman, with so little reason. Especially on a site that is usually more than a little rabid in their down-with-police stance. I guess that attitude only applies to young and/or attractive victims.
>> ^Auger8:

I'm sorry but it's obvious she is lying she changes her story like three times and is way way too defensive about it in the first place for someone who is innocent. First she starts to say "tanning is ok as long as.... I just like to tan.", then she says "it just didn't happen", then she says "well other parents bring their kids", then she says she got the sunburn outside. So what's the real story here lady? And why would the little girl tell her school she got the sunburn while tanning with her Mom if that's not what happened? Why would a 5 yr old lie about something like that? You think the kid was TRYING to get her Mom in trouble? No the more likely reason is that this woman who is obviously addicted to tanning decided her Fair skinned child was hideous and took matters into her own hands. Look in the mirror lady the only thing hideous around here is you and your behavior.
>> ^Stormsinger:
At least the comments here are a bit more reasonable...although a bit off track from what the actual news story is. Yes, she's damaged her appearance. Big deal....that's her choice.
What -I- find interesting is that nowhere, anywhere, have I seen the slightest shred of evidence that she actually did anything wrong. Her daughter said that she tans with Mommy. Mom, Dad, and the attendants at the tanning salon all agree that the girl never went in the tanning booth. Where's the grounds for an arrest? Because she had a sunburn? I'm pretty fucking sure there are ways to get sunburned that don't involve a tanning booth. I'm even almost sure that they might qualify as "going tanning with Mommy".

She's being interviewed about her background and her thoughts on several issues. Of course she will focus on herself when answering. How is she different from every Charlie Rose interviewee?

I guess it's her uppity attitude.>> ^marinara:

downvote for self-absorbed babbling

>> ^dannym3141:

I feel almost like the interviewee lost a chance there. Sounded like the interviewer was on his side, he was almost pleading with him to outline reasons that it's safe and anti-corruption. "What have you got? Tell us what you're doing."


That's what it sounded like to me, also.
I was hoping to hear something that would convince me this is not just a trick to siphon votes from the D's. Didn't hear it here.

I feel almost like the interviewee lost a chance there. Sounded like the interviewer was on his side, he was almost pleading with him to outline reasons that it's safe and anti-corruption. "What have you got? Tell us what you're doing."

I love animals too, but I upvoted because of the news guy sitting 20 feet away from the interviewee , with a pole between them (30 sec mark). Dumbest interview set-up ever??

>> ^notarobot:

"If you're broke do something about it"
Um... sounds like she was trying to?


Her method is about as moronic as the interviewee's. "Get a job", hmm, it's really not that simple even in a good job market.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Rick Perry would still make a better president than Obama. So would Obama's Teleprompter or a fire hydrant.
Left wing voters believe the president is some kind of savior voters must serve and the media must not question, as long he's shuffling around wealth in the name of 'social justice'.
>> ^Phreezdryd:
Next up we see a clip of some Fox folks talking about how Rick Perry would still make a better president than Obama. I'm thinking right wing voters believe the president is some kind of inspirational figurehead that doesn't need to be all that bright, as long as his heart, and god, are in the right place.



this is pretty much backwards as to what someone on the left believes

but is dead on for the right

we want media that questions, but asks real questions, not questions prepared in advance by the interviewee (ala FOX)

and if the RIGHT hasn't been shuffling money from the poor to the wealthiest, man... I'd like to live in your world