DISQUS

Anonymous · 1 year ago

The so called MSM and its churls are too much with this sort of nonsense, along with the hate mongering, racist "Christians."

TruthSeeker · 1 year ago

Yeah, that was infuriating. Some reporters act as if there are no objective, verifiable facts any more.....as if whatever you choose to believe is real and they have no responsibility to set the record straight. If this is so, then why do we need them? Is it just to reinforce our fantasies?


History will not look kindly on this time.

Tiffany B. Brown · 1 year ago

in kate snow's defense: (a) arguing with an old lady is kind of pointless and not a good look; (b) attribution is a way of maintaining at least the appearance of objectivity (which is why you hear "some say.."); (c) we don't know whether she more vehemently corrected the woman off-camera; (d) *right* after the segment, diane sawyer said that it was erroneous.

Tiffany B. Brown · 1 year ago

and to clarify point (b) it's not like saying "obama is a senator from illinois." that's an easily-proven, undisputable fact.


religion is a matter of self-identification. so to say "he says he is a christian" as opposed to "he is a christian" is most accurate.

Loni Elder · 1 year ago

I think its going too far to demand an apology from ABC. It's not voters that need their feet held to the fire by reporters, its the elected officials they vote for.

Craig Hickman · 1 year ago

nice try, tiffany b. brown. but your argument is fallacious. at best.

Anonymous · 1 year ago

What's the difference between upbraiding the old lady off the air and upbraiding her on the air?

Ms.Martin · 1 year ago

That whole thing was bs. That woman looked racist to me, I've seen that racist angst that showed in her face before. ABC simply chose someone to get out the message they wanted.


I just wish Hillary would get out of the way so we can start this presidential campaing. I'm sure this is a last minute push on her behalf to sway the superdelegates.

nezua · 1 year ago

disgusting.

Anonymous · 1 year ago

This is the media we have instead of the media we wish we had.*sigh*

N. Mahana · 1 year ago

I'm sorry but we as individual voters are not given a pass on ignorance. Remember, elected officials are there because people vote to put them there.


Which is why I hold each and every voter that elected George W. Bush in 2004, responsible for the men & women of the U.S. Army and Marines that have been killed in Iraq since then, in addition all the innocent Iraqi men, women and children who have perished. In 2004 there really wasn't ANY excuse to vote for that man...it was plain ignorance or malice.

marc · 1 year ago

so, according to this report, hillary voters are loonies.


i'm fine with that.

50 foot QE · 1 year ago

I contacted ABC and I do believe they owe their viewers an apology. Enough of the idiocy making! Many people get their info from tv, (foolish tho that may seem).

SquarePeg · 1 year ago

Speaking only for myself, I must say it came as an epiphany to me to realize that for all these years, even when the so-called main stream media was suppose to be independent of corporate interference, that we were still being fed as the public what they wanted us to know, how it was presented, knowing that their coverage would influence so many people who had no other way of getting news from around this country and other parts of the world. So there we were, stuck with only their versions of what could and should be told or fed to the unknowing millions of Americans. We were virtually at the mercy of the media and those who controlled it as to what we were told as the "news." Now with the corporations who have taken over the newsrooms, who are dependent upon politicians and others who regulate their industry, it is even worse. Fox News anyone?


Thank goodness for Blogs, the Internet and other sources of information that are now on par with many of the MSM publications and broadcasts.



It truly amazes me at the number of either weak-willed or highly influenced people who are too stupid or lazy to do a little research to determine for themselves what is right or wrong. Maybe in their ignorance, they think they are safe or can still feel entitled to their non-sense as in the case of the woman talking. She would never vote for Obama no matter what the situation, she would always find an excuse not to, he is too much different than what her perceived entitled ass is use to, in her world only white folks are suppose to be the POTUS, not uppity negroes. Something wrong with being a Muslim? No. But time and time again, I have heard this used as a slam as if something is wrong with it. Yes, white folks privilege and entitlement, black folks are supposed to be seen and not heard.



Stop trying to please these people, you never will.

bourgieadventures · 1 year ago

I think the media has a responsibility to be objective and that is NOT what they are doing. Hell, they haven't been giving unbiased reports for years.


There is so much misinformation out there. Unfortunately, most of America isn't going to take the time to read different articles, books, blogs and engage in the debate necessary to come to their own informed conclusions. They're turning on the news and waiting for someone to tell them what's happening. That is why people like Janis think Obama's a Muslim (and that being such is a problem). Correcting that woman off-air MIGHT do something for her. But the damage had already been done. Who will correct the rest of America?

Jack Turner · 1 year ago

tiffany thanks for dropping by. let me take these on one at a time


(a) arguing with an old lady is kind of pointless and not a good look;



I disagree because I think you and I assume a different goal for the interaction. If the reporter's goal is to actually change the voter's mind, then yes, arguing with a racist old white lady is pointless. However, that's not the purpose of ABC News. Their job is to inform millions of OTHER citizens and by letting this false statement hang out there, she's not doing her job as a journalist.



(b) attribution is a way of maintaining at least the appearance of objectivity (which is why you hear "some say..");



I don't see the relevance of this point here AND I disagree with it. Inserting "some say" is a way to stir up UNATTRIBUTED controversy for lazy reporters and speakers who are addicted to rhetorical techniques that lack substance. In this specific case, though, that's not what happened, so I'm confused as to why you've mentioned it



(c) we don't know whether she more vehemently corrected the woman off-camera;



Again this doesn't matter. The only part of her reporting that matters to the millions of viewers is what is ON camera. She could have kicked the woman in the face and called her whole family racist. If you don't do it in the light of day, you didn't do it. If it's not in the story, it doesn't exist.





(d) *right* after the segment, diane sawyer said that it was erroneous.



I haven't been able to watch the rest of the segment because of some tech problems. I'll keep trying, but it's not in the clip I posted, and I let the full report play out. Sawyer then moved on to talk about how Obama and Clinton were both in NYC and might have a meeting. I heard no correction within the first few seconds.

talk2me721 · 1 year ago

I am glad someone else picks up on these subtleties in the MSM's propaganda. Another example: on NBC's "Today" show, (5/14) Matt Lauer was giving the results of the W.Va primary and sumarily stated that "the good news was that HRC won by nearly 40 points, but the bad news was that she only gained 10 delegates." My question is bad news for whom? The inference is bad news for HRC, but the statement definitely came off as a sweeping generalization attempting to define what is good and bad news for the viewer.