We’ve Talked About This, Haven’t We?

The “reporting” by “Mother Jones” on Mitt Romney’s “47%” remark is looking, more and more, to be an invocation of the McKay Corolllary (“Any time the liberal media (to say nothing of leftyblogs) “reports” on putative conservative misdeeds, they should be distrusted but verified.  And then, to an almost-mathemetical standard of invariably, distrusted some more.”) to Berg’s Seventh Law (“When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character or respect for liberty or the truth, they are at best projecting, and at worst drawing attention away from their own misdeeds”)

When originally presented by David Corn of Mother Jones, there was no disclosure that part of Mitt Romney’s controversial answer about 47% of voters was missing from the tape.

Since only an edited version originally was presented, there was no way to know if something was missing. After all, it was edited, so of course something was missing by definition.

Romney has admitted that the answer on the video, which he didn’t remember except for the video, was “inelegant.” That’s why Romney asked for the full audio/video to be released.

Corn reacted vigorously to Romney’s suggestion that he only provided “snippets,” and then Corn released what purported to be the complete audio/video in two parts. The “complete” version was consistent with the original edited audio/video. Again, there was no disclosure by Corn that there might be something missing. (Corn added an “update” after my original story ran.”

To the contrary, Corn went out of his way to assert that there was no “filtering” and that the full audio/video had been released. As Corn explained to Howard Kurtz of The Daily Beast (emphasis mine):

Is the liberal media making too much of the Romney video? “It feeds into a narrative he’s been fighting all along, that he’s a 1 percenter, not one of us, doesn’t really understand it,” Corn says. And since these are the candidate’s own words, “there’s no filter here whatsoever, there’s no out-of-context argument to be made.”

But there was a filter. As reported in my prior post, Corn has admitted that 1-2 minutes of audio/video are missing. That missing audio/video includes part of Romney’s controversial answer.

Maybe even Berg’s Seventh Law and its McKay Corollary, hitherto nearly airtight, is obsolete and needs strenghening?  Maybe upgrade to the “Sixty-First-Minute Law of Media Bias“; any time the mainstream (to say nothing of overtly liberal) media presents supposedly damaging information about conservatives, they should presumed guilty of dishonest editing or outright manufacturing of evidence until proven innocent”.

17 thoughts on “We’ve Talked About This, Haven’t We?

  1. A Repubican speaking to his base about opposition to the entitlement mentality is dog-bites-man news, except when the other side uses it to energize its base. The sad and ugly truth is that Romney wasn’t speaking disparingly about people getting entitlements, he was pointing out that the percentage of takers is becoming larger, not smaller. He could also have pointed out that nothing the Obama administration has done, or will do, is going to make that percentage any smaller. It’s an absolute continental divide in America between those who think that is OK and those who don’t. It may be that the takers will mobilze themselves enough to vote for an expansion of benefits and complete the process of looting, although when you’ve become accustomed to taking it can be hard to summon the self-motivation any longer.
    The MSM are working hard on behalf of the looters, however. Last night Scott Pelley of CBS breathlessly informed viewers that the economy is finally, at last, no fooling, we really mean it this time, improving, because of some optimistic housing data. And the night before, lap dog–I mean talk show host– David Letterman provided our Dear Leader a forum in which to explain that he inherited a trillion dollars in debt from those nasty Repubicans, but then couldn’t exactly remember how many more trillion he added in the next four years.
    This reminds me of the 1972 gold medal basketball game between USA and the Soviet Union in which the refs did their best to throw the game to the Russians.

  2. Mitch, to be effective The Party Line must not change from day to day. Yesterday, Mitt was a bold truth teller who should publically embrace the private 47% rhetoric. Today, the private 47% rhetoric is a crafty illusion created by those liberals and their deceptive editing. Are we are war with Eurasia or Eastasia?

  3. Aw, RickDFL doesn’t understand that people can learn new stuff as time goes by. Poor, poor RickDFL.

  4. Didn’t someone once say “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

  5. Ayn Rand: a monster (in Paul Ryans closet) one day, and an authority (to appeal to) the next.

    What was that about Eastasia and PArty Lines again, RickDFL?

  6. I wonder what Dem candidates say in private to their fund-raising groups about the other side? They probably mock them as bitter Bible- and gun-clinging hillbillies. I wonder if they were to be found to have something like that if it would lead the news cycle for two weeks? Two hours? Two minutes?

  7. I’ve watched the video — what Corn has released of it, anyhow — and it seems obvious to me that what Romney is doing is telling a group of donors how he will spend their money. If he spends X amount of dollars, it is best that he spends it pursuing the votes of groups that are not committed to either candidate and who are most easily swayed. Romney is saying that he will use their money in its best, highest use.
    Very business like. No wonder Dems get it wrong.

  8. Terry:
    It is the reason Romney said he would not pursue the 47%. He said they were dependent on government and would not take responsibility for their own lives. Most Americans have a higher oppinion of their fellow citizens.

    What makes it especially declicious for Dems is the fact that a huge chunk of the 47% are seniors who are GOP base voters.

  9. RickDFL: you know when these guys are forced to embrace nuance, they’re on the run.

    Angryclown is waiting for the inevitable posts in which the Mitchketeers are all “we told you Mitt was a RINO” and “next time we need to nominate a *real* conservative, like Dick Cheney or Darth Maul.”

  10. iMost Americans have a higher oppinion of their fellow citizens.
    Most democrats assert that the reason conservatives — over half the country — will not vote for Obama is that they are racists.
    “Mother Jones” is hardly the magazine of “most Americans”.

  11. Terry:
    First the pedantic point. More than half the country did (and will again) for for Obama.
    Second, no one says all Republicans are racists. Romeny killed himself by lumping all 47% together.
    Third, there is far more evidence for the role of racism in American politics than for the idea that 47% of Americans are too dependent on government to take resposibility for themselves.

  12. First the pedantic point. More than half the country did (and will again) for for Obama.

    If this nation is that stupid, it deserves what’s about to happen.

  13. Rick DFL-“There is far more evidence of the role of racism in American politics than for…..the idea that Americans are dependent on government.” He says, without offering any of said “evidence”.

  14. Jimf-
    Probably a “study” by the Southern Poverty Law Center that shows that Republicans are obsessed by race — because they don’t mention it as much as the Democrats.
    The study was most likely done by social scientists who don’t understand numbers or the plain meaning of words.
    Seriously, in one of their press releases the SPLC used the used the words “hereditary” and “congenital” as though they meant the same thing. They don’t.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.