Perfect example of how partisan pundits LIE to you

[Mac1958]

.

The opening story of Rachel Maddow's show last night (06/14/2013) provided a shining example of the primary way partisan pundits lie, using accurate facts coupled with lies of omission. She's as good at this as anyone, because she presents her stuff with unending sincerity.

The story was a mock-fest of Texas governor Rick Perry (a guy, by the way, I would not vote for on a freaking bet) signing a bill into law that Maddow said "makes it not illegal to say Merry Christmas in Texas. Seriously." And "thanks to Rick Perry, it's no longer illegal to say Merry Christmas in Texas." Then she continued her mockfest for a few moments before she sequed into a different attack on the GOP.

Good grief, Perry's loon, huh? This silly-ass bill with fake Santas present to make a silly point? What a dummy. What a goofball.

But hold it. Who's that little boy? And why didn't Maddow tell us why he was there?

I was curious about the little boy, and knowing how partisan pundits lie via omission, I looked into it. Turns out the little boy is the son of the guy who wrote the bill, state senator Dwayne Bohac of Houston. From the article linked below:

Dubbed the "Merry Christmas bill," the bipartisan measure sailed through the state House and Senate to reach Perry's desk.

It removes legal risks of saying "Merry Christmas" in schools while also protecting traditional holiday symbols, such as a menorah or nativity scene, as long as more than one religion and a secular symbol are also reflected.

The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Dwayne Bohac of Houston, said he drafted it after discovering that his son's school erected a "holiday tree" in December because any mention of Christmas could spark litigation.

So now schools in Texas don't have worry about being sued if they call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree.

So why didn't we get the whole story from Maddow? Because she's just another intellectually dishonest partisan ideologue.

I know her apologists will defend this, saying the whole story doesn't matter or something, go ahead.

Sources:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry signs 'Merry Christmas' bill into law
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvhr1S5RSr0]Rachel Maddow Blasts Rick Perry's Bill To Save 'Merry Christmas' In Texas - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Truthseeker420]

She said there is no law banning the use of "Merry Christmas". Why would she go on to spew right wing propaganda? Besides the law would be stuck down on a Constitutional challenge.

 

[Mac1958]

She said there is no law banning the use of "Merry Christmas". Why would she go on to spew right wing propaganda? Besides the law would be stuck down on a Constitutional challenge.

So hearing only the part of the story that you like is good enough for you, is that correct?

Is it okay with you that she left out pertinent details?

Would you be this forgiving if Rush Limbaugh left out half a story?

And you use the word "truth" in your name.



.

 

[Pogo]

THIS is your "perfect example" of journalistic lying --- a sarcastic yet factual quip? Pfft.

I got your journalistic lying right here. See any source for its claim? Any documentation? Any evidence at all?

Me neither. Yet that didn't stop them from committing declarative sentences.
And btw on the present case TS is correct; this would not survive a Constitutional challenge.

So why is he doing it?

Did Maddow mention that Perry is on his way to a Ralph Reed orgy?

From your own link:
>> It was a serious tone for an otherwise fun bill-signing and should bolster the governor's Christian conservative credentials before he travels to Washington for the Faith & Freedom Coalition's "Road to Majority" conference with the likes of tea party darlings and U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Kentucky's Rand Paul and fellow Texan Ted Cruz. <<

There they are -- the Bartonites. If Maddow didn't mention it, that's a glaring omission.

 

[Truthseeker420]

She said there is no law banning the use of "Merry Christmas". Why would she go on to spew right wing propaganda? Besides the law would be stuck down on a Constitutional challenge.

So hearing only the part of the story that you like is good enough for you, is that correct?

Is it okay with you that she left out pertinent details?

Would you be this forgiving if Rush Limbaugh left out half a story?

And you use the word "truth" in your name.



.

I don't think she did leave out half the story. If anything she should have mentioned how this bill is unconstitutional.

 

[Mac1958]

THIS is your "perfect example" of journalistic lying --- a sarcastic yet factual quip? Pfft.

I got your journalistic lying right here. See any source for its claim? Any documentation? Any evidence at all?

Me neither. Yet that didn't stop them from committing declarative sentences.
And btw on the present case TS is correct; this would not survive a Constitutional challenge.

So why is he doing it?

Did Maddow mention that Perry is on his way to a Ralph Reed orgy?

From your own link:
>> It was a serious tone for an otherwise fun bill-signing and should bolster the governor's Christian conservative credentials before he travels to Washington for the Faith & Freedom Coalition's "Road to Majority" conference with the likes of tea party darlings and U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Kentucky's Rand Paul and fellow Texan Ted Cruz. <<

There they are -- the Bartonites. If Maddow didn't mention it, that's a glaring omission.

So the way she did this was okay with you.

She provided half a story, and that's all you need.

Then you diverted away from the point, multiple times.

This is why partisan pundits cause so much damage. Their followers believe them and defend them.

.

 

[Ernie S.]

She said there is no law banning the use of "Merry Christmas". Why would she go on to spew right wing propaganda? Besides the law would be stuck down on a Constitutional challenge.

So hearing only the part of the story that you like is good enough for you, is that correct?

Is it okay with you that she left out pertinent details?

Would you be this forgiving if Rush Limbaugh left out half a story?

And you use the word "truth" in your name.



.

I don't think she did leave out half the story. If anything she should have mentioned how this bill is unconstitutional.

Could you explain to us how the law is unconstitutional?

 

[Pogo]

THIS is your "perfect example" of journalistic lying --- a sarcastic yet factual quip? Pfft.

I got your journalistic lying right here. See any source for its claim? Any documentation? Any evidence at all?

Me neither. Yet that didn't stop them from committing declarative sentences.
And btw on the present case TS is correct; this would not survive a Constitutional challenge.

So why is he doing it?

Did Maddow mention that Perry is on his way to a Ralph Reed orgy?

From your own link:
>> It was a serious tone for an otherwise fun bill-signing and should bolster the governor's Christian conservative credentials before he travels to Washington for the Faith & Freedom Coalition's "Road to Majority" conference with the likes of tea party darlings and U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Kentucky's Rand Paul and fellow Texan Ted Cruz. <<

There they are -- the Bartonites. If Maddow didn't mention it, that's a glaring omission.

So the way she did this was okay with you.

She provided half a story, and that's all you need.

Then you diverted away from the point, multiple times.

This is why partisan pundits cause so much damage. Their followers believe them and defend them.

.

I can't watch the video here at work; I only have your OP text to go on. Will have to get back to you later. But based on what you gave me, I don't believe what you left out is "half the story", if it's relevant at all. It strikes me much more as a side story that you would have preferred to have in there had you been doing the story. But relevant? No, you haven't convinced me.

Your case is pretty weak. Especially in today's environment. Way too weak to be called a "perfect example".

 

[Mac1958]

THIS is your "perfect example" of journalistic lying --- a sarcastic yet factual quip? Pfft.

I got your journalistic lying right here. See any source for its claim? Any documentation? Any evidence at all?

Me neither. Yet that didn't stop them from committing declarative sentences.
And btw on the present case TS is correct; this would not survive a Constitutional challenge.

So why is he doing it?

Did Maddow mention that Perry is on his way to a Ralph Reed orgy?

From your own link:
>> It was a serious tone for an otherwise fun bill-signing and should bolster the governor's Christian conservative credentials before he travels to Washington for the Faith & Freedom Coalition's "Road to Majority" conference with the likes of tea party darlings and U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Kentucky's Rand Paul and fellow Texan Ted Cruz. <<

There they are -- the Bartonites. If Maddow didn't mention it, that's a glaring omission.

So the way she did this was okay with you.

She provided half a story, and that's all you need.

Then you diverted away from the point, multiple times.

This is why partisan pundits cause so much damage. Their followers believe them and defend them.

.

I can't watch the video here at work; I only have your OP text to go on. Will have to get back to you later. But based on what you gave me, I don't believe what you left out is "half the story", if it's relevant at all. It strikes me much more as a side story that you would have preferred to have in there had you been doing the story. But relevant? No, you haven't convinced me.

Your case is pretty weak. Especially in today's environment. Very weak.

Great. And when you watch the video and read the article, ask yourself, "did she give us the whole story or did she not?"

While, based on your responses so far, I suspect you'll be satisfied that she did, I remain hopeful.

And again, my point is that she is being intellectually dishonest by not giving you the whole story so that she can mock the "other side". A lie by omission.

.

 

[legaleagle_45]

She said there is no law banning the use of "Merry Christmas". Why would she go on to spew right wing propaganda? Besides the law would be stuck down on a Constitutional challenge.

Why would it be struck down if it is not illegal to say Merry Christmas in Texas? Do you disagree with Rachel and assert that it is illegal to say Merry Christmas?

 

[Papageorgio]

She said there is no law banning the use of "Merry Christmas". Why would she go on to spew right wing propaganda? Besides the law would be stuck down on a Constitutional challenge.

So hearing only the part of the story that you like is good enough for you, is that correct?

Is it okay with you that she left out pertinent details?

Would you be this forgiving if Rush Limbaugh left out half a story?

And you use the word "truth" in your name.



.

Mac, this is why I don't take any of these guys seriously, the lie with omission. They twist the facts. They slant to favor their political agenda. They deal in half truths and other partisans fall all over themselves to push the half truth.

 

[Pogo]

So the way she did this was okay with you.

She provided half a story, and that's all you need.

Then you diverted away from the point, multiple times.

This is why partisan pundits cause so much damage. Their followers believe them and defend them.

.

I can't watch the video here at work; I only have your OP text to go on. Will have to get back to you later. But based on what you gave me, I don't believe what you left out is "half the story", if it's relevant at all. It strikes me much more as a side story that you would have preferred to have in there had you been doing the story. But relevant? No, you haven't convinced me.

Your case is pretty weak. Especially in today's environment. Very weak.

Great. And when you watch the video and read the article, ask yourself, "did she give us the whole story or did she not?"

While, based on your responses so far, I suspect you'll be satisfied that she did, I remain hopeful.

And again, my point is that she is being intellectually dishonest by not giving you the whole story so that she can mock the "other side". A lie by omission.

.

It comes down then to your premise that your side tangent about the son of the legislator is relevant at all. Your link (and your OP) tell us that his son's school erected a 'holiday tree' "because any mention of Christmas could spark litigation". That ain't exactly much to hang one's hat on.

In other words you've got a state legislator pushing a bill through because some unnamed school official somewhere allegedly thought a particular appellation "could" spark litigation, therefore they called it something else -- or so we're told by a third party.

-- That's IT??

Well actually you're right; Maddow could have made a stronger case to make Perry (and Texas) look bad.

 

[Mac1958]

I can't watch the video here at work; I only have your OP text to go on. Will have to get back to you later. But based on what you gave me, I don't believe what you left out is "half the story", if it's relevant at all. It strikes me much more as a side story that you would have preferred to have in there had you been doing the story. But relevant? No, you haven't convinced me.

Your case is pretty weak. Especially in today's environment. Very weak.

Great. And when you watch the video and read the article, ask yourself, "did she give us the whole story or did she not?"

While, based on your responses so far, I suspect you'll be satisfied that she did, I remain hopeful.

And again, my point is that she is being intellectually dishonest by not giving you the whole story so that she can mock the "other side". A lie by omission.

.

It comes down then to your premise that your side tangent about the son of the legislator is relevant at all. Your link (and your OP) tell us that his son's school erected a 'holiday tree' "because any mention of Christmas could spark litigation". That ain't exactly much to hang one's hat on.

In other words you've got a state legislator pushing a bill through because some unnamed school official somewhere allegedly thought a particular appellation "could" spark litigation, therefore they called it something else -- or so we're told by a third party.

-- That's IT??

Well actually you're right; Maddow could have made a stronger case to make Perry (and Texas) look bad.

Essentially the kind of response I expected.

Maddow gives only part of the story, as usual, and her fans defend it, just as I said that they do. And since the part of the story she provided was essentially factual, they can crow that she "speaks the truth" while ignoring the fact that she spoke only half the truth.

Whether it's Maddow or Limbaugh or any other partisan pundit, this is how the game is always played.

Partisans are always happy with just their side of the story. Nothing else is "relevant".

.

 

[Pogo]

Great. And when you watch the video and read the article, ask yourself, "did she give us the whole story or did she not?"

While, based on your responses so far, I suspect you'll be satisfied that she did, I remain hopeful.

And again, my point is that she is being intellectually dishonest by not giving you the whole story so that she can mock the "other side". A lie by omission.

.

It comes down then to your premise that your side tangent about the son of the legislator is relevant at all. Your link (and your OP) tell us that his son's school erected a 'holiday tree' "because any mention of Christmas could spark litigation". That ain't exactly much to hang one's hat on.

In other words you've got a state legislator pushing a bill through because some unnamed school official somewhere allegedly thought a particular appellation "could" spark litigation, therefore they called it something else -- or so we're told by a third party.

-- That's IT??

Well actually you're right; Maddow could have made a stronger case to make Perry (and Texas) look bad.

Essentially the kind of response I expected.

Maddow gives only part of the story, as usual, and her fans defend it, just as I said that they do. And since the part of the story she provided was essentially factual, they can crow that she "speaks the truth" while ignoring the fact that she spoke only half the truth.

Whether it's Maddow or Limbaugh or any other partisan pundit, this is how the game is always played.

Partisans are always happy with just their side of the story.

.

I understand your point that news can be slanted by omission. Perfectly. I just don't see an omission that is relevant. Can you articulate how it is? Because if you can't --- maybe it's not.

I just don't see what's been omitted except a couple of things that could have been used to make Perry look worse than the straight story did.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It comes down then to your premise that your side tangent about the son of the legislator is relevant at all. Your link (and your OP) tell us that his son's school erected a 'holiday tree' "because any mention of Christmas could spark litigation". That ain't exactly much to hang one's hat on.

In other words you've got a state legislator pushing a bill through because some unnamed school official somewhere allegedly thought a particular appellation "could" spark litigation, therefore they called it something else -- or so we're told by a third party.

-- That's IT??

Well actually you're right; Maddow could have made a stronger case to make Perry (and Texas) look bad.

Essentially the kind of response I expected.

Maddow gives only part of the story, as usual, and her fans defend it, just as I said that they do. And since the part of the story she provided was essentially factual, they can crow that she "speaks the truth" while ignoring the fact that she spoke only half the truth.

Whether it's Maddow or Limbaugh or any other partisan pundit, this is how the game is always played.

Partisans are always happy with just their side of the story.

.

I understand your point that news can be slanted by omission. Perfectly. I just don't see an omission that is relevant. Can you articulate how it is? Because if you can't --- maybe it's not.

I just don't see what's been omitted except a couple of things that could have been used to make Perry look worse than the straight story did.

Mac explained it perfectly in the OP. It's either willing ignorance or a comprehension failure on your part.

 

[Pogo]

Essentially the kind of response I expected.

Maddow gives only part of the story, as usual, and her fans defend it, just as I said that they do. And since the part of the story she provided was essentially factual, they can crow that she "speaks the truth" while ignoring the fact that she spoke only half the truth.

Whether it's Maddow or Limbaugh or any other partisan pundit, this is how the game is always played.

Partisans are always happy with just their side of the story.

.

I understand your point that news can be slanted by omission. Perfectly. I just don't see an omission that is relevant. Can you articulate how it is? Because if you can't --- maybe it's not.

I just don't see what's been omitted except a couple of things that could have been used to make Perry look worse than the straight story did.

Mac explained it perfectly in the OP. It's either willing ignorance or a comprehension failure on your part.

-- so you can't articulate it either. Good to know.
The way I see it, if you have a point on something, you should be able to explain what it is. If you can't, then it's not a point.

 

[Pogo]

OK as promised I've now had a chance to watch the video and your point is even more obscure.

You left out the part about all the Santa Clauses.

But you also left out the part about the history. The focus of the story seems to have been Rick Perry's longstanding strawman of the "illegal Christmas". The whole second half of the video is about that history (and it's cut off before the segment ends so there may be more, talk about selective editing). The bill signing is just a setup to that. So I don't see how you've presented a valid case with a segment of a story that isn't even all there (what happens next? do we know?), and your point relates only to the first half before the story develops. As Maddow notes about halfway through the clip -- was Christmas ever illegal in Texas in the first place? The only state I know Christmas was ever illegal was Massachusetts.

So since the story is not in the main about the bill that was signed, but about Perry's pandering history, the school anecdote isn't relevant.

Moreover, what you're noting the absence of here is an anecdote from a politician using that undocumented anecdote to sell his bill. Hard to see how a politician's hearsay is legitimately part of this story, unless the story is about that legislator's political strategy. Just because a politician tells a story doesn't mean it's valid.

It might have been useful on an exposé of how no such incident ever happened, but that's not the point here. I'm tempted to think I'm the only one who actually watched the video. It's obvious.

The Santa Clauses are irrelevant too.

 

[hortysir]

So hearing only the part of the story that you like is good enough for you, is that correct?

Is it okay with you that she left out pertinent details?

Would you be this forgiving if Rush Limbaugh left out half a story?

And you use the word "truth" in your name.



.

I don't think she did leave out half the story. If anything she should have mentioned how this bill is unconstitutional.

Could you explain to us how the law is unconstitutional?

I'm guessing "no"

 

[Mac1958]

.

First of all, Maddow used a Straw Man argument. This wasn't about the legality of Christmas, was it? It was about not being sued for saying Merry Christmas. I think most people would see this difference. And even in your response you question the issue of legality. Again, it stops people from suing for being "offended". Political Correctness run amok. Are we supposed to pretend this can't happen?

And second, to declare the entire reason for the bill signing irrelevant is ridiculous. The very reason the bill is written, voted on, and signed into law is irrelevant in a story about that bill? Really?

Partisan ideology is intellectually dishonest, and this is a perfect example.

.

 

[Moonglow]

How is the Menorah part of Christmas?