MSNBC & Wash Post....dangerous misinformers?

[Revoltingest]

OK...I'm starting to get a bit of a feeling for how to create proper threads in this place. In the latest
fashion, I'm addressing dishonesty, misinformation, incompetence & creeping fascism in the media.

The headline:
Liberal Star Blogger Ezra Klein: Constitution ‘Has No Binding Power on Anything’; Confusing Because it’s Over 100 Years Old

The video:
Breitbart.tv » Liberal Star Blogger Ezra Klein: Constitution ‘Has No Binding Power on Anything’; Confusing Because it’s Over 100 Years Old

Please fulminate before the thread is locked.

 

[Kathryn]

What GOOBERS! I guess some peoples' constituents are confused by the Constitition or are simply unable to read it though...But that doesn't make it irrelevant. It means they're IGNORANT.

Big difference.

 

[Revoltingest]

What GOOBERS! I guess some peoples' constituents are confused by the Constitition or are simply unable to read it though...But that doesn't make it irrelevant. It means they're IGNORANT.

Big difference.

Yer go'n easy on'm.
They're at best dishonest because they're willfully ignorant. The worst case is that they intentionally misinform the viewers in order to subvert the rule of law.

Maybe I should've put this in the 'joke' section.....we'll see how it develops.

 

[dust1n]

I understand the guy obviously doesn't grasp the constitution. However, Republicans reading the constitution at the Congress is stupid. It is a gimmick.

 

[dust1n]

The worst case is that they intentionally misinform the viewers in order to subvert the rule of law.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I hereby invoke the argument of obviousness.....& the video.

I understand the guy obviously doesn't grasp the constitution. However, Republicans reading the constitution at the Congress is stupid. It is a gimmick.

Alas, I fear that you're right about this.

 

[Skwim]

But the question Klein was answering was "Is this [the reading of the Constitution] a gimmick?"

So, when Klein answered with, "Yes it's a gimmick. I mean, you could say two things about it. One, it has no binding power on anything. And two, the issue of the Constitution . . . ." the "it" is more likely referring to the Republican reading of the Constitution aloud.

 

[linwood]

I`m in agreement with Skwim here.

I think Klien was referring to the reading being a gimmick with no binding power which of course it is.

I`ll feel better just knowing those idiots in congress have finally read the damn thing.
I hold no hope for them actually comprehending it though.



However Kiens implication that the document is irrelevant because it`s confusing and "over 100 years old" is the implication of an idiot.

 

[Revoltingest]

Linwood & Skwimmy are both factually correct in their statements. Of course, they're irrelevant.
The question was a softball, thrown for an anti-Republican & anti-constitutional riff. Yes, a question
was asked & an answer was given....but listen to points made in the answer. Danger! Danger!
Misinformation & deception abound!

 

[linwood]

Linwood & Skwimmy are both factually correct in their statements. Of course, they're irrelevant.
The question was a softball, thrown for an anti-Republican & anti-constitutional riff. Yes, a question
was asked & an answer was given....but listen to points made in the answer. Danger! Danger!
Misinformation & deception abound!

I don`t doubt it and know that almost all our media is nothing more than a propaganda arm for one group or another.
Some more transparent than others but ultimately all US media pretty much is nothing but spin.

It`s a chore just trying to get enough qualified info to make an informed opinion and you can never be certain you`ve succeeded.

 

[Skwim]

However Kiens implication that the document is irrelevant because it`s confusing and "over 100 years old" is the implication of an idiot.

I didn't pick up on that at all.

Klein said, "And two, the issues of the constitution is not that they don't read the text, and don't think they're following. The issues of the Constitution is the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago, and what people believe it says differs from person to person depending on what they want to get done. So I wouldn't expect too much coming out of this [the reading]."

I don't see any implication that the document is irrelevant, rather that because of its old fashioned wording/grammar it is more open to interpretation than had it been written today.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't pick up on that at all.

Klein said, "And two, the issues of the constitution is not that they don't read the text, and don't think they're following. The issues of the Constitution is the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago, and what people believe it says differs from person to person depending on what they want to get done. So I wouldn't expect too much coming out of this [the reading]."

I don't see any implication that the document is irrelevant, rather that because of its old fashioned wording/grammar it is more open to interpretation than had it been written today.

How about the part where he says ".....it has no binding power on anything...." about the Constitution?
I'd call this dangerous misinformation.

 

[Skwim]

How about the part where he says ".....it has no binding power on anything...." about the Constitution?
I'd call this dangerous misinformation.

As I said in a previous post (#7),

"But the question Klein was answering was "Is this [the reading of the Constitution] a gimmick?"

So, when Klein answered with, "Yes it's a gimmick. I mean, you could say two things about it. One, it has no binding power on anything. And two, the issue of the Constitution . . . ." the "it" is more likely referring to the Republican reading of the Constitution aloud."
​

 

[Revoltingest]

As I said in a previous post (#7),

"But the question Klein was answering was "Is this [the reading of the Constitution] a gimmick?"

So, when Klein answered with, "Yes it's a gimmick. I mean, you could say two things about it. One, it has no binding power on anything. And two, the issue of the Constitution . . . ." the "it" is more likely referring to the Republican reading of the Constitution aloud."
​

Tis true that the question was asked....& a delightful partisan jab it was. But the answer matters even more....especially the part about the Constitution's
not being binding on anything. Just imagine the ramifications of people (eg, justices, legislators, cops, soldiers) buying into this philosophy. Just what is
being either misunderstood or fomented here? How representative is this of the brain trust in the much vaunted Washington Post?

 

[dust1n]

I hereby invoke the argument of obviousness.....& the video.

Um... if I am writing a story for a paper, and I do an interview with someone, it is unjournalistic to interrupt or try to correct the person who is speaking. Letting someone speak untruthfully in an interview in and of itself is not "intentionally misinform[ing] the viewers in order to subvert the rule of law." To suggest that MSNBC is purposefully showing this guy to comment about some douchey Senators' weak PR stunt might be the case. If it is, provide the evidence for such a claim. Even if it is the case, how exactly are they trying to 'subvert the rule of law?'

 

[Revoltingest]

Um... if I am writing a story for a paper, and I do an interview with someone, it is unjournalistic to interrupt or try to correct the person who is speaking. Letting someone speak untruthfully in an interview in and of itself is not "intentionally misinform[ing] the viewers in order to subvert the rule of law." To suggest that MSNBC is purposefully showing this guy to comment about some douchey....

Douchey? Anyway, continue....

Senators' weak PR stunt might be the case. If it is, provide the evidence for such a claim. Even if it is the case, how exactly are they trying to 'subvert the rule of law?'

Goodness gracious, you're awfully charitable in the slack you cut them....even more so than to Fox. Both news outlets advance the agenda of the
Constitution being a "living document", which is code for "Congress & the USSC may amend it by fiat, thereby skipping the pesky legal means.".

 

[dust1n]

Douchey? Anyway, continue....

It's a good word.

Goodness gracious, you're awfully charitable in the slack you cut them....even more so than to Fox. Both news outlets advance the agenda of the
Constitution being a "living document", which is code for "Congress & the USSC may amend it by fiat, thereby skipping the pesky legal means.".

Great, can you provide an example of where MSNBC advanced the agenda of any amendment or fiat?

And, when I do I rail on Fox News? I don't watch TV. I don't read any of the major network websites. I rarely comment on these media attack threads. I'm perfectly aware how ****** up they are, but I much rather read about very specific incidences.

 

[Revoltingest]

Great, can you provide an example of where MSNBC advanced the agenda of any amendment or fiat?

I'm just recklessly opining here.

And, when I do I rail on Fox News? I don't watch TV. I don't read any of the major network websites. I rarely comment on these media attack threads. I'm perfectly aware how ****** up they are, but I much rather read about very specific incidences.

I don't know....just going by your lack of defense for Fox relative to the lefty sources in the OP....nothing very factual.