anyone watching sees that the man as not being rhetorical
It was absolutely rhetorical, and anyone who understands what a rhetorical question
is, would know that. Plus, you're ignoring the context in which this remark was made. This wasn't a political debate, like your silly Right Wing outfit was trying to make it appear; by complaining that the respondent only had six seconds compared to the grieving father's whopping 15 minutes and 29 seconds. Oh the injustice!
This was a testimony before legislators, and anyone familiar with these events knows that people in the audience are not permitted to speak. The fact that someone did, makes him a heckler, because he was certainly informed of that prior to the hearing. He knew he wasn't going to be able to get much in before being shot down by someone in authority. But he tried anyway because political grandstanding was more important to him.
Your website claims, "the edit makes it appear that Mr. Heslin was arbitrarily interrupted by members of the audience instead of them responding to his question." But this isn't true at all. Even in Bashir's edit, we can still see that the man was asking a question beginning with the word "why". The editing from that point on probably had more to do with the fact that time is a factor on these shows, and there were 10-15 seconds edited out, most of which involved a long pause and a repeat of the question. I saw the entire video and see nothing wrong with Bashir's description, given the nature of these hearings and the context in which this sensitive subject was being addressed.
O.K. so we now see that the "lesser of two evils" is your compass....got it!
Hardly. I'm saying there is no real comparison between the two beyond the fact that they're both on TV. You're just desperately trying to create a sense of equivalence where there is none. MSNBC hires highly educated folks to run their programs and they have a fair sense of what journalistic integrity is about. I don't watch the Bashir show, but I am a fan of Rachel Maddow. FOX on the other hand, is nothing more than Roger Ailes' little propaganda platform and he hires folks who have zero education, but are known for riling up emotions over the radio. They have been busted day in and day out for creating news rather than reporting on it.
Mediamatters.org is bombarded with examples that are addressed on a daily basis. Your silly media research center can't come up with anything equal to that. Indeed, if this is the best you've got, then it shows just how desperate they really are, and how they need to spin this into an issue just because Sean Hannity says it is.
now you reek of desperation, embarrassed by your naïveté - you desperately deflect.
Deflect? I'm addressing your point, indeed refuting it. Your point is that the two are equal. Well, if that's true, then you should have no problem providing equal examples. So far you haven't even come close. I could go all day with these FOX examples, as more examples are produced regularly.
But hey...just for giggles....here is your comparable instance(s)
So six years ago MSNBC President admitted there "
is no dogma," just a philosophy of "go for it," and it turned out to be a Liberal equivalent of FOX (in the sense that it was an outlet that appealed to educated, Liberals, as opposed to racist, bigoted, and uneducated Right Wingers). And a full decade ago Phil Donahue, a disgruntled former employee goes on the Sean Hannity show to bitch about being fired because MSNBC was trying to have a more Conservative view and they considered him to be too Liberal.
Are you really so stupid that you don't realize how this example refutes the point you think you're making? And you just used a mediamatters piece while at the same time complaining about its bias!
I figured you'd be able to produce at least some valid examples, and something more recent than five and ten years ago. Guess not. ROFL!
