Media distortion is a common thing these days, and I used an example in my last post about how an Obama interview with Tom Brokaw proved how the media distorts what has actually been said when they report the news.
I had to stop a discourse I was having because this person is so tuned into Obama that he could not see how the post was about media distortion only using the Obama interview, and a couple of reports written about it as examples. He wants to say that I am saying that the media is trying to help Obama. The reasons behind the distortion were never addressed because that's just not the issue. Whether the media distorted the news in Obama's favor or not, makes no difference. I even made a comment saying that I thought they didn't help him if that was their intent, and that I thought Obama handled the segment's interview as best as could be expected. I do see that there can be nothing written with this man's name in it, that people will not come to his defense even when it's not needed.
I specifically chose the smoking segment of the interview with Tom Brokaw because it's an insignificant enough subject so that it wouldn't cause confusion here, that I wanted to talk about the actual issue in the interview instead of the issue of media distortion. Yet, that person did attempt to talk about the issue too.
People are not readers here. That's the conclusion to which I've come. It's a sad conclusion, but it's true. I almost understand why people post copy and pastes. Why would you want to spend even the smallest amount of energy on anything else here?
People distort things whatever way they choose, so I guess it's not just the media, and maybe that's why they get away with it. If everyone else does it, maybe they think no one will notice.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 38
I wrote a story. In it three people walked into a building, one was killed inside and two walked out of the building. It suprised me that several people commented that I screwed up. If three went in three should walk out in their thinking. I'm like What? Since ther was only a short sentence saying one was killed I changed the paragraph to further explain the death and the fact that only two were walking when the came out.
If you wrote a story about a doughnut shop and you mentioned how you pulled into the parking lot in your convertible, all of a sudden, the thread could be about convertibles.
It's terribly frustrating, but you've got to wonder how these people got through school. Did they not have to read anything? Is the educational system we have in parts of this country so bad that it produces illiterates?
I appreciate you taking the time to create value for everyone. But if your post is not somewhat controversial, people ignore your value created. They don't want to turn their brains on and think, they just WANT!
Everyone is angry and they don't know why and we don't know what brings it out. Ordinary people go off the deep end, on these comments. The reason being, it is a place to lash out at a stranger, w/o consequences. And if you engage them even further, they get worse.
I believe most of us want the same things - some just want to wait and have them handed to them while others go out and produce more than they consume. And, when you do that, aka profit, those with both hands out want more of yours.
So their hope and change and dreams and savior, Obama, will bring that to them and they don't want to hear ANY thing, just a hair off-color, which will spoil their dream or pop their balloon!
Just my thoughts...
So if you know that you do this, why do you continue to do it?
Looks like some finger pointing going on here and would like more of Tim's perception.
The answer that you gave me shows me there's something or many things you didn't get there, but I'm not sure what parts of my comment those might be, so I can only really respond to your last comment when I'm sure I know how you've understood mine.
I'm going to take some liberty with my topic, for a change, and turn the tables here a bit. Let's see, the word distortion was used in the article, so let's give that a go. Why have you chosen, Tim, to say that Linda has lashed out at strangers? What's your definition of "going off the deep end?" How has Linda done this? If you can't answer these questions, we'll just say you've distorted the truth, and let it go at that.
"I believe most of us want the same things - some just want to wait and have them handed to them while others go out and produce more than they consume. And, when you do that, aka profit, those with both hands out want more of yours."
"So their hope and change and dreams and savior, Obama, will bring that to them and they don't want to hear ANY thing, just a hair off-color, which will spoil their dream or pop their balloon!"
Last conservation I tried to have with her, all I got from her were crazy conspiracy theories... Along with constant lectures that again seemed to only be her reassuring herself that she correct and that I just didn't have the knowledge she had or else I'd agree with her. She couldn't possibly be wrong, or so she thinks.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977492342
The word "conspiracy" is utilized when the commenter has not heard of a particular event or find it authentic, to their own satisfaction. Personally, when I heard things, over and over - I started researching. Where there is smoke there is fire.
Some things are true whether you believe them or not.
Now Joe, What are talking about "treason" re Obama.
I will say this, Bush & Co. should be tried for all the crimes they've committed as should those who aided and abetted.
Same thing for Obama, if he takes the oath of office and knowingly circumvented the law or the Constitution, we should seek justice as well.
If he wins the right not to produce the evidence sought by those with the couple dozen lawsuits, that will settle nothing.
IF he had any integrity, he would already have produced all the documents requested to take away ANY doubt as to his eligibility.
So, that, for me begs the question, what is he hiding?
The media only serves themselves and report on only the things of which they want to make an issue.
In this case, they choose to "doctor" a conversation which was less than straightforward. That old double talk we are accostomed to from our politicians and the media.
It was a sarcastic remark to just shut Joe up from the start, but it didn't because he didn't understand it. I even thanked him for making me think, and if that didn't wake him up, nothing will.
I wrote above, "That he would prefer to distort the truth that Obama was unequivocally born in Hawaii, donning a hula skirt, than to distort an outdated and yellowed document about which no one gives a damn anymore anyway, except for challenging it in minority rights issues and the like, is absolutely egregious, indeed. I think they should try him for treason; it's far more than distortion."
Paraphrased:
That HE, meaning D'Onofrio, would rather distort the truth that Obama was born in Hawaii than to distort the Constitution, that no one cares about anyway, is treason. That's what I said in third grade English. It was sarcastic. Of course, I don't think D'Onofrio should be tried for treason.
I give up here.
I've been in Provider Relations for years and am accustomed to solving complaints and issues from over 1000 doctors offices in seven counties. I have no problem there. If there appears to be some antagonism over the phone, I make an appointment and meet them face to face to address their concerns.
My service commitment was to visit each office two or three times a year. Other problematic offices and/or large offices, more times.
Thus I can appreciate difference when put in writing in this vehicle, however, I avoid name calling. When I use the terminology "collective ignorant", many are offended. If the looked up the word(s) in the dictionary, they would not feel that way - I'm assuming right here...
Now, Joe, read my lips - IT'S NOT JUST ONE DOCUMENT! So get over the birth cert. vault copy or not. It is disrespectful of you to accuse us of wanting justice.
Obama, just provide the requested documents to end all of this. What do you have to hide? With supporters like Joe, you can hide all your secrets forever.
We should ALWAYS ask good questions - if we don't then we get the govt. we deserve.
Please, just READ the info posted.
There are so many questions that even attorneys and judges can't answer them all. If I tell a 2 year old child that Santa Claus is coming to bring him gifts, he might not have many questions, but if I tell a 5 year old he will have many more. There are questions about everything, but if you don't allow your mind to expand to ask those questions, you'll only get answers that others choose to give you. I don't think I've lived a moment of my life that way. My grandfather used to call me the HOW COME? girl.
"The birth status question is the guiding principle in all of these cases."
Presidents bound by Constitutional law are to be natural born citizens.
"So, I suppose that you want me to reread the plethora of constitutional minutiae and attached riders to these cases, but, alas, I won't." I don't know about Linda, but I would certainly never ask you to do that. I'm not that cruel.
"You can't convince me that your concern, here, has anything to do with the constitution. So, don't even try." I don't know about Linda, but I've given up trying to convince you of anything you don't already have your mind made up about.
"I am amazed at how arrogant you are. You really believe (as do others) that our leadership owes you information that no leader has ever had to provide before." That would be better stated back to you that in your mind and others with minds like yours, we are arrogant to demand what no other President in our lifetime has refused to provide.
"We aren't living in a country with such oppressive requirements. We live in a free society. Our states are operating as good as can be expected." Oppressive requirements? If that's the way you see adherence to law, I can't argue that, but the reason we do live in a free society is because we have laws that protect us, must be obeyed and for which people are accountable to preserve that free society. You have very low expectations if you think that we are doing as well as we should be. Of course, if you like depressions...
"It is just inane to suggest that the state of Hawaii is that incompetent." Too bad he isn't claiming to be born in Alaska then.
"Or, to suggest that there might be a "constitutional crisis" over Obama's election as President-elect, is even more ridiculous." There is a small part of me that hopes that the issue dies because if it were proven that Obama were ineligible after inauguration it will give a whole new meaning to the word crisis, and you can forget about the Constitution. It would be too little, too late.
I don't know about Linda, but I've given up trying to convince you of anything you don't already have your mind made up about.
That should say, I've given up tryng to convince you of anything you already have your mind made up about.
You're right; there isn't. I never said there was, but there are discrepancies in the presented birth certificate on the Internet that make it look like a forgery. Anytime a politician is confronted with something that is defaming, the politician's natural instinct is to refute the allegation and show proof that would eliminate any doubt if the politician has that proof. It's just SOP. The other thing is that if this is a libelous allegation, it would seem that Obama or someone interested in his defense would countersue.
"The state certified copy is all that is ever needed in the United States of America."
When there are discrepancies and no questions, it would probably suffice.
"It seems to me, Sue, that you make up law to fit your description of the requirements that should be placed on Barack Obama."
What seems to be to you, Joe, is not my concern, for what seems to be to you is often not what is.
"No other president has ever had to do any more than what is required."
Once again, the requirement is to show proof of his natural born status, and the document that he has chosen to reveal does not do so, therefore, he has not done what is required.
"It's really a shame when people are not honest."
Yes, Joe, that's the point.
"You may not like the choice of 63 million voters, but that doesn't give you the right to invalidate that choice through a misguided interpretation of how you think the law should work in this case."
I am not invalidating anything. I don't have the power to invalidate anything. I want to be sure things ARE validated. I am not saying how the law should work other than that the Constitution needs to be upheld. It's not my misguided interpretation. The law has already been made. It was made long before I existed.