Commentator 1
Chris Matthews repeats - with his own layer of apparent make-believe - Media Matters' vicious smear that Mike Huckabee called for Ethnic Cleansing of the West Bank in an interview reported by the Associated Press. Dennis Prager examines the issue in a short audio clip. Prager points out some of the dangers of such a despicable lie. It puts Huckabee's life in real danger.
Everybody knows that Arabs vote and participate in government in Israel. At least one Arab town in Israel, given the opportunity to leave the State of Israel, declined. Huckabee's position as described in the AP report does NOT require expulsion of Arabs on the West Bank, despite Chris Matthews' definitive statement that "You've got Huckabee saying he's gonna clear out all the Arabs in the West Bank, just get rid of them all!".
And even the Left (well, not the hard left, but at least most Democrats in Congress) came to a position of supporting Jews living in parts of the Left Bank (oops, West Bank - Heh.) and other areas claimed by the Palestinians shortly before Condoleeza Rice expressed concern about a certain development proposed in the West Bank. The American position hardened considerably during the Obama administration. Curtailing Israeli settlements again became a big focus of American foreign policy (slightly simplified and exaggerated in the video. Recent events have changed the focus somewhat).
Although Huckabee's position is now very different from that of the Obama administration, how do Media Matters and MSNBC justify extrapolating the wild claim about "ethnic cleansing" from Huckabee's comments? One of the few times Prager has EVER recommended suing someone.
Commentator 2
Lawrence O'Donnell has been moved into Keith Olberman's prime time slot. Here, Lawrence O'Donnell reaches deep into his own mind to find racist intent in a cartoon about food. He also claims that the cartoonists' portrayal of President Obama is out of line with the exaggerations of other political cartoonists. Quote:
In your most recent cartoons, Bush's ears have become so large they look like airplane wings.Obama's big ears in the cartoon in question were nowhere near as big as Bush's big ears here (though they did look a little like bat ears. And you know how everybody hates bats). Of course, no cartoonist ever portrayed Bush with the features of an animal Or as a monster. They leave that to commentary on Israel.
I don't draw Bush as a human being any more. He's become a cartoon character who also has a beak-like nose and circles for feet -- just two simple black circles. I draw Bush smaller and smaller as his incompetence grows larger and larger.
And then there's lefty political illustrators.
O'Donnell also told his viewers where the creators of the cartoon live, and made some pretty wild suggestions about how people should harass them in their private lives. Typical of the Left. You know: sending busses full of union members or ACORN associates to picket at people's personal residences and all. The Left is really into the personal destruction of people who don't agree with them. "Shut up or you'll be next" is the message for the rest of us.
In a more comical vein, O'Donnell also went ballistic over a Republican Congressman sleeping in his office. This is only O.K. when Democrats do it, apparently. When Republicans do it, it's tax fraud. One certainly can't expect someone from the Democratic Party to be meticulous about paying their taxes.
Commentator 3
I don't think that I would rate Rachel Maddow's recent "False" rating by Politifact (in her claim that Gov. Walker is lying about a budget shortfall in Wisconsin) as her absolute worst departure from the truth. And in this case, she could have just been accidentally selective in reading her source document. But really she should be more careful. Her first "False" rating by Politifacts involved more work in uncovering the falsehoods. And here, she helps David Letterman along in a whole string of falsehoods.
Departure from the above on MSNBC
MSNBC is still not entirely monolithic. On Morning Joe recently, commentators concluded that the coverage of the Wisconsin union protests probably did show some liberal bias. I wonder which way the network will go in the future?
17 comments:
First, Huckabee's stated policy is distinct from any other candidate (outside of fringe parties in Israel), and does amount to ethnic cleansing.
That Media Matters article is only one of several which have made that judgement about Huckabee's comments (going back several years).
I'm glad to see Matthews express that analysis on TV. Other than him, Huckabee's extremism on this issue hasn't been reported in the mainstream media. Maybe it would be during the GOP primaries, but then again, the GOP primaries has lately been a contest over which candidate is the most extreme.
The problem I have with Matthews' comments is that he doesn't back it up the way the articles do. The Media Matters article for example was excellent, it shows the comments in context and explains how they comprise ethnic cleansing. Matthews doesn't say what he means, and to the viewer it looks just like namecalling. Hopefully Matthews will respond with an explanation of what he meant. Alternatively, he might just chicken out and apologize.
Finally, the Left Bank is in Paris, not in Palestine. ;-)
Just kidding. Seriously, I didn't get the cartoon, nor what you said about leftists and Condi Rice.
Good catch about the "Left Bank", Mukome. Noted above.
From the Media Matters piece: "Is this what Huckabee means? It may be. . . . " You call that a careful, rock-solid proof of their inflammatory allegations about Huckabee based on an AP article with much less egregious language? Media Matters uses the most inflammatory adjectives possible in its entire piece.
And you can't deny that every time Israel has given up "land for peace" in prior negotiations, this has increased the violence and pressure against Israel, can you? How can giving up "land for peace" be a realistic choice for Israel when maps of the Middle East in which Israel does not exist are sometimes displayed even under the auspices of the United Nations?
Well, maybe not EVERY time they've given up "land for peace". But certainly they faced increased violence and pressure when they gave up land in negotiations with Arafat. Bill Clinton was pretty miffed with Arafat about this, as I recall.
Mukome, I can understand why you would be confused by the apparent connection between the Left and the first linked cartoon about Condoleeza Rice in my post. I've clarified that approval of Israeli settlements during the Bush administration did not include ALL of the left. I also added a couple of new links to explain my position.
I re-read the Media Matters piece and I still think it's a very good article. I did notice one thing which is not correct: it calls Huckabee's stance "new". In fact, Huckabee has been supporting transfer since at least 2009. This stance was characterized at that time, by several people, as ethnic cleansing, and that characterization was not controversial then. I can't find anyone saying Huckabee was slandered, or saying that Huckabee's life was put in danger.
The main issue here is, I think, is it "inflammatory" to call transfer ethnic cleansing? I don't think so. Ethnic cleansing is an actual thing that unfortunately actually happens, and that prominent people unfortunately support.
Take Helen Thomas for example. Many people focused on the question, is she anti-semitic? She very well may be, but we can't really know what's in her heart as they say. A more useful question I think is, did she call for ethnic cleansing? There, the answer is undoubtedly, YES. It's the definition of ethnic cleansing, and a prominent, respected journalist called for it.
What Prager said in that audio clip is highly misleading.
In the interest of clarity, let's zero in on the question, how mainstream is Huckbee's stated position?
According to Media Matters, it's an extreme position. Here's what they say:
"In Israel, this proposal is known as "transfer" and is most closely identified with the late rabbi Meir Kahane, who was banned from serving in the Knesset(despite being elected) because he was a rabid racist."
and later, they say:
"Huckabee, no doubt, expects his prospects for the presidential nomination to be enhanced by supporting transfer, which has barely any support in Israel (except among the settlers)."
According to Prager, it's quite mainstream and inocuous. The way he describes it, perhaps even Prager himself supports it. Here's what Prager says:
"By the way, he's not alone in that, a lot of people think that there is already a Palestinian state, called Jordan. Most Americans don't know, the majority of citizens of Jordan are Palestinians. Ok, fine."
Mukome, can you supply quotes of Huckabee in which he supports "Transfer" in a way comparable to Helen Thomas' suggestion that the Jews should "should get the hell out of Palestine" and go back to Poland and Germany?
And how, exactly, did Media Matters come up with their interpretation that Huckabee REALLY meant that Palestinians "can move to Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Albania or some other spot controlled by Arabs or Muslims." INDONESIA? ALBANIA? I would categorize this as mockery - not journalism.
And instead of suggesting that Huckabee MIGHT mean "Even the forcible deportation of all Arabs from Israel, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip," why didn't they ASK him whether he meant this?
You really think this is a good article? I find it very inflammatory. Perhaps our standards for journalism are different.
What do you see as a workable solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? What do you think the Israelis should do?
Mukome, I missed your 8:16 post concerning Dennis Prager's audio clip when I wrote my last comment. Maybe we should go through it:
What Prager said in that audio clip is highly misleading.
You said about Chris Matthew's statement, "I'm glad to see Matthews express that analysis on TV. . . . The problem I have with Matthews' comments is that he doesn't back it up the way the articles do. The Media Matters article for example was excellent, it shows the comments in context and explains how they comprise ethnic cleansing. Matthews doesn't say what he means, and to the viewer it looks just like namecalling."
Let's compare what Chris Matthews said to Prager's statements which you say are "highly misleading":
But you are being left with the crazies now, who are still in contention and the, and the real people are getting out of this race. Jeb [Bush], [Chris] Christie, this guy [John Thune] are real people. Now the wacks are still - you got [Mike] Huckabee still running. If Huckabee runs, he's a, he's a lunatic. You've got Huckabee saying he's gonna clear out all the Arabs in the West Bank, just get rid of them all! This is - I've never heard a politician in America say interfere in another country? He wants to get rid - talk about ethnic cleansing? He says he's gonna do it!
You really believe that this statement does not place Huckabee's life in danger?
There is NOTHING in the AP report to which Media Matters referred in their piece which suggests that Huckabee said he was "gonna clear out all the Arabs in the West Bank, just get rid of them all!" Unless there are other reputable quotes to which he is referring, Chris Matthews is LYING.
More on your 8:16 post:
In the interest of clarity, let's zero in on the question, how mainstream is Huckbee's stated position?
O.K., Here's Huckabee's position according to the AP report which was analyzed in the Media Matters piece:
The evangelical minister and Fox News host said Jews should be allowed to settle anywhere throughout the biblical Land of Israel — an area that includes the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
He called the demand on Israel to give up land for peace an "unrealistic, unworkable and unreachable goal." . . .
Huckabee suggested that (if) a Palestinian state were to be established, it shouldn't come at Israel's expense.
"There are vast amounts of territory that are in the hands of Muslims, in the hands of Arabs. Maybe the international community can come together and accommodate," he said in a meeting with reporters.
According to Media Matters, it's an extreme position. Here's what they say: "In Israel, this proposal is known as "transfer" and is most closely identified with the late rabbi Meir Kahane, who was banned from serving in the Knesset(despite being elected) because he was a rabid racist."
So, just to be clear, Media Matters defines allowing Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and establishing any new Palestinian state on Arab or Muslim-held land rather than Israeli-held land as "transfer". Note that Huckabee said nothing about getting rid of all the Arabs in the West Bank in the AP report or forcing them to move to Muslim-held lands as suggested by Media Matters and Chris Matthews.
"Huckabee, no doubt, expects his prospects for the presidential nomination to be enhanced by supporting transfer, which has barely any support in Israel (except among the settlers)."
Media Matters sells itself as an organization dedicated to accuracy in media. The statement above is pure speculation. Unless they can read minds.
According to Prager, it's quite mainstream and inocuous. The way he describes it, perhaps even Prager himself supports it. Here's what Prager says: "By the way, he's not alone in that, a lot of people think that there is already a Palestinian state, called Jordan. Most Americans don't know, the majority of citizens of Jordan are Palestinians. Ok, fine."
Let's be accurate: Prager did not say that either "transfer" or the idea of leaving the West Bank under Israeli control rather than turning it over to the Palestinians is "mainstream" or "innocuous". Those are your words. Prager said that Huckabee was "not alone".
Where does your speculation that Prager supports either Huckabee's position or the doctrine of "transfer" come from?
What territorial arrangement between Israel and Palestine do you believe would lead to the greatest chance of peace?
Regarding the "life in danger" part, not only do I not believe Huckabee's life is in danger because of Matthews, I believe it's a ludicrous thing for Prager to say, and frankly I think it's sad that you believe it, apparently implicitly.
Please, just think about it. What is Prager talking about? Someone who is going to assassinate Huckabee over his Middle East policy, would they be influenced by somthing Chris Matthews said? Wouldn't such a person already have very strong feelings about transfer, and already know that Huckabee supports it? Would such a person get their news on the Middle East from "Hardball"?
Regarding comparable Huckabee/Helen Thomas quotes, what is comparable (and what matters the most, imo) is the substance, not the tone. In substance, they both support transfer. And to clarify, do you now deny that Huckabee endorsed transfer? Even Prager acknowledges that.
About Indonesia and Albania, yes it's a bit of mockery but justifiable mockery. Look at the quote they were commenting on:
"There are vast amounts of territory that are in the hands of Muslims, in the hands of Arabs. Maybe the international community can come together and accommodate."
If it's mockery to suggest he's talking about Indonesia and Albania, then what Muslim countries is he talking about? If he's talking about transfer to Jordan, why doesn't he say it? Huckabee is being coy and pretty damn callous, the way some people too often are when talking about the fate of the Palestinian people. It apparently disgusts MJ Rosenberg, and he has every right to express it. It disgusts me as well. If you're ok with that, if Prager is ok with it, that's fine. I really mean that.
Comparing Matthews' comments to Prager's, the first thing to note is that whatever Matthews is saying, he's saying it in the face of a Republican, who has the opportunity to respond. Prager said his bit alone in the studio without any chance for rebuttal. One thing that is missing from this whole discussion, is how did that Republican respond to Matthews? Did he dispute any of the facts? Did he object to how Matthews presented it? I'll look into that...
And you know what? I don't like the way Matthews said all this, but I don't think he's lying. He'd be lying if there was no basis for his charges. There is a basis, it's Huckabee's own words. When a politician takes a strong (imo extreme in this case) stance on some issue, they have to be held accountable for its full implications.
I'll draw a parallel which Prager has also commented on. Some GOP candidates used strong rhetoric about Social Security which could easily be interpreted to mean that they opposed the program itself. However they objected mightily when the Democrats called them out on this. No dice. Politicans can't go out in front of their hard core element and call Social Security a Ponzi scheme and then wail and moan when the Dems run ads saying they're anti-Social Security.
Regarding lying, I agree with what Prager often says that it's a strong word and should be used advisedly. The difference is that I actually follow this advice, and Prager, despite his claims, very often accuses people of lying, and he's often unjustified in his accusations.
Interestingly, Media Matters named Chris Matthews "Misinformer of the Year" for 2005. They backed this up with numerous examples of what they called misinformation. But one thing they did not do was accuse him of lying. That's not what they do.
Re your March 1, 8:33 post:
Why WOULDN"T someone who has "very strong feelings about transfer" get news from the Middle East from Hardball? Matthews is using very extreme language, unless he has some secret quotes of Huckabee no one seems to be able to find. Seems to me he could send someone who had "very strong feelings about transfer" over the edge, and perhaps inspire some others that they SHOULD have "very strong feelings about transfer".
And what is YOUR definition of "Transfer"? Are you and Huckabee talking about the same thing? What territorial arrangement between Israel and Palestine do you believe would lead to the greatest chance of peace?
What is Prager talking about? Well he might be talking about someone who sees 17,000 results when Googling "Huckabee" and "Ethnic Cleansing" after Matthews' statements on Hardball, who can now say that a prominent American news person says about Huckabee that, "he's gonna clear out all the Arabs in the West Bank, just get rid of them all! This is - I've never heard a politician in America say interfere in another country? He wants to get rid - talk about ethnic cleansing? He says he's gonna do it!"
That makes Huckabee sound like an imminent danger to the Muslims of the West Bank. If someone in the mainstream media says it, it MUST be true. HE"S GONNA ETHNICALLY CLEANSE ALL THE ARABS IN THE WEST BANK - JUST GET RID OF THEM ALL. Matthews establishes his mental picture of Huckabee as a "lunatic" in the minds of many, using what seem to be false statements. Even Media Matters did not go nearly as far as Matthews in attributing those shocking words to Huckabee. At least Media Matters said that he "might mean" something similar.
Re your March 1, 9:01 post, Mukome:
Regarding comparable Huckabee/Helen Thomas quotes, what is comparable (and what matters the most, imo) is the substance, not the tone. In substance, they both support transfer. And to clarify, do you now deny that Huckabee endorsed transfer? Even Prager acknowledges that.
Again, what is your definition of "transfer"? Why did you change your term for what Helen Thomas said from "ethnic cleansing" to "transfer"?
I think both substance and tone matter. But if you want to stick to substance, do you have some substantial quotes of Huckabee in which he supports ethnic cleansing?
About Indonesia and Albania, yes it's a bit of mockery but justifiable mockery. . . . Huckabee is being coy and pretty damn callous, the way some people too often are when talking about the fate of the Palestinian people.
Dang. You really believe you know how he is thinking, don't you? What if he is being humble rather than "coy" and "pretty damn callous" when suggesting that he is not going to dictate where the international community decides a Palestinian state could be headquartered? What would be your best proposal for the fate of the Palestinian and Israeli people?
And if Media Matters wants to mock people by re-interpreting their words with idiotic statements which wildly misrepresent what the subject of their scrutiny said, it should stop pretending that it's in the business of making media more accurate.
Mukome, regarding your March 1, 9:25 and 9:34 posts:
Comparing Matthews' comments to Prager's, the first thing to note is that whatever Matthews is saying, he's saying it in the face of a Republican, who has the opportunity to respond. Prager said his bit alone in the studio without any chance for rebuttal.
What does that have to do with which one is more misleading?
One thing that is missing from this whole discussion, is how did that Republican respond to Matthews? Did he dispute any of the facts? Did he object to how Matthews presented it? I'll look into that...
Fine. But if I were listening to Matthews say all this live, I believe that I might be too overwhelmed to answer coherently. He talks pretty fast. And how is some random Republican supposed to be prepared to "dispute the facts" that Matthews is presenting? Prager waited and did research before presenting his discussion about Matthews' statements, for example.
And you know what? I don't like the way Matthews said all this, but I don't think he's lying. He'd be lying if there was no basis for his charges. There is a basis, it's Huckabee's own words. When a politician takes a strong (imo extreme in this case) stance on some issue, they have to be held accountable for its full implications.
Where are Huckabee's own words in which he said that he was gonna just get rid of all the Arabs in the West Bank? Matthews is attributing ACTUAL WORDS to Huckabee. Like, "He says he's gonna do it".
If you believe that if someone takes a strong stance, a media person should be able (outside of an obvious satire) to attribute false words to him which greatly exaggerate that stance, you have a different set of principles than I do.
If Huckabee said the actual words, Matthews is not lying. If somebody falsely quoted Huckabee and Matthews is repeating the words of a second party, he may not be lying, but he is not following acceptable journalistic practices, to say the least. If he just came up with the words that he attributes to Huckabee based on what he perceives to be Huckabee's "stance", he is lying.
Interestingly, Media Matters named Chris Matthews "Misinformer of the Year" for 2005. They backed this up with numerous examples of what they called misinformation. But one thing they did not do was accuse him of lying. That's not what they do.
Chris Matthews is kind of a loose cannon. It's hard to predict what he's going to say. Media Matters may not accuse people of lying (I can't say one way or the other) but they're certainly good at vilifying and misrepresenting people in a variety of creative ways.
Mukome, I usually don't pay much attention to Media Matters, but you have inspired me to look up the Misinformer of the Year award to Chris Matthews for all the "conservative misinformation" to which he subjected the American People back then.
I see that Matthews is a former newspaper bureau chief. He knows better than to falsely quote someone. He was quoting Huckabee, even though the quotes were not direct.
But back to the 2005 award: The list of Matthews' sins was quite entertaining. Some of Matthews' "most egregious false and misleading claims" according to Media Matters included distorting poll data and repeatedly misrepresenting the contents of a document which he had in his hand. This seems to me to come pretty close to accusing him of lying.
But I guess that's why Media Matters gets the big bucks. They know how to discredit people without using the word, "lie". Their morality is clearly superior.
Media Matters is also great with misleading subheadings as in:
Chris ♥ George, Part 4: Bush "belongs on Mount Rushmore."
At the end of the relevant paragraph, they reveal what Matthews REALLY said: "If [Bush's] gamble that he can create a democracy in the middle of the Arab world" is successful" he belongs on Mount Rushmore." Emphasis mine.
Pretty tricky. They know that many people who read their list will only scan the subheadings. Matthews' statement is certainly not the expression of unreserved Bush-promotion projected by the subheading.
Post a Comment