The following day, Schultz apologized for the error (at approx. the 2:15 mark):
Clearly, airing the selectively edited Rick Perry clip was a bush league move on the part of Ed Schultz. Rick Perry has some pretty extreme views in the eyes of many, so there's no need to distort his words. Just play the clips in their entirety and let the people decide. Having said that, I'll give credit to Ed Schultz for his apology. We need to see more of that by the media when they commit acts of dishonesty.
10 comments:
Ed has a bad habit of bashing people first and then apologizing later.
There are a lot in media, both right and left, obviously, who let their ideology overtake their rational sense. But Schultz just seems to be a jerk for the sake of being a jerk.
(And a big LMAO on the hypocrisy of Perry's supposedly "dangerous" words like "treasonous" and "I don't know, you have to ask him." I reckon Ed always keeps a civil tone. Okay, if "always" means "never.")
I've seen worse done to portray Obama's opponents as racists, so I'm not too worried about that.
An out-of-context clip in opinion journalism is as regular as finding someone walking with two shoes.
It is what it is here. Schultz's schtick is to be an a-hole; I get that. And he's actually an equal-opportunity jerk when he's PO'd.
He seems to be a very angry guy. I'm not sure his attitude scores him any victories.
And I'm not sure referring to comments like Perry's as "reckless rhetoric" really comes across as legitimate, especially judging Schultz's body of work.
It's what passes for catchy alliteration in the Times' circle. Elsewhere? I don't know.
Josh: Ed is far from perfect. Although Ed and I are on the same side ideologically, he can be over the top. Again, I do give Ed credit for apologizing when he does cross the line. That's more than can be said for many of the other political pundits who use heated rhetoric.
Whether or not Ed was the person to do it, Rick Perry needed to be called out for his comments. Although it plays well with the fringe element of the GOP, that kind of talk will likely cause Perry problems in the general election.
As for the frequency of out of context clips, it happens more than it should. However, I don't think it occurs as often as you feel it does.
If you got a big laugh at Ed's hypocrisy in criticizing Rick Perry, do you also bust a gut over Bill O'Reilly for the same thing?
I mostly catch O'Reilly on Wednesday to watch Dennis Miller these days, so I haven't seen O'Reilly lambasting anyone with vicious rhetoric for using vicious rhetoric. (Unless people want to count his tone of voice.)
If he did and there was a racial angle to it, I'm sure it would be posted here and I'm sure I would comment.
But to the apology point.
I caught Quiz Show the other week, about the 20th time I watched it. There's a great line in there when one of the committee members says to Charles Van Doren, "I don't think a man of your intelligence ought to be commended for simply, at long last, telling the truth."
I think the same holds true for someone on this type of apology kick. A person shouldn't earn a clap for an "I'm sorry," especially when it happens with regularity.
For me, I don't believe it's genuine when it happens so often. I just don't. I believe it's more of Ed trying to avoid Olbermann's fate.
Josh: Bill O'Reilly has a habit of demonizing people simply for opposing him and hardly ever admitting he's wrong, even when he's been busted. Because he shows flashes of fairness, I still prefer him over such partisan hacks as Sean Hannity or Monica Crowley.
To the best of my knowledge, this was the first instance where Ed used a misleading clip on his show. As for him apologizing for using heated rhetoric, I can recall this happening on two occasions (for calling Republicans “bastards” and for comments he made in reference to Laura Ingraham). I would hardly call apologizing three times a regular thing. If you know of other instances where he apologized for something he said/did on his show, feel free to share.
Ed’s a very passionate guy. That’s not an excuse for him using heated rhetoric, just an explanation. I prefer it when someone like him apologizes for their occasional slip-ups than someone who throws verbal bombs with regularity and rarely, if ever, apologizes.
By the way, I recall “Quiz Show” being a damn good movie (it’s been awhile since I’ve seen it).
O'Reilly's schtick is also to be a jerk.
I've caught a "loon" and "popinjay" before, and a hell of a lot of shouting, but never a "bastard" or "slut."
Not saying he hasn't; I just haven't seen it.
But I'm not trying to compare the two at all. I just personally don't buy Ed's apologies.
Maybe we have different definitions of often, but three seems a lot to me.
I don't begrudge the guy. If he can make a living doing what he does, more power to him. I'm just not a sucker and do not believe he's actually sorry for what he says.
I think he says exactly what he means and then backtracks on it if he catches flak.
No biggie. Keep doing what you do, Ed.
If it's not broke...
Josh: Yes, we have different definitions of "often". I guess by your estimation, Sandy Koufax threw no-hitters often.
Here's the question: Would you prefer someone like Ed who apologizes for their mistakes or Rush Limbaugh who rarely (if ever) says he’s sorry when he crosses the line? Of course, them not crossing the line would be preferable. However, that’s not an option to my question since we don’t live in a perfect world.
By the way, considering the way you defend Fox "News", you left your chin wide open when you said you're not a sucker. :-)
Oh, please. Not religiously bashing Fox News is defending them by a Fox News-basher's standards. So you can save the mini zingers.
I don't listen to Rush. I have no use for him. I don't listen to Ed. I have no use for him either.
If Rush apologized for anything, I'm not sure I'd by his sincerity either.
Rush seems to say whatever he feels, and I doubt he's sorry for any of it.
It's not about what I'd rather have - a person showing up hat in hand or a person not apologizing. And that's because I simply don't believe Ed's sorry!
As I said, I don't begrudge the guy. I don't dislike him as a person or think he should be off the air. I just think he's a jerk, he says what he wants, and he isn't genuinely sorry for it.
I'm not out to tear down your idols. Just my simple opinion.
Josh: There there... don't be so touchy. The fact that Fox seems OK to you outside of Hannity causes me to raise an eyebrow. I just wonder if you're not caught up in what you see as their "diversity of opinion" and it prevents you from seeing the underhanded tactics they commit on a regular basis.
Ed Schultz an idol of mine? Not even close. Now Rachel Maddow is another story. You should see the shrine I have devoted to her in my spare bedroom!
Josh: You've said everything on Fox outside of Hannity seems OK and that the channel outshines the competition when it comes to diversity of opinion. If that isn't a defense of Fox, I don't know what is. When it comes to the countless underhanded tactics, distortions and lies committed by Fox, it can’t be only the Fox haters who are seeing these. This leads me to believe that those who defend Fox either aren’t very smart or are overlooking all the shortcomings because the channel supports their point of view. Maybe if the focus of this blog was more like Media Matters or Liberal Viewer (see link below), I would hear you coming out against Fox more than I do. Then again, maybe not.
http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer
Bloodletting for Maddow? Please explain.
Bloodletting in a sacrificial sense.
"You should see the shrine I have devoted to her in my spare bedroom!"
Post a Comment