A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Selective editing

Posted: Feb 26, 2013

In an interview with Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts aired this morning, First Lady Michelle Obama recalled the tragic death of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton who was shot and killed in Chicago after performing during the President’s Inauguration celebration in Washington D.C. .... For the broadcast, ABC’s Good Morning America producers edited out the First Lady’s “automatic weapon” line. "She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grow – grew – up, where our house is. ... And she was caught in the line of fire ... I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first." In the web edition of the story, however, Michelle Obama appears to be quoted in full: “She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids…grew up, where our house is. She had just taken a chemistry test. And she was caught in the line of fire BECAUSE SOME KIDS HAD SOME AUTOMATIC WEAPONS THEY DIDN'T NEED,” she said. “I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.” http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2522593;

Ack, sorry I went to that link, thus monetizing it. - SM

[ In Reply To ..]
I wasn't familiar with the Examiner, but it became obvious what kind of paper it is after reading the comments (and then doing some research afterwards). Are there any non-right-wing leaning sources covering this yet? I can't find them, and I'd like to know what's *really* going on with it.

"On February 1, 2005, the paper's name changed to the Washington Examiner, and it adopted a logo and format similar to that of another newspaper owned by Anschutz, the San Francisco Examiner.[3] Politico described the paper as "a megaphone for [Anschutz's] right-wing views on taxes, national security and President Barack Obama."[4] The Examiner's parent company, Clarity Media Group, also owns the conservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard.[5] "

because she misspoke - doe

[ In Reply To ..]
I don't think there is anything nefarious about it. They also edited the line about chemistry class.

Ah. So she gets a pass. - -

[ In Reply To ..]
A conservative wouldn't get that; their "misspeaks" would be trumpeted in the media.

Wonder if she would have commented if... - me

[ In Reply To ..]
the kid was white? Just like this administration did not acknowledge the shooting death of the Navy Seal (Chris Kyle) who was also shot - along with a friend - on a shooting range by a former Iraq veteran he had befriended. Not an "I'm sorry" or anything from this administration. Talk about discrimination. I'm sick of the race card, but it's there for all to see.

I'm sure she would have - doe

[ In Reply To ..]
This child had just marched in the inaugural parade. I'm sure Michelle would have commented if the kid was green andhad two heads.

Further, I don't think comparing the killing of two adults (bearing legal firearms) by another adult (bearing a legal firearm) is particularly worthwhile.

Sorry, but this is not about racism on the part of Michelle Obama or the administration.

You don't think the killing of two adults is particularly worthwhile! OMG!!! - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
You said: "I don't think comparing the killing of two adults (bearing legal firearms) by another adult (bearing a legal firearm) is particularly worthwhile."

That is absolutely the meanest thing I've ever heard! Just because they were adults and had legal weapons???? The former Seal was trying to help a former serviceman with PTSD and you think they weren't worthwhile mentioning with sympathy?

Sheesh! I'd say more but right now, I'm too angry and would be banned for my thoughts, but you have the jist of it.

You just said 2 different things... - not doe

[ In Reply To ..]

You: "You don't think the killing of two adults is particularly worthwhile!"

Doe (and quoted by you): "I don't think comparing the killing of two adults (bearing legal firearms) by another adult (bearing a legal firearm) is particularly worthwhile." (emphasis mine, since it's apparently needed)

The faux outrage is bad enough, but what you just did was untruthfulness at it's worst. The words you put into doe's mouth by your selective editing are obviously not what was meant, and I would credit you with enough intelligence to know that, so I can only surmise that you did this on purpose. For shame.

Doe (and quoted by you): "I don't think comparing the killing of two adults (bearing legal firearms) by another adult (bearing a legal firearm) is particularly worthwhile." (emphasis mine, since it's apparently needed)

The faux outrage is bad enough, but what you just did was untruthfulness at its worst. The words you put into doe's mouth by your selective editing are obviously not what was meant, and I would credit you with having enough intelligence to know that, so I can only surmise that you did this on purpose. For shame. You owe doe an apology.

no, that's not what I said - doe

[ In Reply To ..]
I said the comparison was not particularly worthwhile. Your interpretation of what I said is unfair.

Children being killed by illegal weapons and random violence is not the same as an adult assassin committing premeditated murder.

It seems like you're going out of your way to be outraged with me here. Why the desire to see me as so mean?

I don't think she's going after you - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I started reading the messages backwards to try and figure out where the misinterpretation is coming from. 4 people saying you didn't say what she said you said, so I got to your post and she repeated what you said.

Further, I don't think comparing the killing of two adults (bearing legal firearms) by another adult (bearing a legal firearm) is particularly worthwhile.

I could be wrong, but to me when reading that statement it means you don't think comparing two adults killing 2 other adults is particularly worthwhile.

I don't see anyone "going out of their way" or going after you. It's just a board where everyone is allowed to respond to others.

that's what happens when you read the posts backwards - doe

[ In Reply To ..]
Like you said: other posters affirm that I did not say what I was accused of saying. The poster to whom I was responding had to go just a little bit out of their way to draw the conclusion they did. It's not unreasonable for me to ask why.

As for whether "everyone" is allowed to respond to others, that's debatable.

doe - - I've never told you that you are not allowed - Moderator - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
to respond to other posters. I've told you and other posters here to keep your cools and stop insulting other posters.

That goes for everyone. I did not tell you the stuff you keep writing I told you.

I never used the word excoriated and have no idea where you are getting that idea.

I'll say it once more for all posters. If you cannot post without insulting then don't post. If that upsets you I cannot do anything about that. I like that posts recently have been discussing issues.

Everyone is allowed to give their opinions on issues, just stop with attacking, ridiculing and trying to embarrass other posters.

Please do not come here and tell posters I told you things I did not.

Moderator

moderator... - doe

[ In Reply To ..]
I find it interesting that you are asking me to "not come here and tell posters I told you things I did not."

You most certainly did tell me these things, and I heard you loud and clear. You advised the entire board that I said and did things that I did not - in a very abusive fashion, I might add. (And let's not forget that you and I both know you have confused me with other posters, as evidenced by an email you recently sent me.)

I am an appropriate poster, but your actions have had a chilling effect on my sense that I can post freely.

Until which time you issue an apology, I will continue to feel that I am somehow less allowed to post than other posters here.

Now, please note: I used the word "excoriated" in a sentence below. Clearly, both you and the other poster completely misunderstood the use of the word in the sentence.

Please go back and read it, for this is a perfect example of the kind of misunderstandings that happen here, and upon which you take action.

In closing, I would like to suggest that you stop looking to other posters to tell you what someone else has said.

I will repeat myself one more time - Moderator - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
This is for all posters:

This board is a place to discuss issues. Not to insult other posters. If you cannot post without insulting then don't post or your insults will be removed. If you don't like that then find another board to go to. Personal insults, ridicule, bullying (along with swearing) is not allowed.

Everyone's opinion about issues here is important. No one poster is better than another and no poster should be made fun of for their opinions or feelings about issues. If posters cannot handle posting messages without ridicule then don't post at all.

Posters don't need to post that they won't reply to a message because of this reason or that. Just don't post. But if posters have an opinion about an issue they feel is important by all means we all want to read it.

I've never once told anyone on this board they are not allowed to post their opinions about issues. I have removed insults, however, and if posters don't like that the insults are gone then don't insult to begin with.

Thank you,
Moderator

You're better than this, truthhurts. - grits nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

doe never suggested anything - Fanatical Hypocrite

[ In Reply To ..]
like what you accused her of. I agree with not doe, you owe her an apology.

thank you kindly - doe

[ In Reply To ..]
...all I am owed is the oppotunity to respond with my own voice without fear of retribution. I go out of my way to do so without name-calling or ridicule, and I should be allowed to do so without undue bias or the pall of impressionability.

her full statement is on the ABC webiste - doe

[ In Reply To ..]
she didn't get a "pass". It's television, and it's not uncommon to edit interviews in order to hit the important points in an alotted amount of time. The context of her points was not changed, and as mentioned, her entire statement is posted on ABC's site.

Some news outlets are attributing conspiratorial motives to this issue. I have even seen it elevated to the point of referring to the Obamas as "the Omen couple". I certainly think it's unneccessary.

She misspoke? - SM

[ In Reply To ..]
The kids did not have automatic weapons? I think she was accurate in her statement but it was edited out so as to not reflect badly on their buddies in Chicago, i.e., Rahm.

to clarify - doe

[ In Reply To ..]
I don't know what kind of weapon the shooter used. Automatic weapons are not so abundant among the civilian population. It would be quite unusual for the weaopn to have been fully automatic.

If they were editing to protect buddies in Chicago, one would wonder why the full quote is published online at ABC.

One would wonder - SM

[ In Reply To ..]
why the full quote is published online at ABC" you ask?

I don't know. My guess is that those watching their show would believe what they hear without delving into the subject further to double check.

Imagine how much editing out - Biden would need.

[ In Reply To ..]
He's probably jealous that he doesn't get favorable treatment like the Obamas do.

Oh, but women are really loving his statement about getting a shotgun! LOL - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]
I'm saying this in fun. I thought it was really funny...

...especially after I saw a video of women trying to shoot with one. I know exactly how they feel. I was in my teens when I tried because hunting season was coming up. It hurts BIG TIME if you aren't holding the gun tighter than a .........

LOL

Similar Messages:

May 16, 2012
First of all, I am fed up with BOTH parties and have entered some scathing remarks about Republicans also, but I saw this and thought it was a joke, but it is true!!?? Please someone do more research than I could and tell me it is not true!! at whitehouse.gov are presidential biographies. This is what has been reported at numerous sites: "Obama has added bullet points bragging about his own accomplishments to the biographical sketches of every single U.S. president since Calvi ...

Jun 13, 2017
at Pulse Nightclub, armed with an assault rifle and semi-automatic pistol before pledging allegiance to the Islamic State during a phone call with police negotiators and then killing himself. Rather than tell the truth, Attorney General Loretta Lynch told Orlando's gay community that the FBI didn't know Mateen's real motivation. And when she told grieving families that "we stand with you," Lynch didn't tell them that the Obama administration didn't trust them with ...

Jun 07, 2013
NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET E-mail | Print | Enlarge By Roger Wollenberg, Getty Images Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic phone record collection program. ...