“And now let’s ask our guest a tough question: what do you think about what I just showed our audience, Congresswoman? I hate to put you on the spot!”
In an appearance on MSNBC’s Jansing & Co., Democratic Party Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz answered queries from Chris Jansing about President Obama’s multi-year lie—desperately being recast as a “promise” by the reporters who have the honesty to report it at all (it’s hard to admit that the leader you’ve been promoting for five years is just just another manipulative fraud )—that “you” can keep your doctor and your health plan if you like them, “period.” I was struck by the unethical means (an ad hominem attack) Wasserman Schultz employed to rebut a clip of Marco Rubio criticizing the President, and her pure obfuscation that followed. I also mentioned that she appeared to not know how to pronounce the common word “misled,” saying it instead as “myzeld,” which is usually proof that a speaker is 8 years old.
Sharper eyes than mine among the commenters noticed what I completely missed: the Congresswoman looks like she’s reading from a teleprompter. That would explain “myzeld” more plausibly than my explanation (that everyone in the woman’s life from grade school to now has allowed her to sound like an idiot by not correcting a childish word gaffe). It would also indicate something far more significant than the well-established fact, barely post-worthy, really, that Wasserman Schultz employs unethical debate tactics and is dishonest in statements to the media and the public. If true, it would indicate that MSNBC is staging what it represents as spontaneous, candid interviews, and allows Democrats to know the questions they are going to asked in advance, prepare responses, and have them running on teleprompters at the MSNBC studio.
Perhaps only the chairwoman of the Democratic Party is afforded this privilege; ethically, it makes no difference. This is a major breach of ethical news broadcast practice, flagrantly unethical journalism, a rank deception on the MSNBC audiences and the public, and shocking collusion between the government and the supposedly independent and objective “press.”
Of course, participating in this sham shows that Wasserman Schultz is unethical too, but we knew that already. So why isn’t this all over the web, cable, and the news media? Jessica Simpson’s talentless sister Ashley, a D-List celeb, was caught lip synching on Saturday Night Live and it was talked about for a week. The Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee cheats in an interview with the full assistance of MSNBC, and nobody blinks. Why?
A number of conservative news commentary sources (a few are here, here, here, and here) noticed the apparent teleprompter use ( the pre-written comments appear to be cued by Wasserman Schultz saying “at the end of the day”) and flagged it, which means that many non-conservative reporters noticed it too, but didn’t deem it worth mentioning. You know the drill by now, don’t you?
1.Democratic scandal…2. Mainstream media ignores….3. Conservative media covers…4. Mainstream media dismisses story as “right wing paranoia” because only the conservatives are covering it…5. Only conservatives know about it. 6. Scandal disappears, with no accountability.
If that’s what’s occurring here, it is also a scandal, and a major one. MSNBC—or at least Chris Jansing — surreptitiously feeds interview questions to Democratic guests and allows a studio teleprompter to give them answers that viewers believe are spontaneous when they are not. TV reporters collaborate with partisan figures to assist their “messaging” and talking points to defuse politically sensitive embarrassments. Knowing that this unethical practice is going on at a rival media outlet, ideologically simpatico reporters decline to alert the public to it or criticize it. The former is partisan support posing as journalism. The latter is journalism malpractice, and a betrayal of the public trust.
Then again, maybe they all do it. Or perhaps Debbie Wasserman Schultz really doesn’t know how to pronounce “misled.”
Is it too much to ask for some objective, ethical journalist somewhere to investigate and determine what’s going on here? Am I really the only one who thinks that we shouldn’t be duped by the news media and that journalists shouldn’t surreptitiously collude with government officials to make them more persuasive?
AND that it’s embarrassing to have high ranking U.S. political figures saying “myzeld” on national TV….
____________________________________
Sources:Patterico, Ace of Spades, Fox, Twitchy
Ethics Alarms 
It’s a new generation of journalists out there. E.R. Murrow was an unapologetic liberal and did a (mostly deserved) targeted hatchet-job on Joe McCarthy, but neither he nor producer Fred Friendly, also an unapologetic liberal would have tolerated this. They WORKED for their results. Today’s journalists are all about keeping their access, looking good by any means necessary, and keeping the populace gulled. If they can do all this and not work too hard by feeding questions to interviewees and just letting them give pre-fab responses, everybody wins, right?
It’s not a new generation of journalists. It’s just the Leftist machine in full end game mode. We’re on the precipice and they know it. They just have to keep pushing a little more. Any amount of corruption and using all the time tested methods of state control are used since they can feel their revolution is nearly complete.
They know damn well they’ve colluded the press and the state (well, the Leftwingers of the State) and they don’t care.
The more I meditate on the 1st Amendment, the more I realize the Founding Fathers hit another one out of the park on prophetic vision.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It would appear that they realized each of those entities/actions represented individual’s personal interpretation and expression of the truth and their consciences and an equal ability to act on that (especially in regards to being able to think in opposition of those in power).
If the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” has been interpreted to establish “separation of church and state”, then surely “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of…the press” ought to be equally interpreted as “separation of media and state”.
Everbody but us.
Jack, I’m going to give the execrable DWS and the equally execrable MSNBC one small benefit of the doubt here – somewhat at odds with what I wrote yesterday. It doesn’t alter the larger ethical issue, though.
It is NOT unlikely that somewhere in the bowels of DNC operations in DC (but I repeat myself) there’s a high-definition TV studio with all the CODEC apparatus for video and audio (including talkback) required to hook directly into MSNBC – or any other media outlet, for that matter. Technology having advanced as it has, such studios can be built and operated amazingly cheaply. The inexpensive nature of the gear is a cost advantage to both the spokespeople (who don’t have to travel or have their offices disrupted by a crew arriving) and the media outlet (which doesn’t have to send a crew).
In such a facility, a teleprompter would be a likely device to include. They’re not very expensive, either.
So what I’d bet we’re seeing here is that DWS was NOT using MSNBC equipment for this little charade. She was likely using DNC equipment for it.
She was on screen for the specific purpose of defending the indefensible, knew that that toadies at MSNBC would be throwing hanging curve balls and not challenging her on her answers (because that’s what they do).
For all intents and purposes, it’s still a complete setup under this scenario. There was still collusion involved, from the standpoint that MSNBC knew, within the ballpark, what DWS was likely to say and set her up to say it. And she was ready to give them what they wanted.
But there’s a very good chance that the whole schtick wasn’t scripted. Given the spokesperson and the outlet, it didn’t need to be.
And in re-reading the earlier thread, it appears AblativMeatShield made the same observation previously.
It’s incredible that you think Obama can create a system to tap into msnbc satellite and terrestrial communications yet can’t manage a health care website. It’s clear that the fodder drudge and rush give you folks is used to generate all sorts of baseless explanations for indefensible perspectives of the world.
Wait…what???
Really? This is your best defense? That suggesting the DNC has a room for their people to feed into networks means we’re guilty of the “idiot bush” fallacy?
I assure you, the RNC probably has a similar room, as do a lot of pundits. Green screens are so cheap, I could probably outfit a room to do this for under 5 grand, certainly under 10.
And that includes the software to run the green screen, which I frankly wouldn’t need.
Someone in the Patterico comments puts an interesting take on it as well. Assuming that one knows how “Misled” is pronounced, but also that one is not overly bright and is reading from a teleprompter, how might one handle it if the word were misspelled as “Miseld” on the screen? Let that one sneak up on you, especially if you’re giving no independent thought to the talking points you’re speweing…
It’s still a prearranged and prepped interview dressed up to appear spontaneous.
No doubt. That wasn’t intended to excuse anything at all, it just seems to be somewhat more likely than her totally mispronouncing a word. It actually argues MORE for the scandalous prearranged nature of the thing, since the only way you can trip over a missspelling is if you’re reading your answer from a script.
Fair enough. Misread your intent.
(should that be pronounced myzer-ad?)
To an extent. Nobody with a clue – be they a politician, a businessperson or an activist – walks into an interview without having a pretty good idea of the topics on the table and advanced preparation for the management of curveballs.
Yes. But there’s matters of scale here. You are right, it’s only fair and professional to inform an interviewee the topic of discussion. Of course, I don’t see an issue with giving all the questions up either. It just depends on how the interview is presented to the viewers. If an interview is presented as spontaneous and all the questions were given beforehand — that’s a problem. Vice versa: If an interview is presented as being fairly well prepared in advance, but then every question is out of the blue — that’s also a problem.
But I’ve been there. Yes, the general topics are outlined, but the interviewer can and should pose unexpecetd questions, follow ups and arguments, none of which can be done if the responses are scripted with the assent of the interviewer.
I’m shocked by this.
That’s a great one…it was misspelled on the teleprompter! “Go fuck yourself, San Diego.”
That’s why they don’t let people like me be in charge of teleprompters.
You gotta admit, Luke, that It could be one of the most entertaining jobs you ever got fired for after only three hours….
I do enjoy the opportunity to take jobs I don’t need to keep for long. The record so far is a 2 month stint as a bouncer in a college bar, but a 2 hour shot of telepromptery might get more stories in less time 😀
I will say it again – MSNBC didn’t have to be aware of what she was doing. She wasn’t on site, so they could have had no idea what she was doing. It is also rutine (so I believe) for questions for an interview to be present, so the person being interviewed can make sure to have answers. I’m not saying that’s right, but it isn’t giid tv if the other person does nothing but stutter and mumble the whole time.
She was in the NBC studio—that Capitol backdrop is what they always use. The networks don’t sent a camera crew to you, and you don’t see them use someone else’s feed. They send a driver, and take you to their local studio. I’ve done this many times. So they had to know…indeed, they had to be actively involved. She WAS on site, not the same site as the interviewer, but in the network’s local studio. Otherwise, the interview is by Skype, and this wasn’t Skype.
Not necessarily, Jack. There are two perfectly possible explanations for the backdrop. First, if what AMS and I are positing with regard to the DNC having a house studio is correct, they could have their own backdrop – and the Capitol Building is an obvious choice. Second alternative is the studio is set up in front of a green screen, allowing the control room to insert nearly any background they want.
Maybe theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. That’s just not how these shows operate. It’s a very consistent system.
Perhaps. OTOH, consider this… when you’ve done guest slots on cable shows (and I’ve seen several of them) you were invited to a nearby studio affiliated in some way with the network on which you were interviewed. Said studio probably had a set for just such events.
But a major political operation, such as the DNC, would have enough potential spokespeople and opportunities that efficiency might suggest setting up their own studio. If you were being interviewed daily, you’d probably set up a similar operation (and would likely be surprised at how comparatively cheap it was to do so). The rest of it is merely an application of technology.
None of this undermines the fundamental ethical flaws here, which you have pointed out. It was a thoroughly rigged deck. But it probably didn’t necessarily require scripting (though it’s likely that DWS knew they’d be starting with the Rubio clip and asked to respond). Besdies, however the segment was produced, the network and the guest both knew what was going to happen and had an excellent idea of what would be said. All the rest is window dressing.
And a thoroughly non-news, sleazeball segment that couldn’t possibly have changed anyone’s mind, and was therefore calculated to throw raw meat to the base.
BTW, look for an email from me.
Especially people like the head of the DNC, and other VERY frequent flyers who do many appearances on several stations in fairly rapid succession (or even in one day) would find it far easier to do the all in one location than worry about traffic delaying their arrival at whatever studio is next on the lust. Cuts down prep time to be on camera (DWS cuts this down more by not even having makeup applied – ffs, woman, bathe or something, your skin is fucking GREASY), and, if they care about such things, removes transit time back to the Hill so they can get back to work.
I would be shocked if they DIDN’T do it like that, frankly.
I’d be fascinated in knowing. I have inquiries around to various journalists I know here in DC. So far, none of them are aware that this is done.
Beat journos may not know, Jack, even if they work in television. Most anchors probably don’t know either. I’d focus your questions on producers, technical directors and control room personnel, you can find some.
The technology to do what Ablativemeatshield and I have been talking about is accessible and cheap – sufficiently accessible and cheap that quite frankly, the major parties would be stupid if they WEREN’T using it for their talking head shots.
The major parties would be stupid????? Well, we all know THAT’S impossible…
(Prof Frink’s sarcasm detecting device just exploded…)
Your point is well taken.
Oh, come on. “Yellow journalism” dates from at least the ’20s, and though we had sort of a break with Edward R. Murrow and his ilk in the ’50s (I’m too young to remember him, but have read alot about him), this is nothing new. Since no one reads newspapers any more (and they might as well not) we get our “news” from flagrantly partisan sources — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. Maybe Fox is better at dissecting news stories, but frankly, insisting on having “babes” with cleavage showing all the time damages their reputation. While polls say Fox has the highest news ratings, no one admits that the appearance of the “newscasters” has anything to do with it. But that’s a different issue…
Bottom line: get your news from various sources on the Web, make your decisions about what’s real and what’s not, and never, ever believe that the TV news channels are being honest and straightforward on anything.
Years ago, my sociology teacher in high school told me that if I wanted any power in my life I should go into journalism… because the journalists decide what we should know, how and when we should know it, and what should be left alone. I am reminded of the classic scene in “All the President’s Men,” where all the editors of The Washington Post met to decide what was front page news, what went “above the fold.” or “below the fold” and what was buried deeper in the bowels of the paper.
This isn’t new. It’s outrageous, but we’ve been living with it for decades and decades. My major problem is that ideologues watch the programs that best fit their views, learn nothing, and only gather fodder for their arguments.
I once listened to my father go on and on about Rush Limbaugh (not a particular fave of mine) and Limbaugh’s lying, racist, ultra-conservative views. I asked him if he’d ever listened to Limbaugh and he said “no.” This created a long argument about my Dad’s intellectual honesty: don’t take other people’s word for it if you won’t take the time and energy to investigate it yourself.
I suppose I wouldn’t have made it in journalism after all…
I love it. Your exposé really helps me solidly my idea described above. Just like the various churches and religions all push their notions of the truth, so do each separate media outlet.
The Founders were utterly brilliant.
Texaggo: Unfortunately, the Founders, though brilliant, never could have foreseen electronic media of all kinds, and its manipulation. They assumed, also unfortunately, that the great Republic they were creating would continue to be meaningful to people, not taken for granted, and/or be run by a bunch of sociopaths or IQ80s. We all have the right to express our opinions, but I don’t think “free speech” meant “free lying” by either the media, the government or others when the Founders used that term. Just like yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded auditorium is NOT covered by the free speech assurance.
Organized religion is a different matter. If you worship a god that will get you a new refrigerator if you give enough to your church, or will put down his hand to save a dying person if you pray hard enough, but at the same time allows the world at large to burn with totalitarianism, cruelty, and hate, then you’re worshipping a comedian or a sadist, or a combination of both. BUT, we are free to worship this and other Gods, since we were founded by a group of thinkers who fled Britain — where the head of state was also the keystone of a religion based only on Henry the VIII’s desire to take yet another wife against the Pope and the Vatican. So “freedom of religion” — especially these days — remains important, even if it’s all rubbish. Remember college philosophy classes where the tortured “proof of the existence of God” was a point of discussion? But that’s off topic.
Free speech is vital, as we’ve learned in our lifetimes what it means in countries that don’t have it. However, I believe completely that it is being eroded, trivialized, and in fact tread upon in the US (e.g., NSA’s monitoring of e-mails, etc.). We need to speak out while we can; “I don’t agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” But worse, we are a rich and successful nation which has “saved” the world at least once (WWII), but is now populated by lazy, selfish thinkers (or non-thinkers). Living in the Washington, DC area I frequently see military personnel in their camis, and I always go up to them, shake their hands, and thank them for their service. What I DON’T say is that I admire them for their willingness to fight for the US ideal — not the moronic populace we have become.
It seems to me to be a simple enough thing to prove – if someone with greater google-fu than I can simply find a clip of her correctly pronouncing the word, then she knows how it is pronounced. That would tell me that is was a misreading.