Is this about how you thought we found WMD in Iraq?

Oh, wait. It's about something much more serious.

Gee, Keith gets slapped and Nonfactor feels it.

Hmmm. How is it that we never see KO and Nonnie in the same place... Could it be?

If this had been done to Olbermann everyone who visits this site knows he would express his outrage over the decline of American journalism and of the ethics in general of America circa 2006.

Anyone wish to disagree? Mr. Olbermann, if by some (small) chance you're visiting here and see this, care to take my assertion on?

SMG

Acting like FOX News doesn't edit their transcripts is ignornant. If it wasn't done in this instance it has been done in many others, and to see the argument people take up simply to "protect" FOX is pathetic. Most controversial things said by hosts on FOX News are either taken out of the transcript or changed all together.

Hahahaha! A variation on the Rather "fake but accurate" claim. Just because a story has been proven wrong, doesn't mean it isn't true. Somehow. Somewhere. It just HAS to be. Hahahaha!

Most controversial things said by hosts on FOX News are either taken out context or distorted altogether.

Out of context.

"If it wasn't done in this instance it has been done in many others"

Holy cheese dip.

Now that's nutty even by Internet standards.

Wow.

SMG

Another case of Non being wrong (go back to the "study" results that 73% of O'Reilly viewers agree with Ann Coulter or some such nonsense) and refusing to admit it is just maybe possible that he actually is wrong.

The change has been explained, well, if they didn't do it this time, they do it a lot of other times.

Even if the "study" story isn't accurate, it still says something about O'Reilly's viewers.

Non, is your last name Mapes?

Scott, are you mad because when I cited the study the report said it was 73% and the results went down 2% sine then? If so please get laid.

In this instance it appears a transcript writer wrote Normandy instead of Malmedy (same one twice?). I'd like to see what was quoted exactly, but you can't get that much when dealing with blogs online.

But to deny that FOX News doesn't edit their transcripts (like all News stations do at sometime) is being deliberately ignorant.

But I do have to congratulate dollar on his partisanship. If we talk about how FOX News reportedly didn't edit their transcripts in this occasion we might forget about the issue that warranted Olbermann talking about it (What Haditha? Bill O'Reilly was making a valid argument, right?).

Johnny,

Olbermann feels no compunction to stick solely with the facts or to correct the record when his claims are proved false.

If the White House didn't leak a particular memo to Matt Drudge, it doesn't matter because the White House engages in dirty tricks.

If FOX News didn't edit a particular transcript, it doesn't matter because FOX generally edits transcripts...

This narrative is gospel and far more important than the ACTUALITIES of any one event.

Brother Olbermann is a devout member of the Church of Crusading Progressive Media Goodness... He doesn't have to be correct in every case... just sincere...

Again Non, the 73%-71% thing is minor. Its the continued use of "study". Still don't understand about online polls, huh? Its the "viewers" part. Wrong. Its the fact that you obviously had no firsthand knowledge or understanding about the subject of that post. You just read it from the Times or Post or whatever and figureed it must be true, accurate, and "say something about O'Reilly's viewers." Even though you were shown , repeatedly, all the errors in your post.

The same thing happens now. The third party that produces the transcript explains the error. They hold the copyright. They explain that the error was corrected. Case closed, right? Not for Non. No, its "if you really believe this and you don't believe that Fox edits the transcripts, you're ignorant." This flies in the face of all available evidence. But,never mind. KO said it. It looks bad for Fox. It must be true.

You must have some proof, other than speculation, to keep repeating your assertion that Fox edits transcripts, especially since the parties involved say they don't?

I can't believe Olbermann is allowed on MSNBC. I thought ALL cable news programs had to be right wing. I've never seen his show but it sounds like a breath of fresh air.

He solicits his fans for sex
But they say his unit won't flex
In bed he's pathetic
Just like an anesthetic
His emails are where he will vex

Donny,

You are not by chance one of the newspaper television criticis? You know, the ones who keep telling their readers how great Keith Olbermann is but never actually watch the show themselves.

Non,

There is no doubt that BOR had it backwards when he brought up Malmedy - it was German troops shooting American troops who had surrendered at the outset of the Battle of the Bulge. No one is disputing that the transcript service initially posted a transcript with the word "Normandy" instead of "Malmedy" or that they changed it after KO pointed out the error in his show (my guess is that the transcriptionists for Countdown notified his/her colleague of the error after KO mentioned it on his show)

But J$'s post raise a good question and I'd be interested in your take.

Let's just suppose that your conspiracy theory is correct and Fox News intentionally altered the transcript from what BOR actually said - "Malmedy" - to what appeared in the transcript - "Normandy".

In the context of BOR's exchange with Wesley Clark, how would that have helped BOR or FNC? What benefit do you think either would have gotten if they had successfully passed off the "altered" transcript?

And, if you can answer that, what benefit do you think BOR or his wingnut minions get from O'Reilly citing Malmedy as an example of how the U.S. media helped the war effort in World War II by suppressing stories?

Since you may not know this, BOR's point was correct even if his example was not. For example, if you read Stanley Hirshon's book "General Patton: A Soldier's LIfe" you will learn that not only did the press cover up the infamous slapping incidents (yes, there were two, not one as shown in the film with George C. Scott) but covered up five atrocities during the Sicilian campaign which would, if known to the public, have ended Patton's career (according to Hirshon).

Hirshon links these atrocities directly to Patton's four speeches prior to the invasion which are portrayed (with some artistic license) in the opening sequence of the film with Patton/Scott standing in front of a massive American flag.

At Biscari, there were two atrocities committed by U.S. troops. In one, 50 German POWs were executed while standing in ranks. In another, 34 Italian POWs and 2 German POWs were executed.

At Cosimo, there were two other atrocities where U.S. troops killed about 20 German POWs in one case and about 60 Italian POWs in another - both by U.S. troops firing machine guns into a crowd of unarmed POWs.

At Canicatti, as many as 21 unarmed civilians were shot when they disobeyed orders to disperse from a factory which was being looted.

Members of the press knew of these atrocities yet did not report them for fearing of underming the U.S. Army's most successful general, the morale of American troops and the war effort in general.

To BOR's point, does anyone doubt that in today's political/media environment that these stories would ALL have been front page news with video running in a continuous loop on the cable news channels? And does anyone doubt that Adolf Hitler and his Nazi ghouls would have have been rejoicing that the U.S. media would do what they could not - stop Patton.

The transcript altered no matter what you right wing haters say. What a bunch of ignrnat a--holes--you really think the transcript company wouldn't fall on thier sword for O'Reilly? Nonfactor is right-- I don't know how Nonfactor got proof that Fox did the altering, but c'mon Fox does nothing but cover their butts, so it just makes sense that Fox did it. Keith Olbermann makes you right wingers look foolish and you hates him. Olbermann lauhgs at you pathetic morons!!!

Nonfactor is right-- I don't know how Nonfactor got proof that Fox did the altering....

Let me help you, he didn't! The only thing he has is what he WANTS to believe.

Scott, I can see you're getting worked up so I'll break things down for you. I did not say a scientific study; the word study still applies to this poll. "Viewers" was a direct quote from the NYPost and I explained that in the other post, maybe you should go back and read it.

Cox, I didn't say that FOX altered the transcript for both those shows, but I would like more evidence, but altering or not altering the transcripts isn't even the point. The point O'Reilly was trying to make was that the United States has committed atrocities before (I agree) and thus these current atrocities shouldn't even matter (I disagree), and to make it even worse O'Reilly used an example where he turned U.S. soldiers into war criminals. I haven't read the book by Hirshon, but I've read the Great Generals biography of him. And simply comparing one atrocity to another doesn't make either one right. I believe that the stories weren't published because the people these soldiers killed were Nazi's, and although it does not make what they did any better, it makes the topic safer, but in the case of Haditha 24 innocent men, women, and children were killed.

To iron things out: Comparing war crimes in the 1940s to war crimes today and how the media dealt with them has no bearing on the issue of Haditha or how the media is covering it. And stop with the "the media is helping terrorists/Hitler" rhetoric unless you can show me a tape of Osama reading and celebrating over a story covered in an American newspaper.

Nonfactor you consider the entire Iraq war a crime. Is that correct? If so your opinion is polluted to say the least. What evidence do you have that the 24 in Haditha were innocents? Or is it just another attack on our military. And please don't tell me because Murtha said so.Facts please. War by it's very nature is a series of atrocities. Hopefully with a goal to be reached. Example: Remove Saddam from power, free the slaves, stop the spread of communism etc.

War by it's very nature is a series of atrocities.

The sheer stupidity of this statement staggers me.

What i meant was war is a touchy feely series of patty cakes complete with cake and ice cream. Sure i'm the stupid one. During war people die for the mistakes/disagreements/policy of there gov't, in wars they might not agree with. You don't find that atrocious? Stagger into a history book you nitwit.

You don't find that atrocious? Stagger into a history book you nitwit.

What I find appalling is your callous and utter disregard for the English langauage.

Atrocity, when used in the context of warfare, has a very specific definition. One that you, in your zeal to make a point, misuse.

An "atrocity" in war is "an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners."

Find a better word.

You mean like fire bombing Berlin? Nuclear bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? In Iraq their army took off the uniforms. So only civilian targets remain. I don't think i mis-used the word atrocity. Question? Have you ever won an argument?

Think you for the lesson on English Language Prof. Churchill. But at least I have a point.

When I click on the link to "johnny dollar's place" it tries to install an ActiveX control. When I cancel it, it crashes my browser. What's up with all the ActiveX controls?

"You mean like fire bombing Berlin? Nuclear bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? In Iraq their army took off the uniforms. So only civilian targets remain. I don't think i mis-used the word atrocity. Question? Have you ever won an argument?"

He just did.

"Sure i'm the stupid one"

That is accurate.

When you get out of grade school maybe you could learn to have a discussion with facts and answer questions posed. You could then have an adult conversation. Enjoy your summer break.

Nonfactor you consider the entire Iraq war a crime.

No, I don't. I think it was started in an unjust manner and I think that the citizens of the United States were lied to by it's government, and Colin Powell and Kofi Annan agree.

If so your opinion is polluted to say the least.

How so?

What evidence do you have that the 24 in Haditha were innocents?

Not the best way to aruge that subject, unless you want to draw a blanket of suspicion over all Iraqi men, women, and children.

War by it's very nature is a series of atrocities.

You might be able to accept that, but I won't. War can be waged without the murder of innocents or PoWs or torture or sacrifice of rights. Our government is just too lazy to figure out how. If you're willing to accept the deaths of thousands of innocents and dismiss it as normal, go right ahead.

"When you get out of grade school maybe you could learn to have a discussion with facts and answer questions posed. You could then have an adult conversation. Enjoy your summer break."

Can you rotate the tires scooter

Anonynous person (for lack of a better name) pontificated:

---------------------------------------------
What I find appalling is your callous and utter disregard for the English langauage.

Atrocity, when used in the context of warfare, has a very specific definition. One that you, in your zeal to make a point, misuse.

An "atrocity" in war is "an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners."
----------------------------------------------

Questions for you, anonymous pontificator:

At what point does your enemy in warfare stop being a combatant where anything goes and start being a prisoner? And how do you decide when its OK to stop shooting and just play nice?

Easy to sit in the judgement seat from 6000 miles away...

-OM

Hey anonymous, yes i would like fries with that. Thank you very much.
Hey Non give me a clue. How could you wage a kinder gentler war. I am being serious. I am all ears.
War causes the murder of innocents Saddam and his henchman probably total less than a thousand the rest being pawns. Hitler dragged all of Europe into war. Most were just caught up in it.
You may not accept my premise but history is on my side. Right or wrong war when waged unhindered by conscious kills lots of innocents and if you can name one that didn't please do.

Scooter, I'm not talking about a "kinder gentler war." Reread my post and try not taking it out of context next time.

You argue the definition of "is". It substitutes for laying out your plan to wage war without civilian deaths in a country with only one side in uniform. I think our gov't has shown restraint in Iraq. So much that we have to endure quagmire comments. But we probably both agree thats better than discussing radiation levels of Baghdad. I regret any death of innocents. I do however accept that historically it is the consequence of war.

I think KO should apoloigze. He should do so in writing in the next issue of Paris Business Review.

The French would absolutely never accept an apology from KO. To them, his behaviour is above reproach, the national past time, THE STANDARD.
He is as beloved there as an entertainer as Jerry Lewis. Mon Dieu!

Abe, maybe he could do it in the Hoosier Gazette.

Two words: Last place.

Keith is dead last in cable news viewership. Considering the number of shows with weak ratings on the cable news lineup, coming in dead last is a distinction worth noting. Dan Abrams wants to reward KO for his growth in audience appeal. Yep, Keith has risen from last place to ... well ... last place.

Acting like FOX News doesn't edit their transcripts is ignornant. If it wasn't done in this instance it has been done in many others, and to see the argument people take up simply to "protect" FOX is pathetic. Most controversial things said by hosts on FOX News are either taken out of the transcript or changed all together.

As pointed out --- since FNC doesn't DO their own transcripts, you don't really have a point whatsoever.

Cox, I didn't say that FOX altered the transcript for both those shows, but I would like more evidence, but altering or not altering the transcripts isn't even the point.

I posted your quote. What WAS your point?
-=Mike

O'Reilly makes a brief comment about MSNBC, Olbermann goes ballistic with an entire rage-filled segment. Who is power figure in this sick, one sided relationship ?

I'm thinking O'Reilly does it simply because it causes Olbermann to go insane.
-=Mike

I'm thinking O'Reilly does it simply because it causes Olbermann to go insane.
-=Mike

Non,
The casual reader might be left with the impression that you know what you are talking about. So let's clarify a few things.

You wrote "I've read the Great Generals biography of him" by which I take it you mean you read "Patton: A Biography" by Alan Axelrod, the first book in the new "Great Generals" series (with a foreward by Wesley Clark). Perhaps you can correct me but to the best of my knowledge this book contains no original research and is primarily a brief, summary version of other biographies of Patton. I have not read Axelrod (it seems more like "Patton for Dummies") but from reading about it on Amazon I can see that it restates falsehoods about Patton such as the claim that he was dyslexic (he was not), it mentions the two slapping incidents but there is no mention of the five atrocities in the Sicilian campaign. If you tell me they are covered in the Axelrod book I will go to Borders and read whatever pages you direct me to but as far I know these incidents are not in that book.

You then wrote "I believe that the stories weren't published because the people these soldiers killed were Nazi's".

Let's examine that statement:

1) You say that you have not read the Hirshon book. Apparently you are unaware that the Hirshon book is the primary source for information about the Sicilian atrocities and the media coverup which went on for sixty years. The information in the Hirshon book was NEW which is why the book is noteworthy (and why I read it). I do not believe you know anything about the atrocities except what I wrote and you know nothing about the military officials and reporters who hushed up the atrocities or what reason they gave for doing so - either to Hirshon in interviews or based on Hirshons' research of official reports, diaries and letters from those involved in the incidents, the court-martials, the military or press coverups.

2) Whether or not you read Hirshon or Axelrod, surely you read the comment you claim to be responding to, right? Yet you claim that the press did not report these atrocities because the "soldiers killed were Nazi's". Perhaps you doubt my summary of Hirshon but I clearly noted that only two of the five atrocities were solely German troops. At Biscari and Cosimo Italian POWs were killed. In Canicatti, it was Italian civilians.

You also wrote "I didn't say that FOX altered the transcript for both those shows". No, you didn't. You said "Acting like FOX News doesn't edit their transcripts is ignornant. If it wasn't done in this instance it has been done in many others, and to see the argument people take up simply to "protect" FOX is pathetic. Most controversial things said by hosts on FOX News are either taken out of the transcript or changed all together." To most clear-thinker, this would seem to say that you believe there is some kind of conspiracy between Fox News and Morningside Partners, the company that sells the tapes and transcripts of Fox News broadcasts.

So, what I write "Let's just suppose that your conspiracy theory is correct" there seems to be ample support for the notion that you believe there is a conspiracy between FNC and MP. See how that works? It's called "taking your statements to their logical conclusion". I then asked you to answer a question based on the predicate that your theory was operative in the "Malmedy/Normandy" transcript. Is that so hard for you to follow?

I'm not really interested in delving into the entire BOR-Clark discussion but I don't recall BOR arguing that "these current atrocities shouldn't even matter". His point, badly made by citing Malmedy, is that unlike in WWII, the MSM outlets (and by that I believe he means The New York Times, CBS News, CNN, etc.) are enthusiastically trumpeting any news they can get of atrocities or alleged atrocities. In doing so, they are undermining morale of U.S. troops and support for the U.S. war effort. I think BOR believe that is intentional because the people who run these media outlets are opposed to Bush and the Iraq War.

Now, you may disagree with BOR and believe that the type of reporting he is referencing does not exist or does exist but does not have any impact on troop morale or American support for the war OR you might think that it exists and is a good thing that the media actively undermine the U.S. War effort because you don't support the war. All of this is somewhat subjective so your opinion is as valid as BOR's (or mine, for that matter).

But, regardless of where you come down on this, there is no denying that al Qaeda "foreign fighters" and the "domestic insurgents" are fighting a sophisticated media war. They are clearly monitoring western media and view negative coverage of Iraq as victory in that war - whether it would be a deadly car bombing, kidnappings, or allegations of atrocities by U.S. troops. So, the coverage of Haditha is a victory for our enemies. Just like at Abu Ghraib, that the Haditha case may prove out and thus we will have handed a propaganda victory to our enemies does not change that fact that it IS a victory for them. Since this is World Cup time, you could say that Abu Ghraib and (maybe) Haditha are "own goals". However they came about, they still count as "wins" for the bad guys.

That this is true does not mean that the MSM is being unpatriotic by not going along with government censorship. Each case is different and it is a judgement call. It is also a misleading debate because we have no way of knowing what stories the MSM spiked out of national security concerns. It does mean that it is very difficult in our modern communications environment for any Western-style democracy to conduct a military operation of any significant length because the opponents of that war or police action or conflict or whatever you want to call it can use the media to undermine support and the longer it goes on, the more the costs mount, the more difficult it is to sustain support. And, more importantly, the enemy can both feed ammunitation to war critics and, directly or indireclty, use the U.S. media to manipulate our troop morale and support among Americans for the war.

I think we should be worried about BOTH - that the press accurately report "bad news" and that the press understand that doing so has very real consequences for the lives of our troops who are in harm's way. Where I think BOR is right, is that while many in the MSM pay lip service to understanding these consequences, they are so blinded by their animus towards George W. Bush, that in case after case, they discount the consequences of their actions. Having thus discounted such concerns, they THEN try and balance the competing issue of national security and the public's right to know. Having taken the most important national security issue (the safety of our troops) out of the equation, it is not surprising that the they often came to the same answer. I also believe that many in the media were/are opposed to the war and are more than happy to portray Iraq as nothing but a series of car bombings and kidnapping. On top of that, the major newspapers and TV networks have concentrated their efforts on the most volatile part of the country and are a magnet for our enemies looking to make the front page or the nighly news.

One of the many dog's not barking in Iraq is the lack of news bureaus in Basra and Kirkuk. If a NBC or CBS only sent reporters out to cover stories of rapes and murders and muggings in the New York metropolitan area then broadcast that as "national" news, would you say they are giving you accurate, representative coverage of what is happening in the United States? I don't think so.

I hope you are making an Olbermannesque attempt at humor when you wrote "top with the "the media is helping terrorists/Hitler" rhetoric unless you can show me a tape of Osama reading and celebrating over a story covered in an American newspaper."
If that is your level of geopolitical sophistication, I'm sure the rest of what I wrote has already sailed over your head.

Which now brings us to my original question.....

Starting from the premise that Fox News intentionally altered the transcript from what BOR actually said - "Malmedy" - to what appeared in the transcript - "Normandy", how would that have helped BOR or FNC? What benefit do you think either would have gotten if they had successfully passed off the "altered" transcript?

I await your answer with baited breath.