The front page story on News.com.au right now is a US cartoon apparently mocking a former US vice-presidential candidate who now works for Murdoch’s Fox News. That’s bizarre enough, but what makes it extra bizarre is this clearly wrong assertion in her interest:
Mrs Palin, a Fox News contributor, recently slammed White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and radio talk host Rush Limbaugh for using the word “retard”.
No, she didn’t “slam” Rush Limbaugh – actually, she tried to draw a flimsy distinction between the two, as to why it was loathsome for Emanuel to use the word, but okay for Limbaugh to use it. “Rush Limbaugh was using satire”, she said, pathetically.
And I say “clearly” wrong, in that the hypocrisy has been widely commented-on in the US (although not by Fox News). But it won’t be so “clearly” wrong to Australian readers unless they’ve been watching recent US political news very closely – although some will have seen this incident, now that The Colbert Report is on ABC2. Maybe News Ltd’s assumption that Australians are entirely ignorant about US politics save what it chooses to tell us, is no longer quite so reliable.
So, to recap: News.com.au is beating up a story about a perceived slight to one of its employees, and relying on Australians’ lack of familiarity with the details of US politics to outright lie to us in her favour. Good work.
59 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Pwned. Noice.
Upyasmum, it’s extremely obvious you haven’t watched the interview with Palin where she defends Limbaugh’s use of “retard” because he was engaging in “satire”. She certainly did not “slam” him; quite the opposite, in fact. Why don’t you watch it on youtube and then let us know what you think? Or can you find us some other instance of Palin having “slammed” Limbaugh over this? Because if you can’t, you’ll be forced to concede the claim is indeed a lie.
But then that right-wing company instructed a minor component of its Australian subsidiary to concoct a lie and bury it in a minor news article so as to convince Australians that a left-wing TV show, which they own, is out to get her.
What the hell goes on inside your head Upya!!?!! Your interpretation of Jeremy’s writing is utterly wild and apparently unmoored to the constraints of reason or reality.
Jeremy has merely (correctly, by the way) noted that News.com has made a categorically false statement that casts one of their employees in a favourable light. The strawman conspiracy theory you have then constructed and attempted to pin on him as a result is hilarious!
And while we’re indulging conspiracies, has Upysamum ever commented on a post NOT written by Jeremy?
Why don’t you begin by showing me where I have said it wasn’t a lie?
Yep, watched the videos. They were terrific, thanks. I’m amazed at how often Jon Stewart is used as some sort of definitive evidence on this site.
What I am saying is that there is no conspiracy to lie on behalf of Palin because she’s an employee of News Corp. I’m also saying that anyone that can find a global conspiracy by a company to protect its employees from itself by using a single word in an offshore online article is suffering from paranoid delusions. I tried to make that clear with the opening “Jeremy, that is nothing short of paranoid delusion” line in my first comment.
Further to that, I suggested that if you were going to accuse a journalist of being a corrupt liar, it would be nice if you had something more than a ridiculous story of the Company that Ate Itself as proof.
You could also tell us how it felt to read comment 3. I’m betting there were some emotions tied up in that.
No, not a conspiracy. Family Guy has some lame crack at Palin’s expense. Because Palin is a thin-skinned crybaby and took to Facebook to whinge about Family Guy, it gave News Ltd a chance to run another “poor Sarah”-type story. But in order to make the story consistent, they had to lie about Sarah’s defence of Limbaugh’s supposedly satirical use of “retard” to describe liberals. Because unless she “slammed” Limbaugh about that, then it would be hypocritical of her to be offended by a gag at her expense in what is after all a satirical TV show. So they made that bit up – that she “slammed” Limbaugh – so that the “poor Sarah” meme could be maintained. Makes sense to me.
Hey Confessions.
It’s curious that on a thread about retardation, so many of us are having difficulties with basic HTML.
Here’s that link that I stuffed earlier.
Like I said, some of us will recognise the author.
Cheers
What I am saying is that there is no conspiracy to lie on behalf of Palin because she’s an employee of News Corp.
And what we are trying to get through to you is that Jeremy has not alleged a consipiracy – only that the local article misrepresents the truth in way that looks after Palin. Only in your fevered mind does this (accurate) observation amount to an accusation of “corruption” and “global conspiracy”.
You really are a hoot Upya.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All