We should all find this dispicable, Sean Hannity of Fox picked up on what ........

[applecrisp]

Now let me start that I'm not naive that only certain journalists, politicians, or public figures spout misleading statements, flat out lies etc. Anything to help their "cause". The blame can often be spread to many people. regardless of political affiliation. But man, some R's really hit the mark this week!

I find some of the statements this week by Jack Welch (ex CEO of GE), Sean Hannity, and Alan West uitterly disgraceful. It's not the first time for Sean Hannity and character, Alan West.

The scary thing is that many people hear these things, some might assume its correct. Well its on the news. He's a respected business person. They read a caption online etc.

Here's a little nugget from Sean Hannity from Fox News on 10/5:

"In a move that is simply beneath the dignity of the oval office, it appears that the Obama Admin altered for political gain the monthly job report now less than 36 hours after the President was crushed at the Denver debate, the Labor Dept announced that the unemployment rate magically to 7.8%....." the biggest drop in......."

Now IF this was correct, and the Obama Admin fixed the #'s. This would be all over the news 24/7. Do you hear ANY facts behind it, nope, just some say what a "coincidence" so near the election. Hannity just mentions it to rile up his viewers, get some traction and PR/ratings.

Clever how Hannity said it "appears" that the Obama Admin.....

I don't know the details behind how these numbers are determined. And, it seems for whatever reason that the figures are often later corrected. If these are later corrected, that doesn't mean it was rigged. But you know some will be praying for that chance to tell that story.

Its this kind of crap that is just soooo wrong. How can people say, on the news no less, anything they want? Hannity just puts these nuggets in someone's mind. Then they hear pitiful, attention hound, Donald Trump say "they did a lot of monkey business". Then I see captions on MSNBC, "Trump agrees, figures rigged".

People can make decisions on how they view the country, the gov't, public figures, and in this case, vote in an election, based on statements they hear.

How some ex CEO can write a tweet that Obama's Chicago staff rigged the unemployment numbers. He was interviewed by many people and stuck by his statement. He did say he had no evidence. At the end of the day he said, he probably shoud have made it a question. I guess he was ticked about the negative stories (I think it was Fortune Mag) wrote about his tweet, that it had no facts behind it, that it was irresponsible, that he quit working for them. He used to write pieces for them.

Oh, and if you think that I'm only ragging on Fox and R's, earlier this week I sent a scathing email to Lawrence O'Donnell (CNBC) on a segment on his show, he had a childish segment on Ryan/Romney, his info was incorrect, and he gave a lame apology.

Everyone should be disgusted by people just spouting anything they want, mislead, lie etc., and shameful that this is supported, endorsed, accepted. People need to be accountable. And, show some respect to the Pres, regardless of party. How Hannity can actually report those lies without any support behind it. The irony that Hannity starts by saying "in a move that is simply beneath the dignity of the oval office....".

I think I should just tune out all news/media, makes my blood boil.

[applecrisp]

What a coincidence, I just read this op-Ed by Paul Krugman on the NYT website. Interesting, thought I would post. I added the italics to the last two paragraphs, to highlight.


Op-Ed Columnist
Truth About Jobs By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 7, 2012 677 Comments

If anyone had doubts about the madness that has spread through a large part of the American political spectrum, the reaction to Friday’s better-than expected report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics should have settled the issue. For the immediate response of many on the right — and we’re not just talking fringe figures — was to cry conspiracy.

Leading the charge of what were quickly dubbed the “B.L.S. truthers” was none other than Jack Welch, the former chairman of General Electric, who posted an assertion on Twitter that the books had been cooked to help President Obama’s re-election campaign. His claim was quickly picked up by right-wing pundits and media personalities.

It was nonsense, of course. Job numbers are prepared by professional civil servants, at an agency that currently has no political appointees. But then maybe Mr. Welch — under whose leadership G.E. reported remarkably smooth earnings growth, with none of the short-term fluctuations you might have expected (fluctuations that reappeared under his successor) — doesn’t know how hard it would be to cook the jobs data.

Furthermore, the methods the bureau uses are public — and anyone familiar with the data understands that they are “noisy,” that especially good (or bad) months will be reported now and then as a simple consequence of statistical randomness. And that in turn means that you shouldn’t put much weight on any one month’s report.

In that case, however, what is the somewhat longer-term trend? Is the U.S. employment picture getting better? Yes, it is.

Some background: the monthly employment report is based on two surveys. One asks a random sample of employers how many people are on their payroll. The other asks a random sample of households whether their members are working or looking for work. And if you look at the trend over the past year or so, both surveys suggest a labor market that is gradually on the mend, with job creation consistently exceeding growth in the working-age population.

On the employer side, the current numbers say that over the past year the economy added 150,000 jobs a month, and revisions will probably push that number up significantly. That’s well above the 90,000 or so added jobs per month that we need to keep up with population. (This number used to be higher, but underlying work force growth has dropped off sharply now that many baby boomers are reaching retirement age.)

Meanwhile, the household survey produces estimates of both the number of Americans employed and the number unemployed, defined as people who are seeking work but don’t currently have a job. The eye-popping number from Friday’s report was a sudden drop in the unemployment rate to 7.8 percent from 8.1 percent, but as I said, you shouldn’t put too much emphasis on one month’s number. The more important point is that unemployment has been on a sustained downward trend.

But isn’t that just because people have given up looking for work, and hence no longer count as unemployed? Actually, no. It’s true that the employment-population ratio — the percentage of adults with jobs — has been more or less flat for the past year. But remember those aging baby boomers: the fraction of American adults who are in their prime working years is falling fast. Once you take the effects of an aging population into account, the numbers show a substantial improvement in the employment picture since the summer of 2011.

None of this should be taken to imply that the situation is good, or to deny that we should be doing better — a shortfall largely due to the scorched-earth tactics of Republicans, who have blocked any and all efforts to accelerate the pace of recovery. (If the American Jobs Act, proposed by the Obama administration last year, had been passed, the unemployment rate would probably be below 7 percent.) The U.S. economy is still far short of where it should be, and the job market has a long way to go before it makes up the ground lost in the Great Recession. But the employment data do suggest an economy that is slowly healing, an economy in which declining consumer debt burdens and a housing revival have finally put us on the road back to full employment.

And that’s the truth that the right can’t handle. The furor over Friday’s report revealed a political movement that is rooting for American failure, so obsessed with taking down Mr. Obama that good news for the nation’s long-suffering workers drives its members into a blind rage. It also revealed a movement that lives in an intellectual bubble, dealing with uncomfortable reality — whether that reality involves polls or economic data — not just by denying the facts, but by spinning wild conspiracy theories.

It is, quite simply, frightening to think that a movement this deranged wields so much political power.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on October 8, 2012, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Truth About Jobs..

[ClaraB]

I think I should just tune out all news/media, makes my blood boil.

I haven't watched commercial news sources for years - most of what they "report" is garbage. They pander to their viewership - even CNN reports a lot of sensationalist stuff about baby kidnappings and mysterious deaths and whatnot that just isn't real news. If you're looking for real unbiased, not sensationalized news, try NPR. They do balanced, in-depth stories, not just sound bites, and it's the only thing I would even consider listening to during an election year.

[jmarie]

You worry too much. Sean isn't going to have any effect on the Democrats, anymore than CNN, MSNBC, NBC and their ilk is going to have on Republicans.

I don't know if what Sean said is CORRECT OR INCORRECT, but what I do think is if people no longer have unemployment benefits, that there can be no record on who those unemployed are, at least on those people. So, in essence, unemployment dropped but it wasn't because those people found jobs, it's just that they are now out of the picture.

Sean Hannity is one person but I guarantee you that there were hundreds of other newscasters who were spinning the story in the other direction. So, I wonder why you get upset over the comments made by one or two. as opposed to those hundreds.

People who listen to Sean Hanity and his ilk listen because the WANT to. you don't want to hear his spin, so you want to deny those who like his spin of listening to his spin. EXCUSE me, but FOX news is one news outlet compared to all of the others, it if is just NBC and MSNBC, then it is twice the other spin to Sean Hanity's one. You get to hear what you want but you want to deny us hearing what we want and this stinks. Oh, and why is it that this happened on the 5th, but it is just now bothering you on the 10th. THIS surprises me. Who did YOU get your information from?

[JulieM]

Everyone should be disgusted by people just spouting anything they want, mislead, lie etc., and shameful that this is supported, endorsed, accepted. People need to be accountable. And, show some respect to the Pres, regardless of party. How Hannity can actually report those lies without any support behind it. The irony that Hannity starts by saying "in a move that is simply beneath the dignity of the oval office....".

I think I should just tune out all news/media, makes my blood boil.

I agree that the biased news, misleading reports and just outright lies on both sides are enough to make you want to scream. That's why I think it's important to focus on the issues and watch the debates. And I agree everyone should show respect for the President, regardless of party!

[jmarie]

Whether one likes our President or not, I feel that he should be referred to as: President Obama. I have tried to do that, especially recently. It's easier to write Obama, and most do, and I may have...But he did win last election and regardless of how one feels about the job he has done, he IS our President. And may still be our NEXT President.

[applecrisp]

Jmarie --

Sean Hannity might not have any influence on Democrats, but could influence R's. But what about Jack Welch's statement? Someone could be a "fan" of Hannity and a R through and through. But IMO that person deserves to hear truths and reach their decisions accordingly, not... "In a move that is simply beneath the dignity of the oval office, it appears that the Obama Admin ...."

And, the intention of my thread was NOT political, but more how I find it terrible that people can say what they want, make it seem it is true, and then it gets picked up by others. And I was just giving an example of what is going on in the news the last few days. You mentioned that this happened days ago, I didn't realize their was time frame I need to stick to when starting a thread.

In this last week it started with Jack Welch (who is not a journalist, does not work at FOX, he was CEO of GE) saying

"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers"

But when later questioned, he said he had NO proof. A highly influential business person while at GE tweets something that he later admits that day that he has no actual proof, the story hits all the news channels. But my point was, some might just hear about the tweet, not the part that he had zero proof. Does that flat out lie not bother you? I would feel the same way regardless of who his tweet was aimed at. After being questioned all day, he finally admitted he should have rephrased the tweet. But my issue is this news coverage, and yes some spun it in their favor, some rejected. But it got out there!

Now if they did rig the numbers, bring it on, show us the proof, who did they bribe, heads would roll. This would be the next Watergate. But no facts, just mislead people. People might hear bits and pieces on the news and not hear his admission that no facts to support. And, then Donald Trump pipes in, probably to promote, what else, Trump. Agan, not a FOX person.

Jmarie, you mentioned that I called out Hannity. As I said, tons of new shows jumped on the story. You said that he is only one person, which of course true, but I am assuming he has a pretty high viewership, so his statements get more coverage/quoted more than a newsperson in small markets.

I don't care what political affilitaion they have. Welch tweets, picked up in the media, Hannity joins in, Trump too, liberals, republicans, people I don't have a clue what they are politically, politicians, economists etc.

They can be from Mars for all I care. I don't care if they are attacking a R or a D or an Independent. It is wrong to put out these thoroughly misleading statements. And, his statement was directed to the US govt, the President of the US (and those Chicago guys).

It's the lack of integrity, and the ramifications these lies can have. Whether its political, attacking a person's personal life etc.

So IMO it doesn't matter what side of the fence one is on, there should be honesty and integrity, something many in this country strongly lack.

[KAnn]

Everything about Sean Hannity and his influence is dispicable.

[applecrisp]

So Jmarie, would you be bothered if a Democratic business person said something like, George Bush rigged certain numbers. But hours later fessed up that he had no data to support that statement. So some just assumed that it likely a true statement, never hearing the followup. And, then a bunch of other media people jumped onto the band wagon and said, those Texans rigged the numbers. And on and on.

I don't look at it as ok because that's how the "game is played". Ethics, nah, don't need it? Facts, not important. The whole thing Jack Welch started would bother me regardless of whether it was directed to a Dem Pres or a Republican Pres. Wrong is wrong.

And, my example this week was just to illustrate my point.

Or perhaps does it bother you when you hear Romney say something on an important issue, but then later, says something completely opposite? And one might think, huh, I thought his stance on X was .....? Like just today when he was speaking about abortion rights. He said that he had no abortion legislation on his agenda, but for the last few months was saying that he would support overturning Roe v Wade, would sign the personhood bill, wanted to defund Planned Parentgood.

Today Romney told the editorial board of the Des Moines Register that he has "no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda."

So if a person heard his comments from the Des Moines Register, they might think, huh, didn't he say in recent interviews such and such. And, then years ago in MA he said he was pro-choice. Oy, this is getting confusing, which is it? I imagine it could tick someone off when they think, hey I agreed when he said X, but then he said Y.

His campaign subsequently said Romney would "of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life," prompting the Obama campaign to pounce, and accuse their Republican opponent of obfuscating his true position on abortion rights.

I am using his statment about womens rights just to illustrate a point. If someone heard one speech they would think one thing, heard him on 60 Minutes think another, heard his interview in Des Moines another thing. This is important stuff, which is it.

These kind of things bother me, regardless of political affiliation. My point of this thread is that figuring out what is true shoudn't be so difficult. I find it wrong if a liberal is spreading lies, the same if a conservative is spreading lies. It all boils down to integrity and honesty. And say how you feel, not throw out things to rile up your base, just make up things to help your case or disparage others, and don't switch your statements based on your audience.

But it seems that you took my post, but didn't see a subsequent reply as bad mouthing Hannity. I brought him up since he was a prominent figure that jumped on the bandwagon, and I found it repulsive when he said "In a move that is simply beneath the dignity of the oval office, it appears that the Obama Admin altered for political gain the monthly job report ...." Holy crap, you say something like that about the President of the US, and you have no facts. It was "funny" when he said "simply beneath the dignity...... That's some mighty classy stuff.

I don't call that spin.

I would have the same view, if Rachel Maddow or any other media person was speaking such smack. See I'm equal opportunity for being disgusted. When Harry Reid, oh gasp, a Democrat said that he has a source that claims Romney paid no taxes (or something like that). I wanted some facts, just don't throw out that statement. I know he was egging Romney on.

I just want some honesty in our political system, hate those those have the goal to hurt the other party at the expense of the people, and how things are reported. Silly me. Political decisions impact all of us.

[jmarie]

President Obama took differing stances until he decided he was finally for gay marriage. He evolved. Well, I think Mitt has been evolving into this current decision, so lets not be too hard on Mitt. You have to evolve to certain positions that you need to take. just takes a little getting there.

[applecrisp]

Evolving is one thing, But changing your tune in a few week span, and sometimes taking the complete opposite stance in the same day is quite another.

In the last few weeks, he said in an interview that he supported the part of the American Health Care Act concerning preexiisting conditions, but than his handlers said, well he actually meant .......

What abou all his talk about his tax plans. He was mentioning that for months, but never gave specifics when asked. He was singing a completely different tune in the debate than weeks before. Hmmm, is it because he is talking to a wider audience.

In my opinion, his staff often seems to say after a speech/interview, Romney actually means .....

[leebee]

President Obama took differing stances until he decided he was finally for gay marriage. He evolved. Well, I think Mitt has been evolving into this current decision, so lets not be too hard on Mitt. You have to evolve to certain positions that you need to take. just takes a little getting there.

He evolved on the finer points, but has consistently been supportive of the gay community. He hasn't said one day, "I support gay rights," then the next, "Homosexuality is an abomination." Evolution of thought isn't an entire shift from one end of the spectrum to the other at several different points. "I WILL do X" and "I WILL NOT do X" thrown out at random does not imply evolution. It implies an inability to stay on message, or a conflict of message and ideology. Like Applecrisp said, it seems we hear more from Romney's staff saying, "No, no, what he MEANT was this..." I find that troubling. I would find it troubling if it was coming out of the Obama campaign in the same way.

[michelegoodeats]

Jon Stewart and The Daily Show! He makes fun of both sides - OK, he pokes more fun at Romney - but his biggest pokes are at Fox News. Anyway, I love his humor and laughing at all the political stuff really gets me through the elections!
Can't take it all too seriously. That said, if Romney wins, I will seriously be very concerned for our country.

[SilentNoLonger]

So Jmarie, would you be bothered if a Democratic business person said something like, George Bush rigged certain numbers.

Can we say WMD ???

[applecrisp]

reported Spam.

I still find this despicable. And, you don't have to be a Democrat to find this wrong. In fact, political party has nothing to do with this, and shouldn't.

Lying is wrong, and spreading a lie simply to attack that person is wrong. And, Jack Welch said that he had NO proof, but still stuck by this statement that they rigged the employment numbers, until he kind of caved end of day.

You shouldn't find it ok, if its "your party". Oh, it isn't spin. It's a lie.

So if someone robs a bank, do you ask, oh what's your political party before deciding if they are wrong. Yowza.