Andrea Mitchell’s Out-Of-Context Attack On Romney

Both the Obama administration and the liberal media have been working together very hard lately to try and switch the focus onto anything but the catastrophe that has been Obama’s presidency. When confronted with evidence of the economic failures of the Obama administration, it is often cited as “Bush’s fault”. When they’re cornered on a failed policy, they try to create division with social wedge issues. When the narrative points to an elitist national executive more like a monarch than a president, the go-to response is, “Well, Romney’s worse! After all, he’s rich, he must be out of touch!”

But as hard as the liberal media may try to shift focus, people keep asking tough questions, and the media can only spin things so much. That’s where outright manipulation comes in.

On June 18th, Andrea Mitchell, a journalist for MSNBC, aired a clip of Governor Romney speaking in Pennsylvania to a crowd of supporters. The clip seemed to depict Romney amazed at ordering a sandwich at WAWAs, a chain of convenience stores. In the 35 second clip, bits of Romney’s speech are played to where he appears to marvel at the regular-man’s task of ordering a sandwich. The host then has a good chuckle at Romney’s expense. This jibes with the liberal media’s portrayal of Romney as an elitist, out of touch with Joe Everyman. The problem is that the clip had been altered deceptively to illustrate this point.

Luckily, the speech was captured on a cell phone and we can see what Romney was actually saying. While the aforementioned clip was edited Michael Moore-style, the truth was radically different. Romney used his trip to WAWAs as an example of the efficiency found in the private sector as compared to the inefficiency found in the public sector. What Romney said was,

“By the way, where do you get your hoagies here, do you get them at WAWAs?… Well, I went to a place today called WAWAs, have you ever been to WAWAs? I know some people haven’t…We went to WAWAs and it was instructive to me, because I saw the difference between the private sector and the governmental sector. People who work in government are good people and I respect what they do, but you see, the challenge with government is that it doesn’t have competition- the federal government that is, the states compete all the time, I learned that… So we find ways to do things better or we’ll lose jobs to each other.”

In the speech, the governor juxtaposed the trip to WAWAs against a trip to an optometrist that had him fill out a 33 page change of address form so that the post office could send his reimbursement checks to his new location.

While the manipulated clip certainly painted Romney in an elitist light, it cannot even compare to Obama’s “the private sector is doing fine” remark which, amazingly, was not edited. To try and relieve the pressure from his remark, the Obama Campaign has released an ad with out-of-context Romney remarks that paint him as out-of-touch, but it has largely fallen flat.

News sources have an ethical responsibility to avoid such blatant manipulation. While commentary is fine in the appropriate channels, news programs cannot attempt to engage in honest discussion predicated upon manipulated material. The media’s ethical standards and what we, as citizens, expect from the media have gotten far too lax. When confronted with the evidence, Mitchell admitted that the clip was not played in its entirety, but claimed that she had not had enough time to play it. Fine, but that does not mean she may hack up the video any way she chooses. While omitting phrases of no importance to the subject at hand is fine, editing the video to such a degree that it makes no mention of the private sector- the subject of the speech- is unacceptable. Instead, we are left with a hacked up clip of a seemingly deranged man saying “WAWAs” over and over.

As Mitchell and her liberal co-conspirators may try to divert the conversation away from real issues, no amount of shady video editing will change the fact that this country is in big trouble and the onus is on President Obama to explain why we should endure four more years of him, when 3 years have brought us from bad to worse. If his presidency could produce one accomplishment of note, then perhaps we wouldn’t be forced to suffer the constant attempts to redirect the narrative. Fortunately, the calls for hope and change have quieted to a whisper and have been replaced by calls wondering what’s being done. The attempts to dodge the issues are only stalls, and come November, Obama should have either a more solid game plan, or have packed his bags. I’m betting on the latter.

This entry was posted in Election 2012, Mainstream Media, News and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Andrea Mitchell’s Out-Of-Context Attack On Romney

  1. Joseph R. - Patriot says:

    As I learn more and more about the lame stream media’s manipulation of facts to effect an outcome contrary to the will of the people, a question keeps popping up and I wonder why this isn’t being brought up frequently.
    Why is this twisting and manipulation of facts not illegal?
    Before you cite the first amendment guarantee of free speech, is it not true that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, free speech notwithstanding?
    What the media is trying to do is nothing less than to fool citizens into believing a lie thereby potentially changing a person’s vote to the other candidate.
    I contend that these shenanigans result in better than half of discussion and debates being based on untruths. This continuously muddies the waters, creates unnecessary lengthy campaign seasons and makes it very hard for people to vote intelligently. The wrong, (for the people) person is all too often elected over a rival with substance and honesty.
    This selective editing process of someone’s words can only cause confusion, at best, and a gross injustice to a citizen such as George Zimmerman, at worst. In a presidential election, such manipulation of facts is an attempt to put into office someone undeserving of such high office. If this evil editing and twisting of the truth indeed results in an unscrupulous person winning the contest, the entire populace has been robbed of their rights, their votes stolen and their pursuit of liberty and happiness endangered.
    I ask again, why is deceiving the people in the guise of “news” not a crime and ineligible for free speech protection. You may have the right to lie to me as an individual and be protected by the first amendment, and shame on me if I fall for your lies. Between a couple of people, a lie will only have limited potential for damage. However, the news media should be charged with a grave responsibility to report only the truth and nothing but the truth. When these media lies occur in front of millions, the damage potential is enormous. If they deviate from the truth or choose to edit someone’s statements to change it’s meaning, they should be required under penalty of law, to report up front that they have manipulated the words for whatever reason. Then they should also be required to show the same event in an unedited fashion. If Andrea Mitchell wants to make Romney or anyone look like an out of touch fool, she should be required to state that what she said is only her opinion.
    My final question, why aren’t constitutional and legal scholars and talk show hosts and honest news media not discussing this perversion of our sacred first amendment?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>