ABC Hatchet Jobs Against Denver Christians

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
ABC Hatchet Jobs Against Denver Christians

This is the show from Thursday March 20th, 2008.

SUMMARY:

* Mocking Creation and BC Tours: Last night ABC's Nightline did a smear job reporting on our friends at Biblically Correct Tours. Call Rusty Carter, who joined Bob on today's show, and Bill Jack of BC Tours at 303 978-9615 for a great guided tour of DEMONS (DEnver Museum Of Nature & Science).

* Horton and ABC Nooze: (post-show note) ABC News reporter Marcus Baram, for the lead to their report titled Horton's Who: The Unborn, wrote this poem to mock Christians:

What is it about this children's book
That fills Dr. Seuss fans with such scorn?
Anti-abortion groups took a look
At Horton and they saw the unborn.

Scorn? Pro-lifers love Horton. So why does ABC say the book fills us with scorn? Well...

Written by a creepy ole' killer,
ABC needed some filler,
But no matter how small,
Kids are kids just not tall,
So the reporter's in hell for a thriller.

* Michigan US Rep. John Dingelberry: wants to increase gas prices with an additional 50 cent "Curtis JJ III" tax per gallon.

Post-show Note: Please help get signatures or join Bob in welcoming Judie Brown to Colorado at evening $100-a-plate fundraisers on April 4 & 5, or just donate directly to the non-deductible Colorado RTL Issue Committee to help get Personhood on the ballot in November! Just call Donna at 303 753-9394! Our deadline for 76,000 signatures is May 13th! We're at 41,000 and going strong! We need your help! Please, help!

Today's Resource: Watch Terry's Call on DVD as Bob quickly unravels Terry's red herring claim, that homosexuals are living godly lives. In a series of heart touching phone calls, Terry is lead to the Lord and repentance, shortly before his death from AIDS. (And notice the meaning of all the graphic elements in the artwork on the label of the DVD!)
 
Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Granite said:
What specifically about the report made it a "smear job"?
Click to expand...
Apparently it was typical sleazy liberal editing tactics. You give a one hour interview covering 20 issues, completely embarrassing your opposition but if you are a little bit unclear on just one of those 20 issues, guess which sound bite the objective, neutral, pure-as-the-wind-driven-snow media decides to use?

If I ever headed up some right-wing organization and was asked to be interviewed by any of those sleaze bags my answer would be, "No problem. I'll grant you an interview anytime, anywhere AS LONG AS IT'S LIVE."

But, of course, those sleaze bags would then report that I "refused" to grant them an interview.
 
J

Jukia

New member
Jefferson said:
Apparently it was typical sleazy liberal editing tactics. You give a one hour interview covering 20 issues, completely embarrassing your opposition but if you are a little bit unclear on just one of those 20 issues, guess which sound bite the objective, neutral, pure-as-the-wind-driven-snow media decides to use?

If I ever headed up some right-wing organization and was asked to be interviewed by any of those sleaze bags my answer would be, "No problem. I'll grant you an interview anytime, anywhere AS LONG AS IT'S LIVE."

But, of course, those sleaze bags would then report that I "refused" to grant them an interview.
Click to expand...

Sort of like the Richard Dawkins interview that creationists love to bring up???
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Jefferson said:
Apparently it was typical sleazy liberal editing tactics. You give a one hour interview covering 20 issues, completely embarrassing your opposition but if you are a little bit unclear on just one of those 20 issues, guess which sound bite the objective, neutral, pure-as-the-wind-driven-snow media decides to use?

If I ever headed up some right-wing organization and was asked to be interviewed by any of those sleaze bags my answer would be, "No problem. I'll grant you an interview anytime, anywhere AS LONG AS IT'S LIVE."

But, of course, those sleaze bags would then report that I "refused" to grant them an interview.
Click to expand...

I see. So editing for television is the territory of liberals only...

What about this report constituted anything inaccurate or out of context? Did anyone actually see it?
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Probably because of time constraints, which doesn't strike me as a huge surprise. Are you seriously under the impression that TV journalism offers "unedited" versions of their reporting?

What specifically about their report was inaccurate? And do you seriously expect them not to edit footage for a broadcast? This happens all the time. Maybe you don't like the presentation, but are there inaccuracies?
 
Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Granite said:
Probably because of time constraints, which doesn't strike me as a huge surprise. Are you seriously under the impression that TV journalism offers "unedited" versions of their reporting?
Click to expand...
I'm saying that if a group like Accuracy in Media offered to pay ABC handsomely for the unedited version, ABC would reject the offer for fear of being exposed (again) as the biased news organization they are.

What specifically about their report was inaccurate? And do you seriously expect them not to edit footage for a broadcast? This happens all the time. Maybe you don't like the presentation, but are there inaccuracies?
Click to expand...
That's what the link is for.
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Jefferson said:
I'm saying that if a group like Accuracy in Media offered to pay ABC handsomely for it, ABC would reject the offer for fear of being exposed (again) as the biased news organization they are.

That's what the link is for.
Click to expand...

That's complete speculation on your part, and you know it.

As for the "link," I don't take anything for granted and would need to watch the actual Nightline report to make my mind up. You should probably do the same.

Back to a point you made earlier, I'd rather you guys got live unedited air time. You're your own worst enemies.
 
Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Granite said:
That's complete speculation on your part, and you know it.
Click to expand...
Speculation based on decades of observation. I'd put money on it that my speculation is right.

As for the "link," I don't take anything for granted and would need to watch the actual Nightline report to make my mind up. You should probably do the same.
Click to expand...
You should also listen to the BEL show.

I'd rather you guys got live unedited air time. You're your own worst enemies.
Click to expand...
Your fellow God-haters at Nightline disagree with you. Why else do you think the libs are pushing the fairness doctrine?
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Jefferson said:
Speculation based on decades of observation. I'd put money on it that my speculation is right.

You should also listen to the BEL show.

Your fellow God-haters at Nightline disagree with you. Why else do you think the libs are pushing the fairness doctrine?
Click to expand...

Go ahead and gamble. While I detest the mainstream media (including ABC, since you mention it) I don't think clever manipulation's the exclusive stomping grounds of left wingers. Here's the deal: how about we both get better informed, then compare notes on Monday?

If you're unwilling or unable to point out a single "inaccuracy" (according to Bob, anyway) featured in a report you haven't seen, I'd venture to say there's a bunch of smoke here and no fire. I'm willing to meet you halfway.:cheers:
 
Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Granite said:
Go ahead and gamble. While I detest the mainstream media (including ABC, since you mention it) I don't think clever manipulation's the exclusive stomping grounds of left wingers. Here's the deal: how about we both get better informed, then compare notes on Monday?

If you're unwilling or unable to point out a single "inaccuracy" (according to Bob, anyway) featured in a report you haven't seen, I'd venture to say there's a bunch of smoke here and no fire. I'm willing to meet you halfway.:cheers:
Click to expand...
Do you know where that segment of Nightline can be viewed online?
 
Jefferson

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Granite said:
I see.

Well let me ask you this in the meantime: what if anything in the link constitutes a "hatchet job"?

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaithMatters/Story?id=4467337&page=1
Click to expand...

From the article you linked to:

Out on the museum floor, Jack and Carter stopped the group in front of a window display that contains samples of sandstone that have ripples created by water and fossils of ancient life. Bill Jack asked his group, "How do they date the fossil? By the layer in which they find it. They date the layer by the fossil and the fossil by the layer," he said. "That's circular reasoning."

In the next moment he stepped past and turned his back to a display on radiometric dating, the method by which scientists determine the age of rocks through the rate of decay of their natural radioactivity.

When later asked why he skipped the display, Jack said simply, "We can't cover everything."

The above issue was addressed on Enyart's show in the quote below:

Rusty Carter: We talk about [radiometric dating]. It's pretty short but we have an explanation. And on that particular tour we didn't really spend a lot of time because we were doing kind of an abbreviated version of each exhibit. But Bill did say that they date the rocks with the layer and the layer to the rock and the rock to the layer and he explained that it's a faulty system.

Bob Enyart: Right, and that has to do specifically with using index fossils to date. So what did Nightline do with that information?

Rusty Carter: They made it sound as if we skipped over it, trying to ignore information or facts that might prove evolution or disprove creation.

Bob Enyart: For example, radioactive dating techniques, they said, "If he would have just turned around..." And then they show an exhibit talking about radioactive dating.

Rusty Carter: Right, they made it look as if we skipped over it on purpose and that wasn't the case. We have an answer for each exhibit and each of their claims and good questions to ask.

Bob Enyart: Right, so that is a hatchet job. That's not coming up to you and Bill Jack with Biblically Correct Tours and saying, "Okay, what do you guys say about this issue?" and then reporting your answer.
Click to expand...


Here's another quote from the article:


Her son Shawn said he thinks the world is 10,000 years old, "Because the Bible says that."

How sleazy is that? Go to some kid (who's passion in life is playtime just like any other kid) and try to make it sound like he's brainwashed just because he doesn't think about
archaeology, geology and anthropology during most of his free time. If they were to ask any public school kid of the same age why he thought the earth was millions of years old,
he would have given the same kind of answer - "Because my teachers say that." Sleaze, sleaze, sleaze, hatchet job and more sleaze.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top