Breitbart.com manages to top what I thought was its untoppable surrealism

This keeps getting better.

Having assailed the NYT's Maggie Haberman for reporting Trumpian reality, Breitbart.com is now calling on Reince Priebus to cancel CNN's GOP debate, scheduled for December 15. The "left-wing cable news network," bellows Breitbart's John Nolte in nearly unequaled indignation, "has been caught red-handed selectively editing Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s comments about a 'Muslim registry,' and doing so in order to make it sound as though he is agreeing to this registry. He is not."

He isn't? He didn't? Nolte provides a transcript to prove his case, which is that the "left-wing liars at CNN" — prose note to Nolte: "left-wing lizards" would have delivered more alliterative punch — "have intentionally edited the video to make it look as though Trump said 'absolutely' to a Muslim registry. What CNN edited out is in bold:"

Reporter: Should there be a database system that tracks Muslims who are in this country?

Trump: There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems, and today you can do it. But right now we need to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening to this country happen any longer.

Reporter: Is that something your White House would like to implement?

Donald Trump: I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.

Concludes Nolte: "Trump’s 'absolutely' is clearly in reference to strengthening the border." True, Mr. Nolte, except that it clearly is not. The reporter didn't ask about "a lot of systems" or the "border" or a "wall." What reporter would ask Trump about "strengthening the border"? Who doesn't already know his position on such? No, the reporter specifically asked about a "database system that tracks Muslims." The reporter's follow-up question, then, rather logically followed up to the question he had asked — which is why CNN cut the irrelevance of Trump's digression.

Breitbart's John Nolte then urges us to "Look at the whole transcript" — meaning the portion that Nolte provides. Up to this allowed point, let's give Trump a kind of dubious benefit of the doubt. Let's agree with Nolte that Trump is uncomprehending when it comes to answering questions put to him in a logical order. If that were true, then CNN, in its editing, would have indeed violated journalistic ethics.

But let us go further by following Nolte's advice to "look at the whole transcript" — meaning, the whole transcript. For it is here we see that it's the right-wing reptiles at Breitbart.com who are doing some intentional editing. Because the reporter goes on to ask: "How do you actually get them [Muslims] registered into a database?" Responds Trump, directly: "It would be, just, good management." The reporter pursues his questioning: "Do you go to mosques to sign these people up?" Trump's reply is again direct: "Different places, you sign 'em up at different places."

My dear Mr. Nolte, would you please explain how Trump's two explicit, straightforward answers in relation to Muslim databases were in reference to anything but Muslim databases? Could you also explain, in your righteously indignant way, how your truncating the transcript was journalistically ethical? Yet CNN's editing was not? CNN did not "make it sound as though" he agreed to a registry. He did agree to a registry. And if you don't believe my transcript, here's his agreement, on video:

 

 

Comments

[Bob]

Duce Trump would already like to overthrow capitalism in favor of a bundle of plutocrats. There's nothing unexpected about him wanting to scapegoat an ethnicity to rile up his followers. At this point he's only a clown, but if he manages a huge march on Washington the way Mussolini did on Rome I'll be thinking about finding another country to live in.

[Peter G]

When even Breitbart's people fear Trump has said something over the top it is significant. But probably not the way rational people would perceive the significance. Does Breitbart believe Trump's remarks and stated policy will harm his support on the right? Nope. If anything it will solidify his core support. The fear is palpable on the right. Trump does not know how to dog whistle. Everybody can hear him loud and clear. I cannot imagine who they hope to convince that Trump did not say what he said. Certainly it cannot be many on the right. Do they imagine they will convince us?

[Neon Vincent]

Breitbart.com knows all about selectively editing video to make a political adversary look bad, so I'm not surprised the site's writers are projecting that all over people they don't like. My experience has shown that projection is the Right's favorite defense mechanism.
http://crazyeddiethemotie.blogspot.com/2012/08/projection-is-rights-favorite-defense.html

[Bob]

Your psychologist wife would also probably tell you that one reason projection works so well to propagandize conservatives is that they're more often authoritarians who need closure, a trait that’s linked to biased reasoning and belief affirmation. They're prone to believe arguments that the bad characteristics inherent to an argument are those of their opponents. This fits with the interesting DARVO theory. Conservatives are also more likely to assume other people think the way they do to avoid complexity.

[Neon Vincent]

That's exactly what she says. Also, thanks for actually reading the entry at the link before commenting!