Filed under: Government Spending, Protest, Staging, Taxes | Tags: jane hamsher, tea parties, tea party
The folks who are organizing Wednesday’s Tea Party in Houston have come up with a good idea: refer as “Tea Party Truthers” to the paranoid conspiracy theorists who claim that the Taxpayer Tea Parties are funded by sinister corporate interests or the Fox News Channel.
Truth is, many of them probably are the same folks who think that 9/11 was an inside job, so it seems like a fitting label.
As I pointed out right after the Feb. 27 Tea Parties, I’ve been working in politics professionally for 15 years, and I can attest that this is undoubtedly an organic grassroots movement unlike anything else I’ve ever seen on the Right. Yes, national grassroots organizations and some media outlets are now jumping on the bandwagon and heavily promoting their activities in conjunction with these events, but that’s a far cry from them “financing” them.
For some reason, too many on the Left don’t understand (or care) that when they spout this garbage that’s so obviously not true, they completely undermine any credibility they might have when they actually have valid points to make.
UPDATE 4:55 p.m. EDT: Glenn Reynolds has an excellent op-ed about the true grassroots nature of the Taxpayer Tea Parties in today’s NY Post.
4 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Hello,
Watched your YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR8l0YET668) where you provide audio/video documentation of something Jane Hamsher says. So there’s no disputing what she said.
Then you attempt to interview her with a question about something _else_ that she apparently said.
I don’t consider it overly cynical for me to wonder why you didn’t include documentary evidence that the words you report her as using are indeed the words she used. It just seem curious that in your editing, you take the time to quote “financed by Fox News” but you choose _not_ to include video of her using those words.
Of course there can be no dispute that Fox News is promoting the events. And one could make an argument that such promotion represents some sort of “in kind” donation or financing. But before that discussion can be had, could you at least back up your reporting with something more then video of a totally different comment?
Comment by David Lawrence April 13, 2009 @ 6:20 pmFair question. Unfortunately, I didn’t get the “financed by Fox News Channel” quote on video, which is why I didn’t include it in the YouTube clip. I was tinkering with my camera when she started talking about the Tea Parties and the first thing she said was that they were “financed by the Fox News Channel.” By the time I got my camera powered back up, she was on to the clip I included in the video. I wish I’d gotten the FNC quote on video, but she obviously didn’t deny saying it when I asked her about it, and she in fact has attempted to reiterate the claim on her own blog, so I don’t think whether or not she said it is in doubt. To my knowledge, neither she nor anybody else who was there has denied she said it. There were other video cameras on the scene, so the footage exists – I just haven’t seen it posted anywhere.
Comment by frankstrategies April 13, 2009 @ 6:33 pmI didn’t get the “financed by Fox News Channel” quote on video, which is why I didn’t include it in the YouTube clip. I was tinkering with my camera when she started talking about the Tea Parties and the first thing she said was that they were “financed by the Fox News Channel.”
So to be clear, when she made the comment in question, your attention was divided between her words and the workings of your video system.
Generally, in the absence of real-time recordings, journalists will make the effort to listen carefully and take notes _contemporaneously_ before quoting. Since you weren’t taking notes, and she didn’t have your full attention, is it fair to say that your representation of her words as being verbatim might be unfair?
she obviously didn’t deny saying it when I asked her about it,
Now this is beneath you. She made no comment in response to your attempted questioning. She didn’t consider what you asked, and as such her lack of a denial means nothing at all.
she in fact has attempted to reiterate the claim on her own blog, so I don’t think whether or not she said it is in doubt.
As a reader who is attempting to stay accurately informed, I am in doubt. Searching with Google I was unable to find any reference to Jane Hamsher claiming that Fox News is financing the tea party events.
Here’s how she characterizes the tea party organization in a recent post:
“… free PR from Fox News and well-funded GOP fat cats providing a national infrastructure”
http://firedoglake.com/2009/04/13/corporate-lobyists-raising-money-for-tea-parties/
To my knowledge, neither she nor anybody else who was there has denied she said it.
Why on earth would she? Must she (or anyone) deny everything that someone on the internet writes?
There were other video cameras on the scene, so the footage exists – I just haven’t seen it posted anywhere
I look forward to a link to some, if just to put my cynicism in its place.
Oh, and a funny thing I came upon while looking on Firedog Lake, a comment to the post I reference above:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/04/13/corporate-lobyists-raising-money-for-tea-parties/#comment-1878829
The writer states:
> I saw a video where your ‘queen’ accused Fox of financially supporting
> the Tax Day Tea Party protests. It’s funny that when she was asked to cite
> her source, she made some lame excuse about being ‘busy’ and would return
> to answer the question which, of course she didn’t.
This certainly suggests that the commenter is speaking of your video, where we have established that Ms. Hamsher did _not_ (on the video) make such an accusation. Does it concern you that this citizen believes the video includes information that is not in fact present?
Comment by David Lawrence April 13, 2009 @ 7:08 pmFine. Continue to have doubts. I was there and I’m telling you she said it. And in the 48 hours since the video was posted, she hasn’t denied that she said it.
Of course, I also don’t have personal video evidence of the moon landing, the death of Elvis or 9/11, so I suppose you’ll just have to continue to have doubts about those, too. Have fun in conspiracy land, my friend.
Comment by frankstrategies April 13, 2009 @ 7:20 pm