When gentility breeds inaccuracy

So, the news story is: a hot mic recorded Jesse Jackson saying something bad about Obama. Now, of course, the New York Times, being a "family newspaper", will not actually just print what he said (notwithstanding the fact that anyone can find out what he said via simple Google search), so instead the Times beats around the bush:

Mr. Jackson’s words, which included a vulgar reference, were recorded by a live microphone on Sunday.

And:

The comments, which came when Mr. Jackson thought he was speaking privately, were brought to light on Wednesday when Bill O’Reilly, the host of “The O’Reilly Factor,” announced his intention to play the exchange. At least one of the words had to be blocked out.

Frustrating, right? The reader is left with a burning question at the end of the article: just what the hell did Jesse Jackson say? Just spit it out already! And the information is not trivial: just exactly what vulgarity was used sheds a lot of light on what Jackson's real opinions are, as well as how offended Obama and his supporters ought to be. And from all the circumlocution, you get the idea that what Jackson said was the worst of the worst. But of course, we don't want to poison the mind of avid New York Times reader L'il Timmy--L'il Timmy who, if he is above the age of 6, knows full well how to find Jackson's comments--and worse--using a new-fangled invention called "the internets". And so the vital information remains obscured.

My question to these Times editors is: just whose sensibilities are you protecting by not just printing the damn quote? My guess: a whole lot of ninnies who take pointless umbrage at any kind of break with tradition, no matter how much sense it makes.

Less squeamish sources, such as Fox News (whose own Bill O'Reilly broke the story), have the whole thing:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized Wednesday for saying Barack Obama is “talking down to black people” during what Jackson thought was a private conversation before a FOX News interview Sunday.

Jackson was speaking to a guest at the time about Obama’s speeches in black churches and his support for faith-based charities. Jackson added before going live, “I want to cut his nuts off.”

Now, Times, was that really so bad?

Epilogue: Is it just me, or is that a weirdly intense thing to say? It'd be like if I said, "Man, that roommate of mine got chunky peanut butter again--I'M GONNA CUT HIS NUTS OFF!!!" I mean, I just don't see how Obama's run-of-the-mill pandering could give rise to such visceral imagery. And if you look at the guy Jackson's talking to, that guy is, to his credit, clearly weirded out as well.

Fox News and Photoshop

Apparently, Fox News displayed Photoshopped images of some reporters it doesn't like without informing the audience that they were altered. This is, I think, not only hilarious, but positively weird. You'll agree when you see the photos.

"We've actually read the complete sound bite"

Fox News reporter Chris Wallace looks like an adult amongst children in this clip, where he criticizes the smiley-faced pundits of Fox and Friends for willfully misinterpreting recent comments made by Obama on race:



I especially like the blond guy's whining about how he read the whole sound bite. What does he want, a cookie? How about reacting to whole interviews instead of sound bites, so that you can say something interesting instead of being an unthinking wall in the Fox echo chamber?

I was surprised at just how scandalized the Fox and Friends gang looked as "one of their own" dared to take them to task on live television (the quick triple reaction shot of the gang at 0:25 is priceless). Their reaction also seemed very unprofessional to me--from the one pundit's passive-aggressive thanking of Chris Wallace for raising the objection on the air instead of via private email, to their childish pouting at the end of the interview and repeated compliment-baiting (does this mean you--*sniff*--don't like us anymore, Mr. Wallace?).

Ugh. Get better pundits, Fox--these people are clearly ninnies, and they're not doing the conservative cause any good.