Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[Uncle Ted]

I watched the longer version and it doesn't make me think he is less racist. What he said was disgusting and racist. He is a John Birch type of racist. I agree though, that the guy is a dipshit.

He is an absolute embarrassment to Mormons. I don't get why some people feel like they have to defend or explain away his words. He thinks black people had better opportunities when they were enslaved and subservient to white people. That is both ignorant and racist. It is silly to try to pin this on the NY Times.

I am asking why didn't the NY Times also report his comments about the Hispanics (or, as Bundy calls them, the "spanish people"). It seems that the NY Times is not reporting all the racist comments that Bundy made which is bad reporting. Of course, there are lots of examples of the NYT doing this kind of sh*t. In this day and age it is easy to fact check for this kind of crap and really makes the news organization look bad and like it is biased.

I think Bundy wasn't trying to be racist (in his mind) but is too stupid to know better. It seems that he actually was trying to say that blacks have less freedom under government welfare than they did as slaves but I don't follow his logic. Later he basically says that hispanics are better family men and citizens than whites. It seems he is being racist against his own kind by implying that white people are less likely to be good family men and/or pay their taxes. I don't know what kind of family man Bundy is but it true that he doesn't pay the government what he owes. So maybe he is right about his own kind.

[SeattleUte]

Is he from Nevada?

You may have missed my point. This was a historic event. The first time I've ever defended Mormonism on this sight. My point was that Mormons don't have a monopoly on racists. It was a rhetorical question.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am asking why didn't the NY Times also report his comments about the Hispanics (or, as Bundy calls them, the "spanish people"). It seems that the NY Times is not reporting all the racist comments that Bundy made which is bad reporting. Of course, there are lots of examples of the NYT doing this kind of sh*t. In this day and age it is easy to fact check for this kind of crap and really makes the news organization look bad and like it is biased.

No, Frank is right. Nitpicking the NYT reporting in this case is a silly red herring.

I think Bundy wasn't trying to be racist (in his mind) but is too stupid to know better. It seems that he actually was trying to say that blacks have less freedom under government welfare than they did as slaves but I don't follow his logic. Later he basically says that hispanics are better family men and citizens than whites. It seems he is being racist against his own kind by implying that white people are less likely to be good family men and/or pay their taxes. I don't know what kind of family man Bundy is but it true that he doesn't pay the government what he owes. So maybe he is right about his own kind.

You don't follow his logic because there is no logic to follow. I have seen lots of people try to downplay his comments by arguing that he was taken out of context since he was making a valid point about the evils of government welfare. That's a load of BS. Furthermore, in addition to his horrific comment about slavery, he was also promoting a stereotype ("Let's talk about the negro...") that blacks are all slackers on welfare*. And did you not read any of his followup comments? Like how people not supporting his comments means that MLK didn't do his job? Let's not quibble over the difference between stupid and racist. Clive is both. In spades.


*Clive Bundy is the last person who ought to be lecturing people about mooching off the government.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

You may have missed my point. This was a historic event. The first time I've ever defended Mormonism on this sight. My point was that Mormons don't have a monopoly on racists. It was a rhetorical question.

I felt the spirit.

[Donuthole]

I felt the spirit.

I started to feel something, but when I got to the misused homophone, I realized what I was experiencing was a stupor of thought.

[Uncle Ted]

No, Frank is right. Nitpicking the NYT reporting in this case is a silly red herring.

So answer the question… Why did the NYT not publish all the racist comments that Bundy made in his little speech? Is the NYT a sub-par news organization and didn't know that Bundy said more because they only got the story secondhand from an edited youtube video? Or is the NYT biased in their reporting?

Here is an example of an edited youtube video of Bundy's remarks… compare the two:

I am simply pointing out that Bundy said more than what the NYT reported and the NYT is doing a shitty job reporting the news (again).

You don't follow his logic because there is no logic to follow. I have seen lots of people try to downplay his comments by arguing that he was taken out of context since he was making a valid point about the evils of government welfare. That's a load of BS. Furthermore, in addition to his horrific comment about slavery, he was also promoting a stereotype ("Let's talk about the negro...") that blacks are all slackers on welfare*. And did you not read any of his followup comments? Like how people not supporting his comments means that MLK didn't do his job? Let's not quibble over the difference between stupid and racist. Clive is both. In spades.


*Clive Bundy is the last person who ought to be lecturing people about mooching off the government.

I am not saying Clive Bundy isn't racist. It seems Bundy was raised that way and is too damn stupid to know better. It seems that Harry Reid was also promoting a stereotype when he said that Obama was a "light-skinned" black "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." So if Obama's skin was darker Harry Reid would expect him to have a Negro dialect? I guess the good people of Nevada have no problem with people promoting that kind of stereotype given the fact that Harry Reid was re-elected. So maybe the people that voted for Harry Reid are racist or stupid or both and he represents them well.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I started to feel something, but when I got to the misused homophone, I realized what I was experiencing was a stupor of thought.

I want you to know that I don't think any less of homophones, I know we are drawing battle lines here and I except all phones.

[byu71]

Let's not quibble over the difference between stupid and racist. Clive is both. In spades.


*Clive Bundy is the last person who ought to be lecturing people about mooching off the government.

You hit the nail on the head. Most Americans are too dumb to hear the full context and come to the proper conclusion.

The chance some may consider the guy a ignorant, insensitive dufe who makes racists statements, but not deem him a blatant racist is unacceptable.

[Donuthole]

So answer the question… Why did the NYT not publish all the racist comments that Bundy made in his little speech? Is the NYT a sub-par news organization and didn't know that Bundy said more because they only got the story secondhand from an edited youtube video? Or is the NYT biased in their reporting?

Here is an example of an edited youtube video of Bundy's remarks… compare the two:

I am simply pointing out that Bundy said more than what the NYT reported and the NYT is doing a shitty job reporting the news (again).

Obtuse much? Quality news reporting does not mean reporting every comment made. It is only shitty reporting if the omitted comments change the tenor or sentiment of the reported comments.

Here, reporting that Bundy also thinks "Spanish people" are hard workers does not change the sentiment or outrageousness of his comments on blacks.

But then, you knew that.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Obtuse much? Quality news reporting does not mean reporting every comment made. It is only shitty reporting if the omitted comments change the tenor or sentiment of the reported comments.

Here, reporting that Bundy also thinks "Spanish people" are hard workers does not change the sentiment or outrageousness of his comments on blacks.

But then, you knew that.

Well said.

[Uncle Ted]

Obtuse much? Quality news reporting does not mean reporting every comment made. It is only shitty reporting if the omitted comments change the tenor or sentiment of the reported comments.

Here, reporting that Bundy also thinks "Spanish people" are hard workers does not change the sentiment or outrageousness of his comments on blacks.

But then, you knew that.

So you are an expert in journalism?

My experts say that quality news reporting does mean to include ALL the comments that are relevant. My wife was in in the broadcast news business for 15+ years and actually pointed out this problem with the NYT news article. Ben Swann who spent nearly the same amount of time as a journalist has also mentioned this in his blog as well…

Truth in Media: Cliven Bundy’s “Racist” Remarks Were Also Promoting Hispanic Culture? What MSM Isn’t Telling You


The goal of the Truth in Media project is simple. We strive to speak honestly about issues, giving a full picture of whatever story we are covering. It is an increasingly difficult thing to do in this age of media manipulation.


Has the media given a truthful representation of Cliven Bundy’s so called “racist” remarks run by the New York Times and promoted by Media Matters? The answer is simple. No. On just about any website or broadcast running the remarks, they have limited the excerpts to comments about “the Negro” and “picking cotton”. Here is they way Huffington Post released the comments:




As media are blasting Bundy for the remarks and politicians are running away from Bundy as quickly as they can, the full context of what CLiven Bundy said has not been reported on. Here is the full 3:19 of his statement. It is worth listening to the comments about Hispanics which were conveniently removed from the videos being played by mainstream media.


Why were the comments about “Spanish” people not included in media coverage? The answer is simple. What Cliven Bundy says there does not fit the narrative of a racist. In fact, some people would call him a “liberal” when he says that even if illegal immigrants have “violated our Constitution, they are here and they are people”, when he says Hispanics “have a stronger family structure than many of us white people” and when he says “don’t tell me they don’t work and they don’t pay taxes.” Those comments, would strike many “conservatives” as being “too sympathetic” toward Hispanic immigrants. More importantly, it forces Bundy out of the neatly organized media box of being a racist. Therefore, no need to discuss, no need to include.


To be clear, his article in no way advocates on behalf of Bundy or statements which at best were inarticulate. Cliven Bundy poorly chose his words when he referred to “learning how to pick cotton”, but what we feel is the job of responsible media is to play the full context of his words and allow listeners or viewers to make up their own minds.


One other issue which is important here. Even if Cliven Bundy is a raging racist (which he does not appear to be given the full context of his statement) that has nothing to do with whether or not federal agents can steal his cattle, destroy his property and continue to rob him of his livelihood. It has nothing to do with whether or not the feds are engaged in a war with ranchers that has led to dozens of ranches shutting down across the west.

http://benswann.com/truth-in-media-c...#ixzz307f530Gl

So my experts agree that the NYT's/Huff Post articles were shitty news reporting. Please present your experts and their opinions in your rebuttal.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ted, stop it. You are killing me.

First you tell us how the NYT is not balanced and then in the same post you link to an anti-Harry Reid rant that is so biased it would make Dabrockster blush. Then to double down, you post a link to a Truth in Media article where, by golly, they prove that the MSM/NYT is not giving us the whole scoop on Brother Clive. We need higher standards of journalism!

Here are a couple more articles by the good folks at Truth in Media. This one informs us that the MSM has been misleading us about vaccines and autism and Jenny McCarthy was right all along:

http://benswann.com/truth-in-media-v...rt-and-autism/

This one gives a bullhorn to that nutjob Sherrif Mack from Arizona. This is the same guy with the plan to put the women on the front line when the shooting starts:

http://benswann.com/video-sheriff-ma...d-of-yourself/

Here is another that informs us that 9/11 was an inside job after all:

http://benswann.com/reality-check-mo...ethinking-911/

Truth in media? That's funny.

[TripletDaddy]

lol @ uncle ted's experts

[Uncle Ted]

Ted, stop it. You are killing me.

First you tell us how the NYT is not balanced and then in the same post you link to an anti-Harry Reid rant that is so biased it would make Dabrockster blush. Then to double down, you post a link to a Truth in Media article where, by golly, they prove that the MSM/NYT is not giving us the whole scoop on Brother Clive. We need higher standards of journalism!

Oh, come on JL. I was only posting the source of the Harry Reid quote showing that he also promotes racist stereotypes. Are you saying that Harry Reid didn't say that? Do the google search yourself. (To save you the time here is a NYT article with the quote: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A9669D8B63 ) Bundy is an idiot and only represents the dumbass rednecks that have joined his lost cause. In addition, Bundy seems so fucking stupid that I don't know if he even knows that he is a racist SoB. Reid, on the other hand, represents the good people of Nevada (at least those that elected him). So what is Reid's excuse? Is Reid so stupid that he doesn't even know that he is also a racist SoB? (Apparently not, or maybe he has some smart aids, given that he did quickly apologize for the comments he made about Obama but maybe shows there is a double standard among liberals.)

Here are a couple more articles by the good folks at Truth in Media. This one informs us that the MSM has been misleading us about vaccines and autism and Jenny McCarthy was right all along:

http://benswann.com/truth-in-media-v...rt-and-autism/

This one gives a bullhorn to that nutjob Sherrif Mack from Arizona. This is the same guy with the plan to put the women on the front line when the shooting starts:

http://benswann.com/video-sheriff-ma...d-of-yourself/

Here is another that informs us that 9/11 was an inside job after all:

http://benswann.com/reality-check-mo...ethinking-911/

Truth in media? That's funny.

Did Ben Swann report his opinion in any of these stories? (I didn't watch any of them and assume it was Ben Swan reporting.) It seems he may just be pointing out there is another opinion that should have been reported with the original stories. Good reporting should have presented both sides of the argument.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh, come on JL. I was only posting the source of the Harry Reid quote showing that he also promotes racist stereotypes. Are you saying that Harry Reid didn't say that? Do the google search yourself. (To save you the time here is a NYT article with the quote: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A9669D8B63 ) Bundy is an idiot and only represents the dumbass rednecks that have joined his lost cause. In addition, Bundy seems so fucking stupid that I don't know if he even knows that he is a racist SoB. Reid, on the other hand, represents the good people of Nevada (at least those that elected him). So what is Reid's excuse? Is Reid so stupid that he doesn't even know that he is also a racist SoB? (Apparently not, or maybe he has some smart aids, given that he did quickly apologize for the comments he made about Obama but maybe shows there is a double standard among liberals.)

Yes, but the topic du jour (as a result of your hijack) is balance in reporting. The article you linked is completely biased. Why is that a good source and the NYT is not?

And why do you keep bringing up Harry Reid when we are discussing the Clive Bundy affair? Seems to be a classic case of the tu quoque logical fallacy.

Did Ben Swann report his opinion in any of these stories? (I didn't watch any of them and assume it was Ben Swan reporting.) It seems he may just be pointing out there is another opinion that should have been reported with the original stories. Good reporting should have presented both sides of the argument.

You should read the articles. I am guessing you would stop holding up Truth in Media as an authority on journalistic excellence. Here is a gem from Ben Swann regarding autism and vaccine:

Parents point out that while number and use of vaccines is skyrocketing, the number of autism cases is skyrocketing as well. But remember, correlation does not equal causation. Agencies like HHS will say that doctors and medical professionals are just better at recognizing autism than they used to be and that may be true. But as one parent told me, while public statements have been made that there is no research supporting the assertion that vaccines can cause autism, families point to dozens of studies that do find a link between vaccines and autism that public health officials do not share with the public. And that families would like to present in a civil court, before a jury, which believe is their right under the Constitution.

One parent told him so! Tough to argue with that.