Stephanie Ruhle was working from script!

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2022

Monica Hesse explains: Today, we get the chance to speak well of Monica Hesse—though only up to a point.

In print editions of today's Washington Post, Hesse's new column is easy to find. It was right there in its usual spot, on the front page of Style.

In print, the column is easy to find—but if you read today's Post online, you might not know that the column even exists. We were only able to find it online by searching on Hesse's last name!

So it goes as the Bezos Post becomes more and more strange.  That said, there's nothing strange about the accurate point with which Hesse starts her column today—a column which carries this headline:

What Dr. Oz really said about abortion during debate

That key word, "really," suggests a key fact—a statement by Oz at Tuesday's debate has been widely misrepresented. To her credit, before she possibly goes a bit wrong, Hesse starts out saying this:

HESSE (10/27/22): During Tuesday evening’s senatorial debate between Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz, the latter candidate allegedly said something shocking and enraging about abortion access, which was then allegedly captured in a tweet that got a lot of attention:

“Oz says his abortion position: should be between ‘a woman, her doctor, and local political leaders,’ ” wrote a Democratic opposition researcher.

John Fetterman, who is recovering from a stroke, had been the candidate for whom viewers were on gaffe alert. But to read this tweet—which has been reposted thousands of times—it seemed that Oz, a smooth television personality, had instead won the headline for most alarming statement.

Only, he didn’t say it—not quite, not exactly. I went back and re-watched the clip. 

We'd say that Oz didn't say it at all, but that is a matter of judgment. For now, consider the astonishing journalistic act Hesse describes in that passage:

Hesse is a major journalist. In this instance, she went back and checked the tape to see what Oz actually said! 

As we've told you for several decades, such things simply aren't done! 

Truth! It's very, very, very rare to see a mainstream journalist do what Hesse does at the start of her column. In the face of a pleasing narrative, Monica Hesse actually went back and checked the actual facts!

She then proceeded to so the unthinkable. She described the way other journalists played the fool in the wake of Tuesday's debate.

In Hesse's account, a Democratic opposition researcher quickly produced a bungled account of what Oz had said. But because the bungled account made Oz look especially stupid and bad, the rest of the kids  stampeded off and repeated the bungled account.

According to Hesse, the oppo researcher's bungled account has been reposted thousands of times. As part of that foolishness, the bungled account has also been served to us rubes by multimillionaire "journalists."

Truth up! That's exactly the way our discourse was working back in 1998, when we launched this incomparable site. Twenty-four years later, that's the way the clowning worked in the immediate aftermath of Tuesday night's debate.

Truth up! An oppo researcher produced an account which made Oz sound amazingly stupid. So the horrible children who script our world all began to recite the pleasing account—Stephanie Ruhle and Nicolle Wallace and quite a few others oh my!

In the face of such familiar conduct, it's very rare to see a major journalist do what Hesse has done. Hesse has blown the whistle on the latest act of group stupidity engineered by the corporate multimillionaires who constitute "our favorite reporters and friends."

As she continues her column today, Hesse makes a second important point. She says that what Oz actually said about abortion is actually worse than what he is said to have said. 

We don't completely agree with that, but we agree with Hesse's basic point. Her basic point is this:

For anyone who is pro-choice, what Oz actually said at Tuesday's debate should be seen as quite undesirable.

How stupid was the faux paraphrase our corporate hacks churned out? We've decided to wait another day to show you what Stephanie Ruhle said on her "cable news" program late Tuesday night.

Ruhle was simply working from script, reciting the latest inanity. Our blue tribe keeps accepting this crap from these overpaid hacks while wondering why we can't win.

Tomorrow, we'll take this to the next step. For today, gaze in wonder:

Hesse didn't think that was what Oz said. Breaking every rule in the book, she decided to go back and check!

In print, her column was highly visible. Online, it can't be found.



60 comments:

  1. Somerby has no point to make.

    Someone tweeted Oz as saying "woman...doctor...local leaders". Oh no! 'Cause what he really said was "women...doctors...local leaders"

    Brother, please.

    Now Hesse attempts to suggest that there is a change in "tenor" between the paraphrase and the quote, but there is not.

    Also Hesse puts forth a strawman, saying that Oz did not literally mean an alderman would accompany you to an abortion, but nobody has claimed that is what Oz was saying.

    Oz said he has been in the room with women making difficult medical decisions, and that he does not want the federal government involved in that, but that he does want women, doctors, and local politicians involved in making those decisions.

    So both Somerby and Hesse misconstrue the context with which Oz made that statement.

    The people paraphrasing are actually capturing better what Oz meant, more so than a truncated quote in an article, and more so than Somerby's usual crap defense of right wingers. Oz meant he wants local politicians involved when difficult medical decisions come up between women and doctors. That is, to be frank, a psychotic stance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't worry about it.

      Delete
    2. I wouldn’t worry about whether anon 2:42 is worrying about it, 2:50.

      Delete
    3. I know. Neither am I. Nor am I worried about whether you’re worried.

      Delete
    4. Cool, man. Great convo! Stop by tomorrow to tell another commenter not to worry.

      Delete
    5. Aw. You really were offended. Sorry about that.

      Delete
    6. No, man. Don’t knock yourself. You care enough about the commenters to tell them to chill out. A+

      Delete
    7. Sorry. That was your post and it meant a lot to you. I feel you.

      Delete
    8. Somerby quotes the mistaken tweet but he never tells us what Hesse confirmed Oz to be saying. He tells us Hesse's article is hard to find, then leaves us to go back and listen for ourselves, which not everyone can do.

      Why does Somerby leave out the very info that might allow each of us to decide for ourselves about that tweet? It is as if he only wants us to adopt his opinion, not think for ourselves. I will adopt Ruhle's view before I take Somerby's word for anything.

      Delete
    9. Whoa, 4:25. MY post was 3:41, but not 3:23 or 2:42. Are you 2:50? I’m also 3:34.

      Delete
    10. The omission can feel very perplexing so I see where you're coming from.

      Delete
    11. Are you talking to me, or 4:55?

      Delete
    12. Woman ... life ... freedom.

      Delete
    13. "Why does Somerby leave out the very info that might allow each of us to decide for ourselves about that tweet? It is as if he only wants us to adopt his opinion, not think for ourselves."

      Because he's an asshole, that's why. But hey, you knew that.

      Delete

  2. "Our blue tribe keeps accepting this crap from these overpaid hacks while wondering why we can't win."

    Meh. Your cult can't win simply because it's "under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness", as Tulsi Gabbard put it.

    Accepting "this crap" is all you can do, dear Bob, for as long as you're among the followers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Will Somerby take some time to tell us what he thinks Oz meant, rather then simply copying and pasting what he said and telling what Oz didn’t say?

    Abortion advocates believe that abortion, in some form, should be a right not subject to the whim of state legislatures. Oz believes it should be decided by state legislatures. It’s as simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! And he got lambasted for that -- rightfully so! There's no confusion: the man is a dick.

      Delete
    2. Pro life advocates believe it should be illegal, some advocating for allowing it in limited circumstances and not subject to the whim of state or federal legislators or courts.

      Delete
    3. So, Oz is neither pro life nor pro choice, but rather occupies some murky region in between.

      Delete
  4. "I want women, doctors, local political leaders, letting the democracy that’s always allowed our nation to thrive to put the best ideas forward so states can decide for themselves.”
    Again, as I wrote yesterday, if you were to attempt and parse this, you would come out both confused and, honestly, livid at Oz' sophistry.
    In a nutshell: state legislatures should be making decisions about abortion. Women and doctors, unless they happen to be legislators -- which is a pretty fucking small subset -- have nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whoa, is that sophistry? That people in each state should be able to decide for themselves? Nice.

      Delete
    2. Those state legislators do not include enough women.

      Delete
    3. Occam's razor: women and doctors don't pass legislations; legislators do. Oz' statement in simple terms: legislators should decide whether a woman can have an abortion. But only state legislators, because they are not bureaucracy. Being a fucking weasel that he is, he tried to work in women and doctors into that statement, making it nonsensical.

      Delete
    4. This is a word-salad, dear Ilya.

      All he said is that states (i.e.: not feds) should be enacting abortion laws. Which is, incidentally, a perfectly straightforward, logical, and relatively mainstream point of view.

      Now, if he indeed supported the Graham's proposal, then we'd agree that he might be a bit inconsistent. Although, perhaps it could be justified by the14th amendment or something.

      Delete
    5. Oz is a lunatic.
      And he'll lose the election, because he's not being openly bigoted enough to get GOP voters excited to vote for him.

      Delete
  5. The way Oz was paraphrased, captured his position to a tee. Also, captured his snake oil salesman, weaselly persona to a tee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oz seems to be saying that he would not support a federal ban on abortion, which has been proposed by Republicans like Lindsey Graham. Is he too much of a weasel to clearly state that he opposes such a ban suggested by his esteemed fellow Republicans? It isn’t clear. What is clear is that anti-abortion activists are not satisfied to let this matter rest with states, and so far, the extremist wing is prevailing.

      These are clearly the stakes in this debate, and Somerby himself engages in sophistry by dismissing the entire context of the debate.

      Delete
    2. What Lindsey Graham proposed, dear mh, most definitely was not a "ban on abortion".

      So, you're lying and accusing others of sophistry?

      Delete
    3. I wouldn’t worry about it.

      Delete
    4. What you call the extremist wing is prevailing because the Democrat position is extreme, and voters are deciding to choose a position that rules out almost all abortion over one that permits all or almost all.

      Delete
    5. The Democrat position is to return to the law of the land observed by the Supreme Court for 40 years.

      Delete
    6. Not to debate you, 4:27, but the majority in this country agree with Roe v Wade. Even large numbers of Republicans, such as Mehmet Öz (we think). That is what one might call a consensus view. The use of the word “extreme” isn’t meant to judge, but to point out that those supporting a total ban on abortion are outside the mainstream view, which is, in general, the Democratic one.

      Delete
    7. Oz also seems to be saying that he would not support federal government passing a uniform, Roe-like law making abortion universally legal up to, say 20 weeks.

      Delete
    8. If what Lindsey Graham proposed was a "ban on abortion", then Roe v Wade was also a "ban on abortion", dear mh.

      Delete
    9. What Lindsey Graham proposed, dear mh, most definitely was not a "ban on abortion".
      Graham's proposal most definitely would have curtailed access to abortion in a number of states that do not limit access to abortion at all, leaving it to women and doctors.

      Delete
    10. If what Lindsey Graham proposed was a "ban on abortion", then Roe v Wade was also a "ban on abortion", dear mh..
      Again, not accurate. Roe v. Wade -- or Casey v. Planned Parenhood, to be more accurate -- did not ban abortion after 20wks. It prohibited the states from regulating abortion up to 20wks.

      Delete
    11. Okay, okay. Still, calling Graham's proposal a "ban on abortion" is a clear and undeniable dembot lie.

      Delete
    12. That's true mh, but there have been times during which a majority supported slavery.

      Delete
    13. In the South maybe but not nationwide, especially if you count the opinions of the slaves.

      Delete
    14. Okay, okay. Still, calling Graham's proposal a "ban on abortion" is a clear and undeniable dembot lie.
      No, it's not. Graham's proposal would create a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks. It doesn't preclude the states from having their own laws that ban it altogether. If Graham's proposal would've federally codified the right to abortion up to 15 weeks, then that would quite different.

      Delete
    15. Yes, it is. It's a clear and undeniable dembot lie. And that's a fact. Nothing you can type here will change it.

      Delete
    16. Oof Mao got schooled

      Delete
  6. Please, please, please, Cecelia. Please respond to the Somerby critics…It just proves your superiority to them by cleverly seeming to be compelled to respond to them, particularly with your trolling attempts at derailing the conversation and your ad hominem attacks on them. Normally, your behavior would clearly indicate that you feel victimized by them, but we know* you’re not.

    *sarcastic

    ReplyDelete

  7. What about this boring and totally unimportant stuff, dear Bob:

    "The Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy rejected limits on using nuclear weapons long championed by arms control advocates and in the past by President Joe Biden. [...] In response, the US will “maintain a very high bar for nuclear employment” without ruling out using the weapons in retaliation to a non-nuclear strategic threat to the homeland, US forces abroad or allies."

    Of course criticizing dembot "analysis" of meaningless idiotic debates is so much more important, but perhaps you could, occasionally, inform us of your tribal priests' reaction to this stuff? We would appreciate it. Thanks.

    ...or will Tucker Carlson be the only one talking about it, again?..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vladimir Vladimirovich talks about it, too.

      Delete
  8. More broken promises. Yesterday Somerby said that he would get back to those focus groups today. Instead he is talking about Oz. Today Somerby says he may return to talking about Professor [Jason] Johnson tomorrow. He doesn't even give the man a first name, much less tell anyone what he did to be reviled. Somerby's approach is to slime people first, promise to explain why tomorrow, then never talk about them again, until their next ritual sliming.

    Today Somerby says:

    "Tomorrow, we'll take this to the next step. For today, gaze in wonder:

    Hesse didn't think that was what Oz said. Breaking every rule in the book, she decided to go back and check!"

    Most obviously, Somerby has no idea how often journalists go back and verify quotes. It is a routine part of their work, so I am sure his estimate that this rarely happens is untrue, another slur on the media.

    Then he says that Hesse went back and checked, but Somerby doesn't tell us what she found out. He doesn't cite the true version of Oz's remark, just the supposedly wrong one. Considering that the difference amounts to one letter in a single word, perhaps he was embarrassed to have made such a big deal about it. So he hid the evidence, much as he ignores his obligation to provide facts to support the derogatory remarks he makes here daily about journalist after journalist (usually black or female or academics, or a trifecta).

    This is how propagandists operate, not media critics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob once promised to deliver a post that would set the record straight on the supposedly ethical Mueller. Never happened. Mostly, though, he delivers some version of a proposed smear.

      Delete
    2. Bob's a big teaser.

      Delete
  9. Bob is being as misleading and inaccurate as
    anyone in this matter. It’s not that complicated,
    after FIRST saying that he didn’t want the
    federal government involved with a woman’s
    choice, he included “local political leaders”
    among the people he would like to see
    involved in a woman’s right to choose.
    Dems and the left media jumped on
    this, possibly misrepresenting what he
    ment in his clumsy construction. But
    Bob makes no claim that “local
    politicians” was said, I can only
    assume he said it.
    With Trump, Bob will sometimes
    try to excuse a revolting statement he
    made out front with a buried, small
    disclaimer. He’s playing a similar
    game here. Oz said he wants local
    politicians involved.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Or at least “local political leaders.”

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is for Bob Somerby:

    https://twitter.com/Rainmaker1973/status/1585699229724512267

    ReplyDelete
  12. spinix เกมสล็อต รวมทั้งคาสิโนออนไลน์มาใหม่ มาแรงที่สุด พีจี ที่เก็บค่ายเกมดังต่างๆไว้ตรงนี้ในแอพเดียวครบจบเลยทั้งยังแจกเพชรฟรีสามารถแลกเปลี่ยนเป็นเครดิต ถอนได้อีกด้วย

    ReplyDelete
  13. เครดิตฟรี เพียงสมัครเข้ามาเป็นสมาชิกที่เว็บไซต์ของพวกเราเพียงแค่นั้น pg รับฟรีไปเลยในทันที เอาไปใช้เล่นเกมได้จริง มีสิทธิ ลุ้นเครดิตฟรี ได้อีกทั้งสมาชิกเก่า และก็ สมาชิกใหม่

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ถ้าคุณเป็นคนชอบเล่นเกมออนไลน์ เราขอแนะนำเว็บพนันออนไลน์ UFABET369 เว็บพนันออนไลน์ที่มีเกมให้คุณได้เลือกเล่นมากกว่าหมื่นเกม แต่ละเกมสามารถสร้างรายได้ให้คุณได้มากมหาศาล อาทิเช่น บาคาร่า , สล็อต , รูเล็ต เป็นต้น ทุกเกมที่ให้บริการ เจ้าหน้าที่ของเว็บได้ทดลองเล่นกันก่อนหมดแล้ว การันตีได้เลยว่าคุณจะกลายเป็นมหาเศรษฐีในพริบตา ที่สำคัญเปิดให้บริการ 24 ชั่วโมง คุณสามารถเพลิดเพลินไปกับการเล่นเกมออนไลน์จากเว็บได้ตลอดเวลาที่ต้องการได้เลย

    ReplyDelete
  16. เว็บพนันออนไลน์ที่เหล่านักลงทุนเลือกใช้บริการมากที่สุดในตอนนี้ เราต้องยกให้เว็บพนันออนไลน์ UFABET369 เท่านั้น เพราะเป็นเว็บพนันที่น่าเชื่อถือ ซึ่งเปิดให้บริการมายาวนานกว่า 20 ปีแล้ว จึงเข้าใจเรื่องการพนันเป็นอย่างดี และยังเข้าใจเหล่านักลงทุนในทุก ๆ เรื่อง โดยเฉพาะเรื่องการเงิน เว็บพนัน UFABET369 มีการเงินที่มั่นคง ไม่ว่าคุณจะเล่นได้เท่าไร คุณจะได้รับจากเว็บทันที นอกจากจะมีการเงินมั่นคงแล้ว ยังเปิดให้บริการแบบครบวงจร ที่สำคัญเปิดให้บริการ 24 ชั่วโมง คุณสามารถใช้บริการเว็บได้ตลอดเวลาที่ต้องการได้เลย เรารับประกันได้เลยว่าคุณจะไม่ผิดหวังที่เลือกใช้บริการเว็บพนันของเราอย่างแน่นอน

    ReplyDelete