Posted on 10/22/2010 4:46:58 AM PDT by JLWORK
Elizabeth Hasselbeck (photo above) says that Muslims did not kill Americans on 9/11. Now, that’s an interesting (and rather Orwellian) statement from the only purported conservative member of The View daytime television show. You remember – the one where co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar got up and walked out on Bill O’Reilly after he said that Muslims killed Americans on 9/11.
I just watched part of the video of the show that aired subsequent to the Big Dust-Up – and had to listen two times to be sure that I heard Elizabeth correctly. But there it was – she said it – Muslims did not kill Americans on 9/11. In all of the hoopla centering around the Whoopster and Joy-o-matic, this one sort of stayed on the sidelines. Does Hannity know about this?
Here’s the link to what Elizabeth had to say (she begins at about 2:50 into the footage) after Whoopi and Joy delivered their walk-out explanations – and below is the transcription I prepared for your review: "I think it’s also – ah, you know, someone asked me this weekend – it was actually a Muslim man who asked me, did you sit or did you stay? And I think that there was, umm, maybe the idea, too, that if y-you know, if Sherri and I or Barbara maybe didn’t get up and leave that we agreed with Bill, and even on his show he seemed to say that I, I thought like he did on this issue.
And later on the show I even went on to say, no, I think that we should just be able to use the word terrorist..."
(Excerpt) Read more at work949.wordpress.com ...
This is like those serving in the hive mentality so they have their lives spared, like out of "Empire of The Ants". These are the people that honestly believe the odds are so monumentally high that Islam will be the predominate culture they will take no chances to offend it. We will NOT allow Islam to cross into America, if we fear it we will speak of it, if we see it gaining too much control we will lessen it. We are our futures forefathers, we must vote and act wisely for their sake.
You’re kidding, right? I heard it was a bunch of Episcopalians.
They are complicit by their silence.
I cannot stand it when those idiot apologists say well we didn’t go after Christians when Tim McVeigh blew up the federal building. There is a huge difference here.
Tim McVeigh may have been a nominal Christian, but that was not the ideology that was driving him and shaped his thinking. The ideology that was driving these 19 terrorists to blow up 3000 people on 9/11 was their twisted view of Islamo Fascism. If people can’t see that, they are delusional...
Nouns such as "Muslims," in this case, can be ambiguous in both spoken and written forms of English, as the implication of "Some" or "All" is unknown by the words alone. Quotation marks or inflections (written and spoken forms, respectively) and context are often used to indicate the noun is to be taken in its inclusive sense ("All Muslims"). Secondly, the conventional assumption is made that the speaker or writer used it properly, if ambiguous. Mr. Work has ignored this....just like the two "ladies" on TV.
Bill O'Reilly spoke of certain Muslims, using the restrictive sense. Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg assumed his use was of the inclusive form, despite the lack of indicative inflection or context. They were wrong, and went with their own prejudiced assumption rather than a presumption of proper usage.
And so does the author here. Elisabeth Hasselbeck (note, he doesn't even get her name right) was transcribed correctly by others, though. For example, Liz Brown used both the quotation marks and the context to illustrate that the claim Mrs. Hasselbeck made was correct. Mr. Work takes it out of context, twisting it.
Yes...she was using it in the sense of "All Muslims"--something obvious from the context. She never said they weren't Muslims.
I thought Crapitano was watching those people!
I know my enemies I know who and what killed my friend on 9/11
She doesn’t want to get “JUANED”. She’s going to be a good little conservative puppie.
You have drawn your inference. Fair enough. You are free to do that. It is a breach of journalistic ethics to insert quotation marks, or to add emphasis within a verbatim transcription. It is also out of line in any Court of Law I was ever in. The words are the words. I quoted her accurately and directly. Watch the footage and you may draw your own conclusions. She said what she said.
Looks that way, huh, Pete?
Best,
JW
Actually, it is a breach of journalistic ethics to remove them--or to state that something was incorrect if it could actually be correct if punctuated differently. And you don't seem to understand the difference betwee emphasis and inflection. Watch it again--Mrs. Hasselbeck emphasized the word "not" in that sentence.
It is also out of line in any Court of Law I was ever in.
Obviously, there's a problem if you can't see the difference between a court reporter and this. And recognize that court reporters constantly make interpretations of this type with every homonym, elliptical noun, adjectival phrase, suspended hypen, noun clause, etc., that might have ambiguity.*
The fact is, many places vary in the style used for court reporting, but even with a court transcript, it's unethical to use a lack of punctuation to make claims beyond the precision of the language.
The words are the words. I quoted her accurately and directly.
And then twisted the meaning by going from words alone, ignoring context and intent of the usage.
Watch the footage and you may draw your own conclusions.
Suggestion...You should provide a good link to it, if you truly want people to watch it. It would be helpful for others. I found it, but why make things difficult?
Obviously, my Friend, I am one to call things as I see them and it's not that I am against criticism of those who are wrong. My problem with this case is that you put your own spin on words and criticized something that wasn't there.
In a similar manner, someone could write a column criticizing you for claiming I don't charge for my services because you wrote (and I quote verbatim): "You are free to do that." ("That" is to draw inferences. And note that you don't restrict it to any topic.)
So we must ask--How dare you advertize my professional services for no charge, jeopardizing my professional license?!? That is wholly unethical and a direct violation of the law in at least one state. You see, despite your claims...I am not free. I charge to provide professional inferences.
Not so fun to be accused based on an intentional misread of words, is it?
Now to her actual point--she kept to the same point as on the original show: Barack Obama's proscription against the word "terrorist" has led to misunderstandings "Muslims" versus "extremists"...and I think your actions support her point.
It's funny to note that during the original incident, Joy Behar criticizes Mr. O'Reilly's inclusive use of "Americans" as being against the GZM, based on the 70% poll. Joy Behar loudly points out that she's an American, insisting that a noun like Americans doesn't mean everyone...yet when Mr. O'Reilly uses a similar noun, she flips out like a banshee.
That's where the focus should be.
*I can't imagine how terribly empty your life must be if you have to complain that when a person says, "The doctor's was closed today so I'll call on Monday." ("Oh, the horror---we can't DARE assume it's an elliptical noun and insert that apostrophe! It MUST be a subject-predicate disagreement!") ;-)
No insult meant, except in jest...I'm merely trying to make the point.
There's no assurance the FBI has tracked all these pukes down and disposed of them like the human garbage they really are.
Anyone know?
The difference is so pronounced you will frequently find synthetic speakers getting all balled up on what word is modified where, and how can you tell somebody doesn't mean ALL MOSLEMS when he says MOSLEM.
Best bet for Americans in making sure their kids don't grow up stupid is make sure they use English first.
The goal of Islam is world domination and not just murder but genocide of all non-Islamic peoples after the world is conquered.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/
Anyone who belongs to that cult and doesn't ACT against the supposed “extremists” is responsible.
As tough as I was on her, I saw a scared woman as she was talking on the video footage. I think you’re right. She doesn’t want to lose her job. But if people don’t start speaking up, we’re going to incrementally lose our freedoms.
Thatnks for reading and commenting.
Best,
John
Hey, Navy,
I don’t know what Elisabeth would be thinking, but I know what I’d be thinking. Thanks for reading and commenting.
John
Hey, Carley.
Forgive me for being behind the curve. I don’t watch much daytime TV. What show did she get?
John
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.