Reason 16,988 as to why The Most Trusted Name In News is just the opposite:
What CNN’s Costello does in that clip is a media trick I call “Matter-Of-Facting.”
First off, Costello should not be presenting her misguided opinion as fact. Whether or not the Romney campaign is taking Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment out-of-context is, at best, debatable.
Not for a second do I think Obama’s being taken out of context. I’ve been over all of this before, but let me briefly hit it again.
In context, in FULL context, Obama’s “you didn’t build that” was the least offensive thing he said that day in Roanoke: [emphasis added]
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
That’s the text of the paragraph just before “you didn’t build that” — in which we find the President openly mocking those egomaniacal successes who dare think they worked hard and are so gosh-darned smart.
A little later the president says: [emphasis added]
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
What is the “that” Obama refers to when he says “you didn’t build that”?
Taken in FULL context, I have no question he’s referring to “business.”
After all, “that” is singular. Roads and bridges are plural.
Had Obama said “all that” or “those,” he would’ve clearly meant roads and bridges. But “that” is most certainly the singular “business” Obama refers to just four little words earlier.
So, like I said, it’s debatable.
But Carol Costello and The Most Trusted Name In News are obviously done debating and have moved into full-on rescue mode for Obama. And this is where the “Matter-Of-Facting” I referred to earlier comes into play.
You see, Obama’s in trouble over this comment, and the media questioning whether or not the comment is being taken out of context didn’t work to save him. So now the media moves into the next phase of the bailing out of Their Precious One by stating declaratively, as though the matter is settled and not at all controversial, that Romney is taking Obama out of context.
Using a matter-of-fact approach to most anything helps to sell it. When you hear something presented in this way, the matter-of-factness says the matter is no longer controversial and just the way it is. It’s a psychological ploy to not only fool those who aren’t news junkies, but also to shut down debate.
If you don’t believe me about “Matter-Of-Facting,” here are some examples:
Carol Costello shills for Obama.
CNN has no integrity.
Carol Costello is smug and sanctimonious.
I’m telling you, it works.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC