Oh My... O’Donnell Gets Desperate to Protect the Non-Heckling Story (And Charles Johnson Goes the Full Dan Rather)

This video has to be watched to be believed.  As you have seen yesterday and this morning, the Heslin non-heckling story is proving to be Chirstmas... in January.  Lawrence O’Donnell has resorted to Desperate Liberal Trick #423: redefine ordinary words to fit an agenda.  In this case, he comes up with his own definition of “heckle” to argue that indeed Heslin was heckled.  Witness the dishonesty:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So according to O’Donnell, heckling is “when you shout something stupid from the audience.”

Well, in fact that is not what Webster’s dictionary says on the subject defining the term as “to harass and try to disconcert with questions, challenges, or gibes : badger.”  And if you google the definition, you get this, in relevant part: “Interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse.”  And really, if saying something stupid is heckling, what does O’Donnell do every day for a living?

In the meantime, we get reports that MSNBC is reviewing the newer, slightly fuller version of the video to see if it is unfairly edited.  And indeed, it shows that even the Washington Post is not buying this bull.  In Erik Wemple’s piece, he not only agrees that no hecking occurred, he puts his finger exactly on what is deceptive in the second video they have posted to their website:

MSNBC excerpted a short bite that starts with Heslin saying, “Why anybody in this room…” and ends with the appeal from officialdom to “clear the room.” Accordingly, it skips over Heslin’s initial challenge to the public seated behind him: “I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question…”

Those 18 words of context are crucial to the alleged heckling. They show that Heslin made a pointed attempt to rope in members of the Hartford crowd. His was apparently not an idle or rhetorical question.

Yeah, the only way to improve on that analysis is to point out that the audience didn’t even respond until their silence was held against them.  They maintained their silence as long as anyone could reasonably expect them to, but when Heslin tried to use that silence against them, they spoke up, if only so he couldn’t do that.

As Patterico wrote:

It’s a neat little Catch 22, isn’t it? If you speak out, even if invited to, you’re a jerk, because they are the parents of victims. If you are silent, you agree with them. Either you are for gun control or you’re an insensitive, terrible person. Now there’s a narrative Big Media can love.

Exactly.  And again, to Heslin’s credit, he gets that.  It’s the media that doesn’t.  Or at least they pretend not to.  And for bonus points, Wemple also zings O’Donnell for his newly minted definition of “heckle.”

This journalistic scandal is becoming Rathergate 2.0, only now it is many news outlets, not just one, that is being sucked into its vortex.  And remember it’s not just the initial false report that is a problem, but the stubborn refusal to admit that the initial report was false, that destroys credibility.  Everyone gets stories wrong now and then.  I have.  It’s embarrassing, but you have to admit it when it happens, or else you lose all credibility.

But at the same time, the initial false reports are damning too.  For instance, I can believe that Dan Rather was initially genuinely fooled by the fake documents.  I even suspect that Mapes was, too, although her reporting was shoddy.  But whoever deceptively edited those videos of the non-heckling were actively covering evidence.  That my friends is consciousness of guilt.  So while I can buy the idea that other people repeating the lie were merely lied to, I don’t believe that the people who edited the video or claimed to see it live were honestly wrong.  They were lying.

Speaking of Rathergate, Charles Johnson is screwing over his own credibility on this, too.  A long time ago, Charles Johnson was instrumental in taking down Dan Rather.  He skewered Rather quite correctly for refusing to admit he got the Bush National Guard memo story wrong.  Now we see Johnson republishing this new false story and as the hoax was revealed, he wrote this:

I watched both videos of the hearing, and the accusation that the NBC clip was “deceptively edited” is just more idiotic bullshit from the Daily Caller’s head moron, “Jim Treacher.”

The unedited video has a lot of dead air. Long pauses. They edited it to remove the long pauses. End of story.

The chair specifically admonished the gun nuts to stop interrupting Neil Heslin’s testimony. They were completely out of order, and “heckling” is a good word for it. The excuse that they were just “answering his question” is laughable.

The unedited video does not make these cretins who interrupted his testimony look one bit better.

  

But then again, we have caught Charles Johnson lying about what he himself said and attempting to cover up the evidence, and when he was called on it, trying to get Patrick Frey fired.  So really, you should have stopped believing anything he said a long time ago.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.