MSNBC: An Unprofessional Excuse for the News

The violence that unions perpetrated in Michigan as the state legislature passed its new right-to-work legislation was hailed by lawless Democrats and union supporters alike showing that neither unions nor Democrats are much interested in morality of legality, but the incident also revealed yet another perfect example of how illegitimate MSNBC is as a source for reliable news.

During the union thugs’ protest outside the state capitol in Lansing, union criminals beat up a pro-worker’s rights advocate and destroyed a tent set up by the conservative activist group Americans for Prosperity. Multiple videos show that it was a spontaneous, criminal action by the union members but MSNBC’s coverage tended to run counter to the truth.

On the evening of December 11, Ned Resnikoff took to the cabler’s webpages to “report” on the incident for MSNBC’s The Ed Show. But instead of observing journalistic practice, instead of doing his job as a reporter, Resnikoff outrageously lied through his teeth and claimed that the AFP tent was really torn down by its own people!

Resnikoff posted the mere claims of a biased union member pretending that he knew that the AFP folks had torn down their own tent just to get publicity out of it all.

“Conservative media have been circulating a video which appears to shows union members tearing down a tent owned by the conservative group Americans for Prosperity (AFP)” Resnikoff told Ed Show fans. Then he went on to tell what he was promulgating as the real story.

But one eyewitness tells he thinks there may be more to the story. Thomas Duckworth, a Michigan resident and lifelong union member, said he’d been at the AFP tent earlier in the day, when he noticed a man in an NRA hat. Later, he said, he saw the man deliberately loosening the ropes holding the tent up. Duckworth acknowledged that labor supporters had cheered the tent’s collapse, but suggested that AFP had deliberately helped initiate the it, in order to depict their adversaries as an unruly mob.

Notice what Resnikoffdidn’t do. He didn’t offer any second witness corroboration, like a real journalist would. He doesn’t offer any quotes from anyone actually in the tent — again, like a real journalist would. He didn’t present any proof that the people “loosening” the tent ropes were members of AFP. Worse, he didn’t initially show any of the half dozen videos out there that seem to prove quite the opposite of what this union thug he quotes so positively claims happened. Lastly, Resnikoff offers no actual proof that this union thug was even at the event in question in the first place.

Resinkoff simply presents this union goon’s claims as true without telling Ed Show viewers about all the video proof that tends to make this guy’s fanciful story seem like an obvious lie.

What is clear here is that the union tough that Resnikoff so happily quotes simply didn’t tell the truth and that his job was to go before America and lie to protect his criminal union pals by creating a cover story that is so bad it cannot even stand up to close scrutiny.

But, none of this should surprise anyone where it concerns Ned Resnikoff. Because, despite that he was hired by NBC as a “reporter” for MSNBC’s The Ed SHow, Resnikoff is really nothing but a George Soros lackey from Media Matters, a far left-wing propaganda outfit that helps program the biased coverage of the Old Media establishment.

Ned Resnikoff is not a journalist. He is a Soros-supported, left-wing political activist that has been given a job as a “reporter” by a supposedly serious news outfit.

But, let’s face it. Resnikoff isn’t much different than the rest of NBC or MSNBC’s line up, is he?

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Carl

    Turns out the report that Wizbang and other right wing bloggers promoted was more right wing lying bullshit, courtesy of Fox News.

    And now you’re whining about MSNBC? Priceless….

    Here’s the video Wizbang promoted, supposedly showing the poor widdle Fox News professional liar being attacked (ATTACKED!) by union members.

    But take a closer look. Check out Crowder’s video at :37. You’ll see an edit just as the fight started.

    But that wasn’t the start of the fight. Oh no, no. These are the professional liars at Fox News at work, so what did Crowder NOT want you to see? He didn’t want you to see him throw the first blow and knock a union member down, which is what actually started the fight.

    Check out the unedited raw footage – watch closely at 1:30. You’ll see Crowder throw the first blow and knock a union guy down, who then gets up and starts fighting back at Crowder – and that’s where the video that Wizbang promoted picks up – AFTER Crowder knocks a guy down to start the fight.

    So what will Wizbang do? Will they publish a retraction.

    No way.

    Will they even acknowledge that they got hood winked by the professional liars at Fox?

    No way. Instead they’ll whine about how unfair the MSM is.

    Right wing lying lackies.. You got love them cause they are so damned predictable – and so so easy to prove wrong.

    • Carl, out of fairness, I went to the link that you provided, the one that promotes liberalism. I repeatedly looked at the video that allegedly shows Crowder throwing the first punch.

      Well, the video does not show Crowder throwing a punch. However, it does show that a pro-union protester fell to the ground, got up and then starting throwing punches.

      Quite frankly, the person who recorded the incident was in a bad position to capture everything that happened.

      Is it possible that Crowder did something that resulted in the pro-union protester ending up on the ground? Well, the video does not rule out that possibility.

      Anyway, Crowder’s actions are not the topic of Warner’s post. Warner is talking about the act of violence committed by pro-union protesters, the one in which they tore down a tent. Talking about Crowder is simply an attempt at a red herring, to distract from the fact that pro-union protesters did commit an act of violence.

      • Vagabond661

        I read somewhere that the Union protestor tripped over a tent rope.

        • So obviously someone deliberately tripped him, and – spring-loaded to the pissed off position as he was – when he came up he started looking for someone to beat on.

          They went looking for trouble, and isn’t it surprising that they found it?

    • jim_m

      Yep the union thugs were just innocent victims of right wing aggression just like this hotdog vendor.

      Oh, wait, he was beaten up and his property destroyed by union thugs. No surprise there. In fact it is so typical of union behavior that it hardly warrants being called news.

      • As it turns out, the hot dog vendor is a black American. He says that the people who tore down the tent were the pro-union protesters. He also says that the same pro-union protesters called him racial slurs.

        So, if we were to deny what he says, then wouldn’t that make us racists?

        • jim_m

          We’re conservative. Doesn’t racist just mean conservative these days? I wasn’t aware that the term had any relation to race anymore.

    • Carl….can you honestly say you saw Crowder throw a punch or otherwise knock the guy to the ground in the video link you posted? Be careful in answering…your credibility is on the line.

      • jim_m

        Carl and credibility used in the same paragraph. It think the fabric of space time just tore.

    • 914

      Thew raw ‘unedited’ footage looks just the same as the footage on here 2 days ago.


    • retired.military

      I looked at YOUR video several times full screen. It is unclear how the union guy wound up on the ground. THere is no clear punch thrown as you imply. I looked at the video frame by frame and it just isnt there. In fact at 1:33 which is where the incident starts it is just a blur. Please post a screen shot showing the punch being thrown.
      Also at your link it shows at the 1:58-2:00 mark Crowder having the collar of his jacket grabbed by a protestor as his back is turned and he is walking away. Was this a provoked attack as well?

      • What are the chances he took a dive, to provide an excuse to start swinging?

        • jim_m

          Honestly, do you think that a union thug needs an excuse to take a swing at anyone?

          • Not as such. But if you’re thinking there’s going to be plenty of cameras around, then you might want to ‘trip’ over a rope, come up and shout loudly “Who the hell punched me?!” and THAT covers your ass.

    • retired.military

      Both myself and David asked you several questions and you have failed to respond. I, for one, am interested in your answers and proof of your allegations.

    • puhiawa

      Carl. The full clip, easily available, shows the thug tripping over a rope while he tries to pull down the tent. Crowder is talking to someone to his left. You are a liar and a moron.

  • Commander_Chico

    This is edition #437 of Warner complaining about the First Amendment.

    • Vagabond661

      Surely you are not complaining about WTH’s use of the First Amendment, Chico.

      • Why, yes… yes, he is. It’d be smart of Warner to just STFU so the narrative can proceed without any distractions…

        I lost trust in NPR about 25-30 years back, when I was listening to them report on an issue I knew pretty well and they got some stuff MAJORLY wrong. And this was simple, public domain stuff, easily checked in pretty much any decent library.

        Then there were various other things – like the exploding pickup trucks that needed to be ‘enhanced’ so they’d catch fire and blow on camera. And let’s not talk about Rathergate, and the whole mess about Bush’s ANG time – they couldn’t be bothered to find a single personnel specialist who could explain about the normal procedures for folks in a part-time military. They had a narrative, and they were going to follow it.

        And yet – it’s FOX that’s constantly lying to the public. Does belief in the Democratic party automatically cut out any higher reasoning functions associated with honesty and truth, or simply the ability to be skeptical about what the Democrats spoon-feed you?

        • jim_m

          Does belief in the Democratic party automatically cut out any higher reasoning functions associated with honesty and truth…?

          That was rhetorical right?

          • Just slightly.

            Seriously, though – look at some of the folks who come in here from the left, accusing all and sundry of being stupid because we’re not believing their party line. Look at the AGW proponents and the insistence that the science is settled, look at the political arguments Carl, Chico and Steve Crickmore make.

            Heck, look at Carl’s opening screed on this thread. He’s GOT to believe that the unions are blameless in this matter.

            There’s certainly evidence of belief, of a blind belief that borders on religious monomania – but whenever you confront their beliefs with facts… well, you know what happens. Either they’ll call you a liar for a while and then disappear for a time… or they just disappear without bothering to call you a liar first. And then they pop up later on something else, having forgotten once again that 2+2=4, instead of the number they need it to be.

            I think that’s the big difference between left and right. The left NEVER questions what they know – or at least I’ve never SEEN them do such. The right usually does – and proves the facts of an issue to their satisfaction before forming an opinion. (Like me on AGW. I didn’t just go “Oh, noes! We’s gonna die!” – I looked into the methodology and history, looked at the various research in paleoclimatology and solar cycles (and forcing) – and found Ruddiman’s assertions that AGW DID happen, and it’s kept us from being nuts-deep in the Ice Age that, by all cyclic trends, we should be experiencing at the present time.)

            But on the left? They find a position that appeals – and that’s it. Obama’s good, because he gives out free stuff. Romney’s bad, because he threatens the free stuff. They don’t think any deeper than that, in most cases.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m sorry, Lawson, but I find all this smugness about never questioning what one knows kind of funny, coming from a guy who refused to believe the pre-election polls and gabbled more than once about a Romney “preference cascade.”

            And this is the umpteenth time I’ve seen you congratulate yourself for “looking into” AGW. What, do you think that others could not have also “looked into” AGW and arrived at a different conclusion? Umm, others have, and did.

            Not me, mind you. You’ll not see me take a public stand on this issue. Too much contradictory information.

            BTW, the whole “Obama’s good., because he gives out free stuff, Romney’s bad because he threatens the free stuff” thingie is JimM-like nonsense, delivered in your usual avuncular style so it doesn’t sound as crazy and offensive as he does.

          • Vagabond661

            This would seem to support Lawson assertions:

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, I’ve noticed you love posting that video, I guess because it confirms that “they” are all crazy freeloading moochers.

            This video, in tandem with the story a friend of a friend of yours told about being in the grocery line while one of “them” bought steak with food stamps, is enough to confirm your theories about “them,” isn’t it?

            “They” are all the same, aren’t “they,” Vagabond?

          • Vagabond661

            I am not sure what you are talking about a friend of a friend buying steak. Please provide the link for that to refresh my memory that I posted that because i couldn’t find it. I post the video when people like you try to mock or belittle the notion that Democrats buy votes. Don’t deny it. be proud of it because Republicans do it too.

            By the way, nice try at shutting down opposition with implied racism. I notcie when you and others who post here have no other comeback than to revert back to the racism tag. It doesn’t work with me. I posted that video because it does back up exactly what Lawson was saying. Your poor attempt to direct the discussion to race is a huge spotlight on the inability of you or any other person being able to deflect what this really is. and if you don’t know, it is vote buying. Democrats are the party of free stuff. To deny that is to deny the platform of the DNC.

            If lies and racism are your only comebacks to the lady in the video who clearly voted for Obama because she got a free Obamaphone, It simply means you have no defense or valid argument and Lawson was correct with his assertions.

          • jim_m

            I could make it crazy and offensive for you if you like Bruce. You voted for obama because you want to be a parasite. We get that. You shouldn’t feel bad, you have a lot of company.

          • herddog505

            I don’t think that Brucehenry wants to be a parasite. I class him with a lot of middle- and upper-class libs who are genuinely motivated by altruism: people are poor, hungry, cold, ignorant, etc., and they want to Do Something about it. The only problem is that their chosen tool is government, and it’s damned hard to let go of that tiger’s tail once you’ve first taken hold.

            We’ve seen how this plays out before: a lot of well-meaning (and or much put-upon) Russians and Germans and Chinese made the same decision.

          • jim_m

            I know. Bruce was just indicating that he was not being offended enough so I tried to accommodate him.

          • Brucehenry

            Gud wun

          • jim_m

            I was hoping you would appreciate the snark in the first comment (and the second)

          • Brucehenry

            Oh, I guess I’m a little slow on the uptake this evening. Pardon me.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh, I guess I’m a little slow on the uptake this evening. Pardon me.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah, I got Workman’s Comp for 3 weeks in 1981, and Unemployment for about 6 weeks in 1983-84. I think I collected a grand total of about $800 bucks in all.

            I AM looking forward to collecting the SS and Medicare I’ve contributed into since 1971, though, if the retirement age doesn’t get raised so high I drop dead before I can.

          • It probably will. I’m just waiting for the proposals to cut military reservist pensions, myself. My brother was able to get social security for about three years before he passed away. He was going to wait until he was fully eligible at 66, but started taking it at 62… then died at 65.

            I’m glad he got something back. Hope you will too….

          • Bruce, I’ve thought about my answer to you a few times, started several drafts, discarded them because they really didn’t come across the way I wanted to try to get through to you.. I really feel like you’re one of the more communicative folks here, and respect you for that.

            And that aside, I hope you’ll understand that I’m damn frustrated any more. More and more it seems like I’ve been talking to a fucking wall. I try to say that 2+2=4, and that’s so self-evident that even a 4 year old can manage that, but the argument I get from you (and others) is that it’s not REALLY 4, that the number’s something else, that you don’t WANT it to be 4, and then – after a hell of a long time, you reluctantly admit that it MIGHT be 4.

            I relax, and then later you say it’s actually 15, it’s ALWAYS been 15, there’s no possibility that it can EVER be anything else.

            Fuck. Why do I even bother?

            I hope you understand the above simile. I attempt to simplify things, as part of my ‘avuncular style’ – because there’s only so much space and I’m trying to avoid tl;dr. I use the AGW example because it’s a fucking excellent example of how people – once they make their minds up – will NOT examine the subject again.

            For one of the pieces of evidence that people immediately seized upon that ‘proved’ AGW was the Yamal hockey stick graph that supposedly showed tree ring evidence of incontrovertible global warming. And that’s ALL they needed to see to believe that we’re in danger.

            That the graph has proven to be bogus doesn’t matter. They won’t look at anything BEYOND that. That the data for that graph came from the tree rings of one particularly selected tree doesn’t matter. That other tree ring samples of that area, when averaged, don’t show any anomalous warming doesn’t matter. A SCIENTIST has said there’s warming. Besides – computer models say so. They don’t look any further. the science is settled as far as they’re concerned.

            Only maybe it isn’t. Apparently, now the IPCC is admitting that their science wasn’t accurate.

            IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’


            How many hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted trying to control a problem that didn’t exist in the first place?

            Let’s look at something else – the upcoming fiscal cliff. You know the numbers as well as I do, right? $2 trillion income, $3, $3.5 trillion outlay. Each and every year. $16 trillion national debt – and it’s growing. November we overspent by $172 billion, up from $120 billion in October. Close to $300 billion added to the debt in 2 months. If that rate continues, that’s $1.8 trillion added this next fiscal year. We can’t keep doing this.


            Does the President look at things and go “Hey, we need to bite the bullet here, and cut back on some things.”? No – he blames the ‘rich’ for not ‘paying their fair share’ and wants to spend even more. So we let the tax cuts expire – how much is that going to bring in?

            $2 trillion more a year? $3 trillion?

            I’ve seen estimates of MAYBE $200 billion a year, if the economy was at 2006 levels. (It ain’t – but, hell, any fantasy in a hailstorm, right?)

            2+2= whatever it’s got to be, right? $200 billion a year, that’ll take care of that $1-1.5 tril annual deficit in no time, won’t it?

            Do you understand why I’m frustrated? I’m looking a a fucking train wreck in progress, and people are going “Hey, we WANT the thing to crash because it’ll be FUN!” while I’m arguing “Grab the fucking emergency brake!”

            Like I said – “They don’t think any deeper than that, in most cases.” A whole lot of people don’t know where the money’s coming from. They don’t know the numbers. Why? Because they’re never reported in any media they see. If there was a real problem, it’d be on the evening news. The people they know would talk about it. It’d be in the papers in a simple chart.

            Do they see that? No. What they see is Obama saying all the rich need to do is pay their fair share. That’ll cure the problem, then. Case closed, no need to worry about government overspending.

            So they don’t really care, they just want it to keep coming – and Obama promised that it would – when he made the rich pay their fair share. Romney didn’t promise that everything would be fine.. Am I wrong on that?

            YOU know that the money’s not unlimited. _I_ know that. THEY just don’t much care.

            “but I find all this smugness about never questioning what one knows kind of funny, coming from a guy who refused to believe the pre-election polls and gabbled more than once about a Romney “preference cascade.”

            I’m always questioning, Bruce. Always trying to learn something new.

            And I also said that the only poll that counts is on election day, did I not? Which – again – seems like a case of stating that 2+2=4. I was skeptical of the polls – but I was willing to wait and see and then accept the numbers.

            Do you see me insisting that the voting was bogus? That Romney really won? That Obama stole the election? I think our ass is grass and we’re seeing the lawnmower coming – but that’s as may be.

            The future’s turning into the present. And we’ll have to live with decisions of the past shaping it and the future we’re not going to much like…

          • Brucehenry

            Insisting that Obama won the election because he “promised free stuff” is akin to saying Obama stole the election, IMO. Or, at the very least, it’s an insult to the millions of voters who looked at the issues and decided Obama was the better choice.

            Oh, but I hope the Republicans keep it up. You guys’ll do great as long as you keep calling people losers, moochers, and sluts. And your buddy Vagabond should keep on re-posting the video of the Obamaphone lady. That’s a winner.

            Re: The AGW stuff — do you imagine that the Hockey Stick Graph and some computer models are the only evidence that AGW proponents have? You’re not a climate scientist, just a smart guy who has “looked into” this issue, and you have settled this matter to your satisfaction. Fine. But I suggest that there are lots of other smart guys, amateurs like yourself, who have “looked into” it and come to an opposite conclusion. My snark to you was regarding your smug, self congratulatory tone in bragging that you have Googled all the credible information and that what you have decided is Gospel. In this and several other threads, BTW. That 2+2=4, as it were. It ain’t so simple, as I understand it, or else it WOULD be settled by now. I for one will wait to pronounce on the issue.

            Also, as I understand it, Obama is NOT proposing we “spend even more.” He has proposed cuts as well as tax increases (to Clinton-era levels) on the wealthy. He has proposed increases in specific, stimulatory programs but cuts in others.

            But you lose me in saying that people don’t hear about “the numbers.” Where do you think the term “fiscal cliff” comes from? I’ve heard nothing, seemingly, BUT dire predictions of national bankruptcy yada yada ever since Obama’s first election. (Of course, Republicans had little to say about debt while they were running it up from 1995-2007. Medicare drug benefit and two unfunded wars, remember those?) I think your claims that people who ain’t you are ignorant rubes is kinda arrogant, even if delivered in your folksy manner.

          • Wow.

            I’m so glad you could read what I wrote and understand it as an explanation, instead of having a knee-jerk reaction and seeing it as an attack on yourself and your belief systems, then proceeding to completely twist what I was saying to serve your own preconceptions. I applaud your impartial assessment of what I wrote, and how you took it in the spirit I intended.

            Clap. Clap.

            We’ll have to do this again sometime. Let’s see… in the middle of August, 2019 work for you? Fine. I’ll have my people get in touch with yours then.

          • Brucehenry

            Speaking of not understanding what others write…..

            One, I don’t see any “knee-jerk reaction” from either of us in this dialogue, nor do I see anything that could be construed either as an “attack on [my]self and [my] belief systems,” or as a reaction to same. Two, I don’t see any twisting in my reply.

            My whole point is that you have assumed a self-congratulatory tone on this AGW business on the basis of what you claim is a very extensive “looking-into” on Google, and you’re quick with the linky-linkies to support your point of view. But I AIN’T ARGUING with your point of view, dude. I’m criticizing you for your assumption that YOUR Google quest is definitive, and that other amateurs who have done the same, and come to an opposite conclusion, are weak-minded fools.

            This condescending attitude of yours, that all liberals are benighted fools who have made up their minds no matter the evidence, is what I’m talking about. Sure there are liberals who have done this, just as there are conservatives who won’t listen to other arguments. It’s not just one side or the other who begins an argument with “Well, all I know is…”

            But I agree it’s frustrating when others are winning the political arguments. I was a vocal critic of the Bush push for war in Iraq (and the Democratic acquiescence to same) and I was amazed and shocked that folks weren’t seeing what I was seeing — that this thing was gonna be the worst foreign-policy fuckup since Vietnam. And it was. Does that make me smarter, or a better person, than those who disagreed with me? Nope, it makes me correct, in my opinion, on that one issue.

            And there are those who, despite what I consider incontrovertible evidence, will STILL, today, deny that Iraq was a mistake. You may be among them. But I don’t think you’re stupid if you ARE among them, just mistaken.

            In my reply above, I argued with specific claims you made, such as that Obama “wants to spend even more.” Or that folks haven’t been made aware of the numbers in this whole fiscal-cliff thingie. I don’t see how the reply can be characterized as “twisting your words to fit my preconceptions.” If you feel like it, please explain.

          • I don’t, Bruce – because you won’t pay any real attention to what I said, just as you didn’t to what I posted before. I think you’re filtering it through your preconceptions – and I’m just tired of trying to penetrate them. I say some people vote because of (insert stuff here), and you go “NO THE FUCK WE DON’T! IT’S REASONED, DAMMIT!” – yet the next post – “Sure there are liberals who have done this,”.


            2+2=4. And if I respond saying “Yes, that’s right”, you’ll argue off in another direction. So – why bother? The hell with it. I’m done. It’s too nice a weekend to be spending it arguing in circles.

          • Brucehenry

            If you say so, Lawson.

            May I suggest you took something the wrong way and overreacted here? Do me a favor, wait 48 hours, re-read this conversation, and then see if you still think I wasn’t listening to what you said. What I was doing was ATTEMPTING TO REFUTE what you said. That’s what we do in blog comment sections, isn’t it?

            If I didn’t do that well, that’s one thing. But it’s not being thickheaded,as you suggest. For instance, you say “some people vote for Obama because he gives them free stuff.” (Although you didn’t exactly say that, you said “the left” thinks Obama is good because “he gives out free stuff.”) I say that’s condescending and exactly the kind of thinking that lost you guys the last election. That’s not failing to listen, nor is it all-caps NO THE FUCK WE DON’T. It’s just an attempt at a frank yet civil criticism.

            I fail to see what’s got you so butthurt. Guess I’m just not the sensitive liberal bleeding heart I thought I was.

  • puhiawa

    Two drunks, one on air, and a very disturbed lesbian. Hmmmm.