Sifty! YOU LAZY MACHINE! *findthumb!

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by K0MMIE.

the amount of crap spewed by that liberal freak is absolutely unbelievable

upvote for her sidestepping of every direct question she was asked-- she's well schooled in the art of America bashing and evading the truth

I'm really not a fan of Fox in any way shape or form and I've read a number of Naomi's books, but I don't think this is a good example of Fox being dicks.

To me, she simply avoided the question and he was trying to get her back on track. He went off a bit at about the half way mark, but she was not answering the question. The end was clearly a shambles

This guy and Fox are clearly a nobs for many reasons, but I don't know if this is the best example.

Buzz, Kasish was clearly trying to keep her confined to a single point namely the secret prisons as I'm sure he felt he had at least some kind of arguments or facts he could brandish against her, then tie it in with his all encompassing point that she's gone way too far, which going by that one point they'd managed to cover would be ludicrous to proclaim. But, eh I thought that was relatively obvious.

Kasich - "I'm listening to you right now, I don't need to read much more!"

*second of utter hilarity*

Naomi - "but"
Naomi - "you need to listen to ..."
Kasich - "AND THAT'S ALL WE GOT TIME FOR"
*annoying disco music starts playing*

i watched her talk and it seems obvious that she's just repeating other people's points, they're right but she's just a pleb when it comes to knowing what's really going on. she's obsessed with her 10 points thingy, helps to sell her book i guess... anyway, i'm more on her side anyway but i just wanted to point that out.
it's funny how Fox keeps getting these people on that have the opposite viewpoint to theirs. i guess it's only when they feel they're going to be able to stump them or talk over them.

She had a tough job, I thought she did well. It was obvious the questions were just filler for the pre-thought out tirade of right-wing denial and excuses.

The reason she keeps on about '10 signs of a failing democracy' is because she has to make her point short and concise. Its just a convenient way to express herself quickly in a hostile environment.

I think she did a great job keeping her cool her cool with that guy.

Also Hannah Arendt has some relevant writing about this kind of thing.

At least FOX could spell her last name right.

he asks her the question, redirects her several times so she can't give background information then ups the volume - he's trying to seem more passionate and confident. She keeps trying to use facts and numbers and every time she begins to cite them, he interrupts and redirects her back to more questioning of the same thing while upping the volume.
His wrap-up was insulting "you didn't really answer..." when he never LET her answer fully because doing so would be -what? taxing to the brain? require actual knowledge rather than spewing the usual?

Her ability to remain calm while he yelled at her was so gender-typical: he looks confident and impassioned while she looks weak and stuttering. But if she had yelled back then everyone could say she's a shrieking harridan. Typical: don't use the same attitude and demeanor as your "opponant" and be sure to twist anything good away from them and back to the stuttering point.

Blech.

He's following the SAME right wing SH*T that Fox loves to let spill forth out of their mouths. 'These people don't abide by the same rules as everyone else'... and therefore suggest that we can do anything we want to them because they are somehow sub human. Naomi is trying to make the point that perhaps we should instead be demonstrating REAL compassion and a REAL justice system and actually trying people on evidence, not torturing them to get false confessions.

And my GOD! "In the Gulag they beat you up, tortured you and starved you".... um, like in American war prisons? Come on, that's EXACTLY the issue that the world has with these places, that IS going on.

It's a shame that all she did was repeat opinions and was unable to answer even one of his questions directly. She just ducked like a scared boxer.

The book is about those 10 steps and how the administration has taken each and every one. It's not about how she'd do things better. So asking her how she'd do things better was really just to keep her from talking about what she was there to talk about. She really should have just said she wasn't there to offer a better solution instead of ignoring the question for the entire interview.

Aaah smibbo, now you're getting on to something completely different: Concision.

The idea is that in order to conform to commercial platforms (i.e. breaks and ads) the only thing you can get across in a short period of time is something that the audience is already familiar with. For example, it's a much easier thing for people to understand for me to say for example, Osama bin Laden is a baddie. If I were to say, "Well actually Osama is really just a man fighting for his country to blah blah blah" then the audience is gonna go "wtf???" and then I will need to explain my new, radical point of view, which takes time...

If you are trying to get across a new idea, there is simply not enough time to explain it to the audience and so the news networks will only get peopl on that they know can be concise and not say anything that has not been heard and explained to their audience a 1000 times...

P.S. The Osama example is just that. Don't want to get flamed...

From a Scottish point of view, America seems so polarised. Conservative vs. Liberal.
There seems like alot of obvious stuff that you guys can't agree on. How was Iraq a good thing, or even progress? This insular "USA number 1" attitude is arrogance and is sympotmatic of a much deeper malaise at the origins of America. The land was stolen, its' inhabitants murdered. Does that make me a liberal. For doubting that guns and might can make things better. Or does it make me naive to think that "making things better" is the point? Swagger on while those in power enforce their narrow world view to the detriment of 95% of the worlds population.Liberal or conservative, here's a wake up call for you. Get rid of Bush. For your own sakes. Get rid of Bush and all his corrupt cronies. And make them liable for what has been done in the name of the USA or it will resonate into the future just like the blood of those from whom the land was taken.

"From a Scottish point of view"

Concerning American politics, you lost me right there.

"From a Scottish point of view

Concerning American politics, you lost me right there."

Wow, by that logic white people can't have a point of view on black issues, you can't have an point of view on what I say because you're not me and Americans can't have a say in Iraqi affairs.

You lost me with your choice of id photo.

No... that photo's not a joke. Bills mouth is just gold because of the paint he continuously huffs.

OOH! Look at the Probationary members fight!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fox, news, naomi wolfe, end of america, right wing, tv, conservative hit job' to 'fox, news, naomi wolf, end of america, right wing, tv, conservative hit job' - edited by calvados

So, this "reporter" didn't know about the secret prisons? WTF? Is this old?

(lol KOMMIE)

they'd have to replace a hell of a lot of people in the government to make any real differences, bush is obviously just their puppet. plus there are powerful elites, the major banks and corporations, they call the shots.
you'd need a real radical to get in to office if you wanted to see real changes, because even then - they'd have a hell of a job being allowed to change things to the good of the people rather than the rich few that would grant those changes to be made.
reminds me of Iraq and their need for a whole new government...

Scary that there are people commenting who don't see a reporter flailing at a guest, rather than civilly asking questions. That even right-wingers would come out in defense of the interviewer's behavior, that's what's really harrowing here.

This is standard fare from Faux News. Anybody doing an interview has to be prepared with short, simple, insultingly obvious replies to anything the incompetant interviewer has to ask. Naomi's points are clearly too deep and thought provoking to be fully expressed in a five minute interview. She was not prepared, and should not have been there. A book like that needs a good half-hour or even a full hour dedicated to exploring the book's merits or flaws.

And Bill, the most patriotic thing you can do for your country is stand up and say "no" when you see things going in the wrong direction. When you badmouth somebody who is trying to open people's eyes to the truth, that's America bashing. You are bashing it right into the dark ages.

I'm reading this book now, and I thought it was a shame she focused so much on trying to sell the book overall instead of answering the guy's questions.
Secret Prisons? We got none, right?

Remember those CIA rendition flights? They take you wherever in the world they want to torture you. No judge, no jury. Secret until somebody leaks it to the press. They even tried to kidnap a guy in Italy but their gov't found out. At least with the Gulags, everyone knew about them.

I find especially idiotic the question of what to do with these enemy combatants if we can't keep them in Guantanamo forever. Hey, I know, let's have a TRIAL where the gov't shows their evidence and lets the accused defend themselves against the charges. It's likely some people who have been rotting away in Guantanamo for 4 years haven't even been told why they are being held. Imagine living like that because some neighbor who hated you told the visiting US Army that you were a Taliban, and whoops, off you go. Does this situation more closely resemble a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, you tell me?

When she finally gets around to mentioning how the UK and Spain dealt with terrorists(following the law, regular trial), he just interrupts and laughs at her, then poses the question again as if she wasn't answering it. An inattentive viewer would just think she was going off on a tangent and didn't answer the question, being evasive because she can't answer directly.

The surveillance of citizens is the one point that disturbs me most as it affects many more Americans than secret prisons. I would have liked to see how Kasich explains how good this is, and also legal. Another post-9/11 power grab that the public still would not know about if it hadn't been leaked to the press. ATT currently filters all their internet traffic and lets the NSA spy on it with no warrants or oversight!! How is this legal?

The interviewer's bias is readily apparent, the best way she could have responded was succinctly answer his questions with facts, no long speeches. They call this a news channel?

HAHA, I love this Bill OReilly internet personna who posts on here. Fucking hilarious everytime.

This newsreporter should be fucking fired and shuned forever more. Nazi.

She probably shouldn't have even gone on there. But maybe that brief flash of her book getting shit on by Fox might actually get some people to read it or pay attention to whatever she's talking about, idk what her reasons where.

/I know nothing

Fox News always gets people like Naomi Wolfe in order to dismantle what they believe are fallacious arguments about the conduct on war on terror or the right-wing establishment.

Their inability to argue with the facts or even plausible provide counter arguments leads to them reclining to basically harassing the interviewee, yelling at them, if they could they would probably label them "anti-American", "crazy" or "terrorist sympathizer". Though he did call her "far out there already".

Saying that Naomi Wolfe failed in the interview is counter productive I think, as it justifies that what Fox News is doing is real journalism, I think she simply did not expect to be attacked on such juvenile terms instead of trying to basically talk about her book. The interviewer should be ashamed of himself and the hack work that he does.

"The surveillance of citizens is the one point that disturbs me most as it affects many more Americans than secret prisons. I would have liked to see how Kasich explains how good this is, and also legal. Another post-9/11 power grab that the public still would not know about if it hadn't been leaked to the press. ATT currently filters all their internet traffic and lets the NSA spy on it with no warrants or oversight!! How is this legal?

The interviewer's bias is readily apparent, the best way she could have responded was succinctly answer his questions with facts, no long speeches. They call this a news channel?"


Thanks for the news none of us would have ever known about. Wait no, it's common sense, not the hardest thing to figure out. OMG it's teh spies on teh internets...Son, just admit she prolly does meth, cause she's so strung out and boring to listen to, no one can follow what she's trying to say. Maybe she didn't respond with facts because facts disprove her wack theory. Maybe she knew what Fox News is, and had no business expecting reasonable people to listen to her meth-induced fantasies. You have been served.

You can see her seethe at the end as Khatshits does his outro-A good strategy to discredit this tool organization, would be for all the folks who grudgingly take a stab at a Fox interview, to unite on the model, for an outro by the guest, when one got to this level of asscissitude....like a book slap. (scream would be good for a female....men could perhaps jump up on the desk and do a butt-spin....)

Lol, Captain! Served inded. Too bad her book has all the facts documented. Maybe you should read. Anything. But no, she's boring, so she must not have any facts. And she must be on meth. Ha! Thanks for the laugh.

One of my favorite aspects of videosift are the substantive debates that usually occur in the comments. I actually hear well thought out reasoned points to which I can disagree civilly. By answering a reporter's questions you agree to their framing of the issues. If your book is to point out how totalitarian states arise you have nothing to gain by using your four minutes to discuss an alternative to Guantanomo. That's not what her book is about and she gains nothing by going down that path.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE. Life is not like 24. How many military interrogators do you need to tell you that torture is counter-productive before you realize that opposing torture IS PATRIOTIC. I don't oppose torture because Susan Sarandon & Rosie O'Donnell say it's bad. I think it's a bad idea because the military says it delivers us shitty intelligence.

Intelligence so shitty that if we are to believe that the government acted in good faith in the runup to Operation: Iraqi Freedom that it directly caused us to be there. Much of that misinformation was obtained by torture. Why is everyone who opposes this shit supposed to go on TV & explain the last 6 years in minute detail. I can't keep track of all the malfeasance off the top of my head. I need a fucking pocket guide to fully and accurately detail the lies, various misdeeds, innocent people tortured, and counterproductive strategies employed.

I for one am tired of dealing with two sets of facts. I can handle a completely diametrical position, even on Fox News, but I can't handle two completely different versions of reality. Especially when the jingoistic, faux-patriotic version is not only so dangerous to citizens, it SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK. Why bother torturing people if you haven't even secured the borders? The bullshit neocon argument isn't even fucking safe. What use is increasing electronic surveillance if you don't have the manpower with the language skills to analyze the data? FUCK THE SHEEPLE WHO ALLOW THESE DANGEROUS SYCOPHANTS TO SCARE YOU.

<pant pant> /rant

Just answer the fucking question!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fox, news, naomi wolf, end of america, right wing, tv, conservative hit job' to 'fox, news, naomi wolfe, end of america, right wing, tv, conservative hit job' - edited by Fjnbk

I wonder if Fox News is still popular. I heard that its ratings were going down.

A pocket guide would actually be pretty handy, justinian. And you are right on about the lack of safety for the nation the neocons have gotten for all their changes since 2001. I mean, in 2001, an average of 3,509 people died on public highways every month. That's more than everyone who died in the plane attacks unless you count the soldiers dead in Iraq. Guess what, I'm more afraid of dying in my car than some criminal mastermind terrorist blowing me up. They may hate us, but they're just not very good at killing Americans(except in Iraq). One lucky try in 5 years isn't enough to make me afraid, why are you?

*books

Adding video to channels (Books) - requested by kronosposeidon.

not surprisingly, it's *dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.

not sure, but I think your fix is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjwUEeVFPtg

Awarding rasch187 with one star point for fixing this video's dead embed code.