Here is a perfect example of why no one can trust the MSM. They can't even get a quote in context without spinning it to their own desired ends by leaving out parts of the quote, materially changing its meaning. MSNBC took a few choice words out of an Internet post written by Randy Thomas, vice president of Exodus International, a Christian based organization that promotes "freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ." In MSNBC.com's "More evangelicals concluding God is green," they quote Mr. Thomas as to why he is supporting Mike Huckabee. But, the way they quote Thomas it seems that he endorses the "God is green" concept, when he doesn't at all in reality. Here is how they quoted Thomas:
Randy Thomas, vice president of Exodus International, an evangelical ministry, wrote last month that “I have decided to vote for Huckabee. Yes, it is because he is unabashedly Christian, but it is also that he does care for the environment.”
Wow, it sure seems as if Mr. Thomas is all about the green, doesn't it? Problem is, they took a few words out of Mr. Thomas' original post and those few words materially alters Mr. Thomas' meaning. Here is Thomas' full quote as he originally posted it on his blog:
Speaking on behalf of me….and me alone … not any organization and (especially not Exodus because Exodus as an organization does not support or condemn any particular candidate) *I* have decided to vote for Huckabee. Yes, it is because he is unabashedly Christian, but it is also that he does care for the environment (in a balanced way … not the “new religion” kind of way.) I like that he has a lot of good experience as well. Of all the candidates, I like him. I like Fred too, but Huck is just as likeable in my opinion.
Notice how Mr. Thomas said in his actual quote that Huckabee is green but, "in a balanced way … not the “new religion” kind of way." In other words, Thomas feels that Huckabee is sensible in his green ideas, not wild eyed in his greeness. Why did MSNBC take that part out of the endorsement? Obviously they did so to make Mr Thomas seem all excited over Huckabee solely because of the green issue. It also tends to make Thomas seem to be supportive of the current crop of extreme greenies out there because the tempering language was removed from his quote. At least, without those tempering words, it could be construed that Thomas could support the greennuts. MSNBC also did another thing with their story that is a bit misleading. They quote Mr. Thomas as the "vice president of Exodus International" without observing his careful disclaimer in his original quote that his endorsement of Huckabee is as a private citizen and not in his capacity as VP of Exodus. Should you read the MSNBC story, you would not realize at all that Thomas was specific in distancing his role as VP of Exodus from his endorsement of Huckabee. On his blog, Mr. Thomas found himself flummoxed that MSNBC misused his words without ever once contacting him to clarify anything or even inform him that they intended to use his words.
MSNBC did not contact me or cite my blog. I find that intriguing and think it would have been common courtesy to do so. I found out that I was quoted by J. Thanks J. I don’t like the appearance that I was quoted to make the case that there is a schism within evangelicals over the environment.
Further, Thomas even disputes the "God is green" claim that MSNBC wanted to assign to him.
I don’t think God is “Green” but I do think He cares for His entire creation in which He charged mankind to take dominion of (Genesis 1).
In any case, this all goes to show that MSNBC took Mr. Thomas' words and sentiments out of context to better fit in with their "God is Green" premise. With yet another example of the untrustworthiness of the MSM one wonders how often people are misquoted in the press?
**Update** 11/14/07
Randy Thomas reports that MSNBC got in touch with him to offer apologies.
http://randythomas.org/2007/11/13/msnbc-reporter-emails-and-makes-corrections
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's shocking that Exodus Int was mentioned at all
November 8, 2007 - 00:01 ET by exLibEven though this guy is taken out of context, I think J at MSNBC will be out of job tomorrow and not for the reason you may think.
Exodus International is one of the most "tar and feathered" organizations in the US, without a word from the MSM on it BTW. These guys go from town to town speaking to church sponsored groups and in each of these towns the Homosexual activists come out in force and usually threaten and intimidate the people who come out to the events.
However, the MSM doesn't want you to know they even exist. You see Exodus International is a group of X-Gay men, yes that is no-longer, "gay" men. This organization believes that homosexuality is a choice, a life-style, a set of learned actions that can be unlearned, over-come and unchosen with the Help of God.
So, you see, the fact that J, even in an attempt to misquote and "help" the cause of The GW Religion, has instead given a reason for viewers to research a group that is challenging another "religious" establishment in the media.
Yeah, I found it interesting
November 8, 2007 - 01:25 ET by Warner Todd HustonYeah, I found it interesting that they mentioned Exodus, too. I just didn't want the "gay" issue (or the de-gayed issue, as the case may be) to overshadow this story and take the focus from the thing I was writing about.
As far as I'm concerned,
November 8, 2007 - 07:35 ET by motherbeltAs far as I'm concerned, that is pure journalistic malpractice by MSNBC.
You have to wonder how many of the other quotes (from other ministers) in that story were also "tailored."
Apparently they have no standards at all over there.
Oh, they have a "standard,"
November 8, 2007 - 07:58 ET by Warner Todd HustonOh, they have a "standard," alright.
It's just this: MSNBC, all the news that tailored to fit.
So evangelicals are moving to embrace "creation care"?
November 8, 2007 - 10:09 ET by BlindSightInteresting. Thanks for bringing this up. I see that:
- Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, or NAE, says that "hundreds of millions of people around the globe are already being impacted by climate change."
- Gov. Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister, wrote in his 2007 autobiography, that "My own personal faith reminds me that ‘the earth is the Lord’s’ and that we are not its owners; merely its caretakers."
- Rick Scarborough, head of Vision America, a prominent conservative evangelical group, says that "I would suggest that as stewards of God resources, there needs to be a fresh look at this issue .... Huckabee is forcing Republicans to discuss this issue, and that is healthy."
- In a poll last month says that 70 percent of self-described evangelicals said they believed global warming would have an impact on future generations, 64 percent said action should begin immediately, and more than half — 54 percent — said they would be more likely to support candidates who worked to curb global warming.
This is interesting news.
Your suggestion that the piece misleads readers into thinking that maybe Randy Thomas is a raving greenie seems a litle thin, though, especially as the piece carefully clarifies that it is referring to "`creation care,` which asserts that Christians are the stewards of God’s creation". Isn`t this exactly what Thomas means when he says on his website that "From what I have seen of Huckabee, he doesn’t buy all the nonsense but also doesn’t deny our responsibility to be caretakers. I don’t think God is “Green” but I do think He cares for His entire creation in which He charged mankind to take dominion of (Genesis 1)."?
http://randythomas.o...
Anyway, I`m happy to see that you aren`t arguing with evangelicals like Huckabee, Cizik, Scarborough and Thomas. It would be bad politics for the Republicans and, besides, I agree with them on "creation care".
Pres. Bush: "Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."
Not really...
November 8, 2007 - 11:02 ET by Warner Todd HustonYours:
Kind of hard for you to claim that my contention that he was misquoted is not true when the guy that was quoted ALSO says he was misquoted. Who should we believe, your characterization that he wasn't misquoted, or the contention of guy who was quoted who is claiming he was misquoted?
I'm juss sayin'.
Thomas did not say he was misquoted; he just provided more
November 9, 2007 - 00:50 ET by BlindSightcontext. And that context shows he WASNT misquoted on the greenie thing - but that MSNBC got him right.
This is not a question of believing me vs. Thomas, but of looking at what both MSNBC and Thomas said, and comparing them to your spin on it.
The MSNBC piece did not at all try to pretend that fundamentalists accepted the greenut Gaia religion - that would be obviously absurd, after all - but takes pains to point out that a number of them agree on the Bible-based creation care view.
Since MSNBC was citing Thomas for his support on the creation care view, it was not deceiving that they did not also say that when he meant green he did not mean the green religion, but creation care. That context was already very explicit in the MSNBC piece.
By the way, you did nott claim that Thomas said he was misquoted, but said MSNBC was trying to twist his position. Given the express context that MSNBC provided, it seems to me your concerns here are not only overwrought, but unfounded:
Sincerely, BS
Pres. Bush: Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.