The Daily Show clip in question (reported initially at NB by Noel Sheppard) showed John Stewart fuming at the infamous East Anglia CRU staff for attempting to "hide the decline" by manipulating climate data. Wright showed Stewart saying, "Poor Al Gore, global warming completely debunked, via the very Internet you invented. Oh!"
Olbermann, in dubbing Wright the "worst person," showed an expanded clip of Stewart clearly denying that ClimateGate has "debunked" the global warming theory: "Poor Al Gore, global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh! Oh, the irony, the irony. Actually, the real story is not quite that sensational. Now, does it disprove global warming? No, of course not!"
But this clip was edited as well. So, asks Greg Pollowitz at the National Review Media Blog, if Wright should be fired, "what should MSNBC do to Olbermann for his cut-and-paste job?"
The full transcript shows Stewart remarking that ClimateGate now gives skeptics greater cause to doubt the supposed consensus on global warming.
(BEGIN VIDEO)But Olbermann stopped short, ending the clip with Stewart's outright rejection of skeptics' claims, and failing to include any of the material prior to that rejection.
UNKNOWN PERSON: A hacker in England got hold of emails between leading scientists which skeptics say show a clear effort to raise fears about global warming, and hide evidence against it.
JON STEWART, HOST: Oh for f**k's sake! Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. OH. OH the irony. The iro—-ny. Actually, the real story isn't quite that sensational. Basically, emails stolen from scientists at one of the leading centers for global warming show them discussing the work, a bit, how do I put this, casually.
UNKNOWN FOX ANNOUNCER READING EMAIL MESSAGE FROM CLIMATEGATE PARTICIPANTS): "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." (Kevin Trenberth)
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." (Phil Jones, CRU Director)
STEWART: (Laughing) See, I tell you it's nothing. He was just using a trick to hide the decline. It's just scientist speak for using a standard statistical technique recalibrating data in order to trick you into not knowing about the decline. But here's what's great about science: in disagreement, we go back and look at the raw data.
UNKNOWN FOX NEWS ANNOUNCER): University scientists say raw data from the 1980s was thrown out.
STEWART: Oh for f**k's sake! Why would you throw out raw data from the '80s? I still have Penthouses from the '70s! Laminated. What did you keep?
UNKNOWN FOX NEWS ANNOUNCER): The scientists say they kept something called "value added data".
STEWART: Value added data? What is that, numbers fortified with art? Truth plus, now with lemon? It doesn't look good. Now does it disprove global warming? No, of course not. But it does put a fresh set of energizers in the Senate's resident denier bunny.
So if Olbermann is so furious that Wright would selectively edit the Daily Show, and if he believes that Wright should be fired for it, why would he turn around and do the same thing, and what does he think MSNBC should do about it? Shouldn't he be held to the same standard?
Olbermann's selective outrage demonstrates that he will only attack figures in the media when their reports contradict his liberal talking points. Selective editing is okay, by his standards, as long as it seeks to make the correct point: the liberal one.