MJ: Michael Brown is your hero? Pretty much sums up what I think, too.
The Fareed Zakaria ‘plagiarism’ brouhaha has apparently run it’s course without Zakaria apologizing or being suspended by CNN. The question is why?
There are a number of factors that may have played a role in the ‘scandal’ not taking off with the media. Here are some of them.
1) The charges are not straight forward. It could be argued that they were mostly just sloppy editing and no deception was intended.
2) None of the victims of the plagiarism, that I’m aware of, complained. In fact, I think, one even said he was OK with the copying of his work by Zakaria.
3) Zakaria is not considered an ideological purist so the right wing media never really picked up on the story like it would have if it were a LOD or Billo who was at fault.
4) Zakaria is not a well known media figure if you’re not a cable news media junkie or have a major interest in foreign affairs; and among those folks, Zakaria has a stellar reputation.
5) CNN and Zakaria played this story perfectly. They acknowledged mistakes were made and then went silent. They gambled that if nothing was said the story would die from lack of oxygen. They were proved correct.
6) The bloggers that broke the story had little credibility in the MSM, refused to put themselves in the public eye (with the exceptions of a couple of interviews, they stayed anonymous) and, to many, appeared to have an agenda in attacking Zakaria.
Can the story come back. Only if some really serious allegations are found and the MSM starts to take notice.
7) In today’s “copy and paste” world such activity is commonplace.
Apparently, Pam, in today’s world, if you rob a store, attack a police officer, try to take his gun, punch him in the face THEN get shot, you’re lionized as a hero martyr because racism or something.
See, I’ll likely never be shot by a policeman because I wouldn’t rob a store or attack a policeman. But, I guess that’s because I wasn’t raised that way. Or, cuz racism.
National media figures are scared to condemn Brown’s actions either because they’re afraid of being called racists by angry mob; or because they view this as a political opportunity to further their “you can succeed without the help of white liberals” narrative. Either way, it’s grotesque and dangerous.
Regarding the Ferguson coverage, CNN hasn’t been any better than the lunatics at MSNBC.
“Hero” is BS. Nobody thinks Mike Brown is a hero, some of us just believe the witnesses who said he turned around and gave up after being shot at, then got shot at some more until he was dead. It’s a case of wrongful death, not how “heroic” the victim is. Joe Scarborough doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.
It’s lost to history, but Rush Limbaugh did not “compare Chelsea Clinton to a dog”. He had a TV show, where the two pictures were transposed. It was a ‘Who’s Hot/Who’s Not’ segment, of the type that you’ll see when a new president/new party is elected. The line was “Out: Cute dog in the White House. In: Cute kid in the White House.” Behind-the-scenes person, accidentally or not, transposed the pics. The audience laughed, as you might expect.
Rush apologized for it that night, apologized on the radio the next day, and again on TV the night after the incident. Years later, he mentioned meeting Mrs Clinton at a wedding, and “apologizing” to her for something. Perhaps few would have put those two things together, but I assumed that they were related.
As far as Rush being “suspended in any capacity”, he works for himself. Which explains why trying to have him fired is stupid. http://www.mediaite.com/online/concha-gops-lauten-follows-limbaugh-shuster-harris-perry-in-breaking-rule-1/
I’m hoping CNN will at some point announce the CNNi simulcast will be a permanent move. They still bill it as ‘special coverage’ when it’s been going on daily for the last several months. Could be a marketing ploy, who knows.
CNNi has covered news that the BBC or AJE haven’t covered or a different angle that wasn’t covered so it would be nice not to lose the simulcast. Mostly serious news and the weather segments aren’t dull. Shows what CNN/US should be.
^^I don’t think Ms. Lauten should lose her job as a GOP staffer because she made a stupid comment on Facebook. She’s apologized and that should be the end of it.
The big difference between her and Limbaugh, MHP, Shuster etc. is that the latter are all media personalities that made a stupid comments on air.
If the Congressman Ms. Lauten worked for made the comment fair enough have at him. But she’s an anonymous mid level staffer that made an offensive comment and if we make stupid comments by congressional staffers (with a very few exceptions) a firing offense they’d be firing dozens every week. Move on.
The Letterman joke Is reported wrong, too. Willow was at the game, but whoever wrote the (stupid) joke thought it was the older Bristol; the one who actually a kid. The joke doesn’t even make sense with Willow as the subject.
Good points, fritz!
Of course Noah Rothman managed to agree Lauten was in the wrong and STILL turn it into a “conservative persecution” rant. Hack.
Uh, yes, because two things can be true at once. And he never made any reference to this “persecution” that you talk about.
In the last 24 hours, CNN has spent more time on this woman (whose name I don’t know) than they ever spent on Jonathan Gruber’s comments. Perhaps because one can be spun to make Republicans look bad, but the other one reflects on Democrats. This is not a challenging concept. They also spent only the barest amount of time on Carol Costello’s mumblings about the Palin Family. Imagine that.
Yes he did. He started with “media claimed a scalp”, then blathered on about all the terrible awful things that have been said about his side in the past. Because God forbid a righty do a story about a righty screwing up without making sure some past lefty transgression is dutifully re-explored, too. Thanks for wasting everyone’s time, Noah.
I’m so sorry that he failed to comply with your template of Conservatives Always Wrong. He observed the fullness of media/left-wing coverage of conservatives, and concluded that no one’s hands are clean, while also condemning what this woman did. Too bad if that complexity of thought is challenging.
BTW, I particularly love the shot at Joan Walsh. She’s the Sean Hannity of the Left, and should have everything she’s ever said combed for such obvious inconsistencies.
Not sure I buy the “slow news day” argument regarding the coverage of the staffer. The left lives for these stories.
I think this story is barely worth covering outside of a blog or Twitter mention. Now it’s being covered by conservative media writers with Palin Tourettes, because of course we can’t admit some obscure righty screwed up without doing the full litany of victimization from those mean lefties. The ability for rightwing talkers to always find a way to be victimized is tiresome.
Discussing the press’s messed up priorities and selective outrage is fair game. Some of us actually do that with the entire press, and not just the ones with whom we disagree.
I think that what the woman said was harsh and hateful, and not unlike what is frequently heard on talk-radio and Fox. So there ya go.
Circle is complete. What does the Fox say…
Shep mentioned it, briefly, which is what it deserved. He’s like “If you want more, check Facebook”. The whole thing is silly, and pretty well sums up why cable-news sucks, 90% of the time.
As was mentioned to me on twitter this is how the game is played.
CNN and MSNBC cover a story that makes a conservative look bad more than a story about a liberal,
just as FNC is going to do more coverage of a story that makes liberals look bad while not covering as much a story that makes a conservative look bad.
Selective outrage in selective coverage of a story.
After the GOP lady resigned over dissing the Obama kids….will Carol Costello resign over her attack on the Palin kids?
All that can be said of Carol Costello is that she had sense enough to not mention this story on her show. Either she or her producers have a belated brain.
While I agree that Carol Costello’s comment about some audio was awful, it has nothing to do with this story. Bristol Palin – the daughter of some lady on TV – is 24. Even for children of presidents, we’re not talking about ‘off limits’ for the rest of their lives. The point is that the Obama kids are 13 and 16.
Carol Costello reveled in a recording of the aftermath of a young woman being assaulted, possibly sexually. On Television. This other woman made rude fashion comments on Facebook. One is forced to resign, one barely apologizes. Carol, wisely, in this case, kept her stupid mouth shut.
What would have been nice is if she’d taken advantage of this incident to do a real apology to Bristol Palin, and tried to turn that into some sort of understanding for the person who did the nasty on Facebook. That would have been cool. But one has to have basic humility to do that. It was a missed opportunity.
No matter how many times I lament that the topic is the actual topic in the news this week, we end up talking about conservatives who’ve been wronged that other time back then. Which is my point. This ability to turn any rightwing wrong back on itself until the righties are “the real victims” works.
It’s silly to expect one thing to be discussed as though it occurred in a vacuum. The thing with Costello was just a few weeks ago, and certainly has bearing on how she didn’t cover this.
It’s silly to be using “the Palin kids” as a reference to the president’s teenage daughters being harassed by some idiot on Facebook. The actual “Palin kid” Costello messed with is a grown woman who’s already been a public figure with a TV show. But sure, let’s talk about Bristol. That makes perfect sense.
If you can’t see any parallel, then I can’t help you.
“If you can’t see any parallel, then I can’t help you.”
^^The only parallel is that in both cases the subjects of the comments were celebrities.
Costello has a parallel with the Shuster, MHP, Letterman and Rush incidents as all took place on TV. It has none with the incident involving Ms. Lauten as she was an unknown person (before this incident), who just happened to work for a politician, who made a dumb comment on Facebook.
The only thing that made it news is that someone (for whatever reason) decided to publicize the comment in the media. It has all the newsworthiness as any dumb comment made by anyone here – that is absolutely none.
Don’t know how to check this but:
@TMZ_Politics: NBC News has officially reported more on #ElizabethLauten than #Gruber
^ and, pretty sure that’s not related to the actual TMZ
Not to mention Wendy Davis. I know CNN barely mentioned her, and I’ll put money that NBC didn’t, either. And that woman was running for office.
You gotta compare apples to apples. NBC News is on 22 minutes a night to CNN’s all day. MSNBC did a good job of covering Davis and Gruber; CNN I only know from hearsay, and what I hear is that they suck.
Dana Bash report about #LautenGate on Erin Burnett just now noted that even the RNC director rebuked Lauten. And, left it at that. Did not note his slamming of the MSM for focusing on this nonsense only when it’s a Republican.
Hannity trying to get the officer who hugged the child in the photo that got national attention to bash the Obama admin over Ferguson.
Hannity’s hate for Obama admin makes him take a good story and try to turn it into Obama bashing.
Thankfully the Officer declined to bash the Obama admin.
I doubt Sean Hannity hates the Obama administration. He just knows which side of a story to butter to better his bitter battles. Whenever both sides are too soft he’ll try buttering the edges or will even pop it into a toaster if he has to. Like most reality-TV shows or… professional wrestling, “reality” part can be contrived coax the audience into engaging.
Oh I totally disagree. Hannity despises Obama. Deep in his soul.
^ I hate when words that I’ve surely typed disappear upon posting.
I’d be shocked if you agreed because you’re part of that engaged culture. It’s entertainment only to those who’ve staunchly picked one side or the other. If Hannity or Limbaugh (or Maddow, Maher… even Howard Stern in his day) didn’t push far enough to enrage the other side then they’d only be ho-hum successful at their craft. Great examples of ho-hum can be viewed on CNN.
I think you can tell when a person really doesn’t like someone. There’s two on FNC who stand out to me as just viscerally repulsed by the sight of Obama, and that’s Hannity and Andrea Tantaros. It’s not a show; they can’t stand him.
I know what you mean, but Hannity has always had a few somebodys over the years that he’s gone after in this way. Rosie O’Donnell, for one.
Haven’t watched Andrea Tantaros enough to judge for myself and only know that she’s been a successful public relations professional for a number of years. Like a skilled attorney, I’m sure she can whip up whatever level of affection or disdain that the moment calls for. Her projected feelings might all be sincere for all I know, but if she doesn’t play her part then she’ll be out of a job in short order. I refuse to believe that she was hired for her original thinking ability.
Best I can tell, all of FNC’s hard news reporters as well as most of their news anchors have pre-packaged reports shown on the big network and sometimes hits where there’s interaction with the local anchors. Shep Smith, Bret Baier, Wendell Goler… all of them, and almost never is there even any hint of a political slant with these.
Best I can tell, FNC’s opinion hosts have never had any face time on the broadcast network, except Bill O’Reilly pushing one of his books and that was a morning show. Now, I don’t watch Megyn Kelly’s programme so only know from what’s posted here that she claims hers to be a “news” show yet really does one-sided issue discussions. It occurs to me that I have not once seen Megyn Kelly on the big network since before her old afternoon timeslot, not even during election an night. Hmmm.
There’s plenty of right-leaning push from anchors such as Jon Scott, Heather Childers, Harris Faulkner and whoever is supposedly doing the news on the Fox & Friends trainwrecks, but I presume you never see any of them on broadcast. You’ll get it from Bret Baier in FNC’s occasional Republican Party infomercials disguised as “documentaries” on Sunday nights, but he keeps it pretty straight (most of the time) on Special Report.
Megyn Kelly is a whole ‘nother kettle o’ fish. I’m not aware of her continuing the charade at the moment, but she initially promoted herself as “straight news anchor” – the exact words she said to Jay Leno – when she was promoting her upcoming new show. I think they may have finally given up the game after she did an extended (and endlessly repeated on weekends) promotion of a Dinesh D’Souza film, replete with inexplicable interviews with Bill Ayers and some other old radical who said something after 9/11 nobody remembers. The Kelly File is a bombastic righty opinion show, which I presume is why you don’t see her on the big network anymore.
Well joe that should make you happy, right? Any time you can get less of Megyn Kelly in any medium is a good thing, correct?
Think of this today and you should be happy!
Whoever said previously that Evan McMurry was turning into Tommy Christopher is correct. Guy is full blown nuts when it comes to anything involving blacks and whites. Everything is racist. It’s tiresome. I had a good rapport with him on twitter but had to stop following him. It’s like following someone who spends all day saying Elvis is still alive, the moon landing was faked and that JFK was killed by GHWB.
“I had a good rapport with him on twitter but had to stop following him.”
^^I never heard of Evan McMurry but I’m sure when he finds out your not following him on twitter anymore he’ll be so upset he will change his ways and tow the conservative line just to get your twitter support restored. 🙂
I’m sure he won’t notice. Wasn’t meaning to suggest otherwise.
My point was that it was fun having a solid rapport with a lefty journalist. But, as was pointed out previously by someone else, he’s moved into the coo-coo world inhabited by the likes of Tommy Christopher.
I’ll take a bow for that prediction.
Ooh, burn! You really got him!
How long till Barkley walks back his Ferguson comments?
My goodness, I hope Charles doubles down on his comments. Let’s not kid ourselves, the people who burned and looted in Ferguson and shut down interstates in other locations are nothing more than ARSONISTS, scumbags, idiots, morons – I could go on and on.
After arguing for 2 hours in Union Square in NYC with the protesters there, nothing any one who is not on ” their side” will ever make it through to them.
Wiht Hannity think it’s a little of both. Some of it is pandering to conservatives which is what his show is about and some is a political hatred for Obama.
Different cable channels, different guests all previously in support of “the Michael Brown was a giant teddy bear” theory all have the same new narrative: The process was bad. The process was flawed.
Now that the GJ testimony is out and the inconceivable theories which got all the media support from the beginning have been debunked, these people are moving onto “the process”. Oh yay.
I didn’t like Chris Rock’s comedy at first but somewhere in time either he got funnier or my ability to appreciate his sour style matured. Whether I agree with his opinions on social issues doesn’t matter; I love the way he thinks.
So…..what are the odds that a Democrat staffer who pleads guilty to sexually assaulting 2 women will get as much coverage as the women who criticized the Obama girls?
Or how much talk has there been about an Obama bundler getting arrested for child rape? And this happened in Portland, Oregon one of the most liberal cities in the US. This is another case of media hypocrisy of major proportions!
Spud is holding a comment I made about an Obama bundler getting arrested for child rape in Portland, Oregon. The link I included was from the USA Today but because the link has the word g*y in it he is holding the post. For pity sake get with the program, Spud.
How much has any one heard about this story? The guy rode on Air Force One with Obama and there are plenty of images out there showing him smiling with Obama.
This is another story of media bias and the hypocrisy of the liberal media!
That’s how it goes. FNC chooses what stories to cover just as the other news channels do. I’m not saying that is right.
‘Interesting’ was a really poor and lazy choice and I apologize for that. I should have wrote ‘An informative piece about media coverage of those two cases’.
I don’t buy the argument that most of the media is biased against murders of white people. The circumstances of the two stories are way different. The Obama daughter story is real evidence of bias but when a lot of conservatives reflexively use ‘media bias’ in cases where bias isn’t present, it has a boy-cries-wolf effect and serious bias accusations fall on deaf ears.
The Five did a segment Tuesday about the lack of coverage of Zemir Begic.
“I don’t buy the argument that most of the media is biased against murders of white people.”
Me either. Their bias is using every tragedy that happens to a black person to proclaim that the entire country (except them) is racist.
Shiite happens. Every day. Also, don’t resist arrest or attack a police officer. No matter how bad a$$ or aggrieved you think you are.
“Rachel Maddow, news anchor:”
^^She’s a news anchor just like Megyn Kelly is a news anchor.
“Their bias is using every tragedy that happens to a black person to proclaim that the entire country (except them) is racist.”
^^ Care to inform us exactly which media outlet, if any, has actually “proclaim(ed) that the entire country (except them) is racist.” or is that just your impression based on no actual evidence.
If one network pushes that boundary, they all do. If it’s okay on Fox, then Rachel can do whatever she wants. Or Don Lemon, or whoever.
I don’t care whether they consider her a news anchor or an opinion host or news reader or librarian. And, I don’t care what Megyn Kelly is labeled. If they have a good show, I’ll watch.
I simply posted that for the folks who freak out over Ms. Megyn.
“I don’t care whether they consider her a news anchor or an opinion host or news reader or librarian. And, I don’t care what Megyn Kelly is labeled. If they have a good show, I’ll watch.
I simply posted that for the folks who freak out over Ms. Megyn.”
^^Ehhh OK. Whatever you say. 🙂
Sure the promo says Rachel is a news anchor however Rachel does not hide the fact she is a liberal.
Megyn Kelly pretends she’s a straight news anchor not giving personal opinions while showing her conservative bias nightly.
Just look at tonight’s Kelly File Show and how she talks to Conservative guests vs Liberal guests.
Democrat Marc Morial gets talked over as she argues with him.
Obama admin critic Sheriff David Clarke from Milwaukee, WI. is not talked over nor does she argue with him.
Republican Congressman Peter King is not talked over nor does she argue with him.
Vincent Warren from The Center for Constitutional Rights gets talked over as she argues with him.
Candy Crowley is leaving CNN. Sounds like she jumped before she was pushed but who knows.
I’m not a big fan as I found it frustrating she never wanted to upset anyone being interviewed by asking tough follow-up questions. I expect that her job will go to John King who is a male version of Crowley. I do wonder if the show is scheduled for elimination next year and Crowley is just getting out ahead of its demise?
Ms. Crowley is an award-winning journalist who certainly has, at times, asked the tough follow-up questions as well as a few bone-headed mistakes. She’s probably leaving because CNN news isn’t what it used to be and she was given a more appealing offer. And it’s not necessarily so that she wants to host a show.
News broke that the US hostage in Yemen was killed and CNN goes to taped programming. Disappointing considering they just simulcasted CNNi. Plus, ‘Black and Blue’ was not scheduled.
It’s been about a month since the election and I haven’t seen any studies or reporting on the effect the new voter suppression or voter protection (depending on your POV) laws had on the results in states like Texas and North Carolina.
Does anyone know of any good non-partisan reporting on the subject? My guess is the laws were mostly a non-factor or we would be seeing the evidence pro or con, and the resulting gloating or b*tching (again depending on your POV), all over the political and media blogs and cable news nets.
I’ve seen a couple local news reports in various markets including Michigan and North Carolina on post-election voter ID laws. In the case of Michigan, showing an official photo ID upon arrival at the voting precinct has been the rule since seemingly forever.
You are not likely going to find any empirical evidence pro or con on whether or not these were a substantial factor. Fraud, by its very nature, can be hard to quantify. There are always a handful of cases every cycle that prove it happens, and not always is it in favour of Dems. Besides, that misses the point of such laws. Their purpose is to insure the integrity of and provide confidence in our election system.
“You are not likely going to find any empirical evidence pro or con on whether or not these were a substantial factor.”
^^I don’t agree Al. The stories before the election were that there would be millions (500,000+ in Texas alone) unable to vote because they didn’t have the proper ID. Did that happen or not? It would seem to be easy to research and a big story either way.
“Fraud, by its very nature, can be hard to quantify. There are always a handful of cases every cycle that prove it happens, and not always is it in favour of Dems.”
^^ I agree, but no one was saying fraud on a large scale was ever going to happen. The questions raised were that large numbers of legitimate voters (particularly young, black, poor, student, Hispanic, and/or women voters) would be prevented from voting. That’s easy to see at polling stations on election day.
“that misses the point of such laws. Their purpose is to insure the integrity of and provide confidence in our election system.”
^^That’s the spin but it makes little since because, as you say, voter fraud really doesn’t exist in numbers large enough to affect the vast majority of elections – if any. Most large scale election fraud occurs in the counting of votes, not in the voting process itself, and these laws do nothing about that problem.
Not allowing hundred s of thousands of legitimate voters to vote by making it such a difficult and/or expensive task to get the proper ID or restricting the days and hours you can vote is not allowing us “to insure the integrity of and provide confidence in our election system.” It does just the opposite.
I find it odd that Democrats are not saying millions of voters were prevented from voting or Republicans are not saying everything went smoothly and the laws worked as advertised. One or the other should be happening if the laws were impactful either way.
The local stories I saw detailed only one or two instances of someone having difficulty voting for lack of proper ID.
I did not say that voter fraud “doesn’t exist in numbers large enough to affect the vast majority of elections.” I said that the nature of fraud in a poorly regulated environment makes it nearly impossible to know, with confidence, its extent. “Vast majority” is not the standard. Just one election that is thrown due to fraud is unacceptable and this is not restricted only to votes for candidates of political office, as there are many issue referendums and tax authorisations that are often more susceptible to fraudulent activity.
Statistical studies of the various 2014 elections will probably start being published near the end of next year, and none will ever be reported on cable news as they are meticulous and boring. Many are conducted in association with university student lab projects. While they seldom prove anything, the statistical anomalies often present possibilities of where fraud existed.
If people begin to believe that their votes are diluted, then voter apathy increases until we are no longer a society “of the People, by the People, and for the People.” Maintaining the integrity of elections has to be a million times more important than showing ID to purchase a firearm, so it is beyond me how any reasonable adult could oppose this.
I think you could build a college course in philosophy around this.
Oh. I didn’t not expect that to happen.
I wonder who FNC will hire to take over the positions Wendell Goler, Jim Angle, and Steve Centanni are leaving/have left.
Whoever FNC gets to replace Wendell Goler, he or she won’t be as good.
Agreed, Al. Goler was one of my favorites. A real pro.
Stelter ran over about a minute, with his tribute to Crowley. That was nice.
While the media picking up on the Rolling Stone UVA story who’s reporting is now coming into question is getting attention,
I’d like to note the media including FNC had on a guy who who was a con-artist turned Bio-Recovery expert.
^ I see only a tangential similarity between the Rolling Stone mistake and news channels being duped by a slight-of-mind expert. With the UVA story, it was the staff of Rolling Stone who duped themselves into believing the story without following journalistic norms. Con-artists are dishonourable magicians, with the good ones being expert with the stages of human observation.
Nonetheless, it does make one wonder how many other such cons are being played on cable news that never come to light.
Sure the promo says Rachel is a news anchor however Rachel does not hide the fact she is a liberal.
Megyn Kelly pretends she’s a straight news anchor not giving personal opinions while showing her conservative bias nightly.
Just look at tonight’s Kelly File Show and how she talks to Conservative guests vs Liberal guests.
Excellent idea, ice. Let’s compare the guest list for Megyn and Rachel and see who’s the news anchor and who’s pretending.
Just on that show alone, you had two guests espousing left-of-center viewpoints.
Compare that to Maddow, who has had exactly 2 Republicans on in the last month, one of which was specifically brought in as the “Person who disagrees with their party on the topic dujour (Immigration)”.
In a way, Maddow doesn’t have to “give personal opinions” because she never talks to anyone outside her echo chamber.
How is it that at 9am today Don Lemon is a news anchor subbing then at 10pm he is a host giving opinions on CNN Tonight?
During cases that involve a perceived racial bias he shows up as a guest on CNN Newsroom giving his opinions.F
For those reasons he should not be anchoring on CNN.
Keep him as a host of CNN Tonight.
Back when CNN was a news-reporting institution that took seriously the covenants of journalistic integrity, seeing a news anchor on one show become the opinion host later in the schedule would not have happened often, if ever. Today CNN, FNC, and MSNBC are no different than any of the other entertainment channels in the cable line-up. They use “news” as their prop the same way The History Channel uses “history”… yet airs a programme called Swamp People.
Newspapers went through a similar metamorphosis years ago, for the same reasons, and now most are hard to distinguish from cheap tabloids.
Megyn Kelly “Already the President is taking some heat for praising the transparency of this move [releasing the CIA report]. “ Quoting Obama, “This is an important milestone in transparency.” Megyn Kelly, “This is the if you like your plan you can keep your plan guy, I’m not an emperor, I’m not a king , I don’t have the authority to do this immigration move, obviously we did not alter the Bengazi talking points, we could go on.”
No bias there.
If the National Enquirer or a similar tabloid had a cable channel, would you be as critical of them as you are of Fox News or CNN?
They do sometimes report real stories accurately and effectively… as does the Enquirer. So think it is an apples-to-apples comparison.
I’m in Puerto Rico and my only option at the hotel is CNN. The way Carol Costello and Brooke Baldwin basically issue viewer warnings before they read aloud the interrogation techniques a few terrorists were subjected to is appalling. A few people who did really bad things were uncomfortable for a little while. Cry me a friggin river. Meanwhile, the current POTUS can just drop a bomb from a remote control airplane on whomever he wants and none of these media yahoo’s lose sleep over that. So stupid.
This is the type of cry baby nonsense that Costello would support, I’m sure.
As someone who once bought into that ‘War on Xmas’ nonsense I felt I had to share this flow chart: http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/persecuted-christmas-2014
I find the need to avoid mentioning ‘Xmas’ by some is silly but to equate it with persecution is absurd same.
The ‘War on Xmas’ is an unfortunate FNC/BOR export that’s being imported in different parts of the world.
I think there was a steady and deliberate drift by many stores away from “Christmas” in favour of a more generalised “holiday”. Perhaps an organised effort, the goal would’ve been to further expand the gift-giving tradition to those who don’t celebrate Christmas – more people to sell to equals higher sales numbers.
Mr. O’Reilly no doubt believes himself instrumental in the defence of the Christmas tradition. Possibly so, but more likely it was the bean counters for the various companies who figured out that their experiment failed and they’re better off marketing “Christmas” to meet their bottom lines.
Speaking of the war on Christmas,
Megyn Kelly did a segment on it Wednesday night and something she said was ironic. Megyn, “What are we to make now today of a world in which you have the in your face sexuality of public figures like Miley Cyrus. The sex tape stardom of people like Kim Kardashian. This culture where we have certain songs with the filthy lyrics that are put in our face on the Grammy’s when we watch with our children. The kind of gangsta fashion where they are doing sort of gang signs as some way of communicating with their fellow human beings and yet a Christmas tree and a nativity scene is too offensive.”
Does she remember this from 2010? http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201012/megyn-kelly-fox-news
Assuming your quote is accurate, Ms Kelly did not imply that she isn’t herself a part of “this culture”, so there is no irony. I, of course, reject her premise.
It’s probably wise to always interpret whatever words Megyn Kelly says as if they were spoken by a lawyer.