posted
It's not? I could've sworn there were rules against making disparaging remarks against religious groups. That's a subjective thing, though, I realize. Good zing, though, Mr. Squicky! Clever. And no, we don't all 'pretty much know what Sa'eed is. That comes out quite clearly whenever he gets going sufficiently, though of late he's tamped down quite a bit.
----
quote:I was reading Alan Dershwitz panicked op-ed in the HuffPo trying to persuade readers that Jews don't in fact control the media and I found this entry in the comments section:
That's one way to interpret this, that's true.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Well, it's hard to tell since we don't exactly have polling data, it's true. I just remember times in the past when the consensus didn't seem as clear cut as you and Mr. Squicky suggest, that's all. Good zinger, though, Mr. Squicky!
quote: Looking for intentionally obscured agendas and trying to tease them out is a very dangerous game.
I realize that, it's just to me it didn't seem very obscured at all. I suppose there's one very straightforward way to clarify: Sa'eed, what do you think? Do Jews in fact control the media?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I'm not trying to zing you. I'm trying to get you to realize that it is your behavior in feeding these trolls, in responding to them in a hostile way that often leads to you drawing official censure that gives them exactly what they want and what they are posting for.
If your goal is to reduce the effect they have on this forum or to get them to post less, you are in fact achieving the opposite.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Do Jews in fact control the media?
I think Hitchens has a good summary here
quote:Coming to Sanchez, then, I ask myself if the world in which I have worked for so many decades—the intersecting and overlapping world of the news media, publishing, the academy, and the think-tank industry—is even imaginable without the presence of liberal American Jews. The answer is plainly no. Moreover, I can't think of any other "minority" of which this is remotely true, unless it were to be the other minority from which I can claim descent: people of British or Anglophile provenance.
So why the fuss? I think it has to do with the tone of voice in which these facts are stated. Karel de Gucht, for example, prefaced his comments by saying: "There is indeed a belief—it's difficult to describe it otherwise—among most Jews that they are right." How untrue is this? Self-criticism among Jews, on matters of religion and statecraft, is actually rather noticeable. But anyone who has ever had a dispute with some of the spokesmen for the holy state may possibly have detected a whiff of righteousness here and there. (I pause to ask myself what it's like to be a Belgian, if there is such a thing. Too proud? Too masochistic? Difficult to decide. Like the mule, it seems to be a country without pride in paternity or hope of posterity.)
In the manner in which Sanchez spoke, also, there was something like a buried resentment. He didn't descend into saying that there was Jewish control of the media, but he did imply that liberalism was linked to a single ethnicity. Still, there is nothing criminal about this, and the speed of his firing, like the other recent abrupt disappearances of Laura Schlessinger and Octavia Nasr, seems to suggest a network system that cares only about playing safe and avoiding "offense."
I think there are larger issues at stake than whether "Jew control the media" which as a generalization is false. As in the strength of the pro-Israeli lobby distorts foreign policy even to the detriment of the United States itself. Also, how the range of voices that are allowed to be heard is increasingly shrinking in the media (let alone in politics).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sa'eed, what do you think? Do Jews in fact control the media?
I agree with Alan Dershowitz column:
quote:Amidst all the brouhaha over CNN's firing of Rick Sanchez for his remarks about Jews in the media, an important distinction is being missed. Yes, there are many individual Jews in positions of influence in Hollywood, in network television, in sports and entertainment, and in many other areas of American public life. These individuals, who happen to be Jewish, do not act together in any kind of conspiratorial manner. There is no "Jewish control" of any of these areas -- or of the many other areas, such as medicine, law, academia, finance -- where there are large numbers of individual Jews in high positions.
But I believe that the large numbers of individual Jews in the media (as Dershowitz acknowledges) are very influential on the question of how Zionism is presented to American audiences and are pivotal to keeping out anti-Zionist voices out of the mainstream media.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is, Rick Sanchez was not a popular and established personality on CNN but certainly someone who's star was rising and Stewart was relentlessly making him appear to be a buffoon day in and day out and possibly hurting the dude's career and prospects. It's one thing to subject elected officials to that treatment and another for Stewart to treat a rather mainstream CNN host in that fashion. This whole incident was nothing but a victim of bullying lashing back.
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that we accept your analysis of events that casts a Jew as villain and Sanchez as victim.
ETA: Which is, y'know, a big shocker.
Maybe Sanchez, a fully grown man with hair on his chest, ought to have pulled up his big boy professional pants and, y'know, not lashed out like an ignorant jackass. Part and parcel of being a 'mainstream CNN host', one would think, or isn't it?
You know that Sanchez is trapped. If he attempts to respond tit for tat he'll inevitably fail. If he responds seriously, he'll fail, because haha they're just jokes why so serious? Stewart and his writers are in a position to be bullies and they just couldn't help themselves. They should have saved that sort of abuse for scumbag politicians and demagogues and not use it to hurt the careers of people who did nothing wrong.
I think the reason they loved picking on Sanchez was for a simple, high-schoolish reason: Sanchez has the appearance and demeanor of the popular athletic jock, more so than any broadcaster on cable, and the writers are this ugly bunch:
quote:You know that Sanchez is trapped. If he attempts to respond tit for tat he'll inevitably fail. If he responds seriously, he'll fail, because haha they're just jokes why so serious? Stewart and his writers are in a position to be bullies and they just couldn't help themselves. They should have saved that sort of abuse for scumbag politicians and demagogues and not use it to hurt the careers of people who did nothing wrong.
So your position is that it's impossible for classy Sanchez to have remained above the bullying Jew Stewart & Co., right? Again, even if we accept your analysis as right - unlikely to say the least - Sanchez could have just stayed classy and accepted that some people are schmucks and not, as you would have us believe, descended to Stewart's level.
Being bullied is hard for anchors to take!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Being bullied is hard for anchors to take! "
Yes it is. Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke. Their treatment of him was unwarranted and sick. Sanchez was not a right wing demagogue or a politician but an average joe who happened to be blessed with the looks and personality to be a news anchor and Stewart's unrelenting mockery of the man was clearly psychologically torturous to him hence his outburst. Day in and day out Sanchez must have been thinking "why me? What did I do?" but all that matters is the lolz right?
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke.
And his only recourse was to...act like a jackass? It's interesting how well you seem to read Sanchez's mind, though. How clearly you see into his thoughts. And Stewart's too, of course.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't a recourse. It was an emotional outburst. And he was provoked. Anyway, what Sanchez said wasn't appropriate but Stewart & CO's behavior was far more sick.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Yes it is. Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke.
Stewart and 'company' were noting that the guy was already a joke. I know you'll stand arm-in-arm with the guy because he went on the line with the whole Jewish Media Conspiracy, but seriously. He was a joke long before he ever got noted on Stewart's show.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: It wasn't a recourse. It was an emotional outburst. And he was provoked. Anyway, what Sanchez said wasn't appropriate but Stewart & CO's behavior was far more sick.
Of course it was. After all, they're Jews.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: "Being bullied is hard for anchors to take! "
Yes it is. Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke. Their treatment of him was unwarranted and sick. Sanchez was not a right wing demagogue or a politician but an average joe who happened to be blessed with the looks and personality to be a news anchor and Stewart's unrelenting mockery of the man was clearly psychologically torturous to him hence his outburst. Day in and day out Sanchez must have been thinking "why me? What did I do?" but all that matters is the lolz right?
Guys, it's not like there's nothing to this. Yes, Sanchez was exemplary of a certain lowering of cable-news standards that's been building up for many years. But there is a disturbing parallel between Stewart's attacks and relentless "griefing."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Christine O'Donnell will be quick to feel griefed as well. I'm sure, to them, it's all invalid character assassination.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sanchez got stunlocked by a CC (Crowd control? Or comedy central?) rogue and rerolled on a carebear network.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, of course, let's not ignore another part of this: it's not like a media personality can't parlay being attacked by 'the Daily Show Crew' (you know, them) into something in the media.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
In the age of Twitter and 24 hour coverage, I can't blame networks for leaping to contain problems before they tarnish the network itself, but I don't think the zero-tolerance approach seen here works very well, either. What I think they should have done?
Bring Sanchez and Stewart together, with a moderator, and put it on TV.
Sanchez gets a chance to defend himself -- or publicly apologize -- and he and Stewart could discuss some of what bothers him about Sanchez' style of reporting. After Sanchez was canned, Stewart ran a piece demonstrating why he personally did not think Sanchez was bigoted; I think he'd be open to something like this. CNN might not have to fire the guy after all, everyone involved gets a ratings bump, and the public is happy that Something Was Done.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I can tell, and this may not be correct, John Stewart attacked Rick Sanchez repeatedly as being a really bad journalist who was, as noted, exemplifying the decline in standards and responsibility on the part of cable news networks. If that's the case, I don't really see how it is much like griefing.
A responsible and reliable press is a key foundation of a healthy democracy. We have a constitutionally guaranteed right that the government can't interfere with the press. This grants them a great deal of freedom but it also places a strong responsibility on them. When they fail to live up to this responsibility, because of the vital nature of their role and because they are free from government censure, it is extremely important that non-governmental entities censure them for it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Yes it is. Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke.
Stewart and 'company' were noting that the guy was already a joke. I know you'll stand arm-in-arm with the guy because he went on the line with the whole Jewish Media Conspiracy, but seriously. He was a joke long before he ever got noted on Stewart's show.
Surprise surprise. Many here are willing to blame the victim in order to defend their liberal darling.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: From what I can tell, and this may not be correct, John Stewart attacked Rick Sanchez repeatedly as being a really bad journalist who was, as noted, exemplifying the decline in standards and responsibility on the part of cable news networks. If that's the case, I don't really see how it is much like griefing.
That's just an excuse. What exactly did Sanchez do that's so emblematic of the decline in "standards and responsibility on the part of cable news networks"? How is this more credible than a bunch of dorks picking on someone they perceived to be weak?
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe CNN could learn to put smarter people on the air?
I don't know about "repeatedly" attacked. I watch The Daily Show pretty regularly and I wasn't really aware of Mr. Sanchez until this incident.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I repeat: "It's also really easy to avoid being mocked by him. Just stop being an egotistical, hypocritical, willfully ignorant incompetent. He'll totally leave you alone. If Republicans are complaining that he goes after him more than Democrats, maybe they should think about why that is."
Sanchez had a reputation for being a polarizing figure in news for years before his job at CNN. I suspect that's a large part of why they hired him in the first place.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Surprise surprise. Many here are willing to blame the victim in order to defend their liberal darling.
"I was a victim of my own outburst," said Sanchez, adopting Sa'eed's mental workaround. "Even though it was my own outburst, I'm still a victim! My own words, pouring out of my own mouth .. my inability to coherently form a notion of 'bigotry' .. all of this, the fault of the perpetrator of this injustice, Stewart!"
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: How is this more credible than a bunch of dorks picking on someone they perceived to be weak?
Protip: Stewart wasn't picking on him because he was perceived to be weak.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He was a victim of relentless and unnecessary mockery -- and he's not a politician or a demagogue. They just didn't like his mannerisms. They were being jackasses. Anyway, Stewart knew that Sanchez was merely up and coming at CNN which is why he could afford to go after Sanchez: Stewart is more of the liberal darling who can do no wrong. No wonder this behavior is being excused in a culture that increasingly thinks lolz are worth any price (the influence of 4chan/Howard Stern is pretty apparent here.)
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mostly they made fun of him the same way they make fun of any news reporter who inserts him or herself into the story and acts like an idiot while doing so.
The first time I can find is 2005: Sanchez letting himself be Tasered. Not a biggie; just about every news show has done this at some point since Tasers became popular. Here Stewart makes fun of Sanchez's deduction: "It hurts." Minor ridicule.
In July they mocked him, along with many other news figures such as Anderson Cooper, Geraldo and the president of CNN, for their over-the-top hurricane coverage.
In April 2009 they were so happy that Sanchez asked a probing, difficult question that they officially retired his Taser tape (although, after showing it one last time, Stewart changed his mind).
June: Another Moment of Zen with Sanchez wanting to tag team a guest.
June again, as part of mocking many CNN newscasters bitching about Rolling Stone getting better access to Gen. McChrystal, Stewart mocked a clip of Sanchez comparing McChrystal's interview with his kids hanging out in their basement.
August 11: a Moment of Zen when Sanchez moves awkwardly from a report on American deaths in Afghanistan to "this whole Tiger Woods thing."
In September, Stewart mocked FOX, MSNBC and CNN for their coverage of Obama's midterm speech. They closed with a slam at Sanchez for his part, and for flubbing a line because his mind was on football.
And that's it, that's all the mentions I can find, many of them simple, uncommented clips of ill-chosen statements or replays of his Tasering. Sanchez is seen as part of a larger problem, the general idiocy of broadcast journalism.
So yeah, in this case I'm blaming the victim. Did The Daily Show go after Sanchez? No more than any other newscaster who speaks without thinking. Hell, the Daily Show has picked on Anderson Cooper far more than they ever picked on Sanchez. When they go after someone, you know it. Ask Jim Cramer about that.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No wonder this behavior is being excused in a culture that increasingly thinks lolz are worth any price (the influence of 4chan/Howard Stern is pretty apparent here.)
Howard Stern, Sa'eed? Really?
C'mon, that's transparent, even by your standards. And who are the overwhelming majority of Stern's listeners, of course. Anyway, Chris's 17x/5yrs is pretty decisive that you're, y'know, flat-out wrong. Well-done on his part as usual.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I removed my 17 count because I counted my paragraphs and in a few cases more than one instance was mentioned, so probably closer to 20 or so. From a show that runs 4 times a week, maybe 42-45 weeks out of the year? (Dunno how many vacation weeks they take) I'm not going to go back and look 'em up now -- gotta have some Saturday to myself -- but it wouldn't surprise me if they've picked on every CNN anchor as much, and some much more. And at that, CNN gets less heat than MSNBC and much less than FOX.
And I repeat: "It's also really easy to avoid being mocked by him. Just stop being an egotistical, hypocritical, willfully ignorant incompetent. He'll totally leave you alone. If Republicans are complaining that he goes after him more than Democrats, maybe they should think about why that is."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
And I repeat: "It's also really easy to avoid being mocked by him. Just stop being an egotistical, hypocritical, willfully ignorant incompetent. He'll totally leave you alone. If Republicans are complaining that he goes after him more than Democrats, maybe they should think about why that is."
Hey, for some that is pretty difficult standard.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: "Being bullied is hard for anchors to take! "
Yes it is. Stewart & Co were hurting the dude's career and making him into a joke. Their treatment of him was unwarranted and sick. Sanchez was not a right wing demagogue or a politician but an average joe who happened to be blessed with the looks and personality to be a news anchor and Stewart's unrelenting mockery of the man was clearly psychologically torturous to him hence his outburst. Day in and day out Sanchez must have been thinking "why me? What did I do?" but all that matters is the lolz right?
Stop making excuses. Stewart is a comedian on CC. His JOB is to make fun of people, and his critique of him was spot on.
It's not like it was hard to make fun of him. He made it fairly easy.
If he can't handle it he could always find another job. You know, one he might actually be good at, and not be putting himself forward as an expert of subjects he knows nothing about.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sanchez makes a little bit of sense here, taking responsibility for his "inartful comments" and plugging his book a bit.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: No wonder this behavior is being excused in a culture that increasingly thinks lolz are worth any price (the influence of 4chan/Howard Stern is pretty apparent here.)
Not that your whole conflation of TDS/Stewart to 4chan trolling makes any sense whatsoever anyway, but it's the 'lulz.'
And stewart's actions only superficially resemble teh lulz to people who are steadfastly ignorant of and wish to caricature his successful job lampooning and ridiculing the stupidity of our politicians and our media, using a pastiche of doddering conceptualizations of internet troll culture.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stewart *is* the problem with our media. He was effective in getting Crossfire canceled and result is that instead of debate we now have shows of his type: one person giving his opinions unopposed. Also, he can never be held seriously to anything because of his clownish "I'm just a comedian lol" nature.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
He he he no.
Angrily banging your shoe on your table doesnt make you right.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Stewart *is* the problem with our media. He was effective in getting Crossfire canceled and result is that instead of debate we now have shows of his type: one person giving his opinions unopposed. Also, he can never be held seriously to anything because of his clownish "I'm just a comedian lol" nature.
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Also, he can never be held seriously to anything because of his clownish "I'm just a comedian lol" nature.
I really, really, really, really hate to say anything that even sort of almost kind of resembles agreeing with Sa'eed. But I do think that there might be a grain of truth to the idea that Stewart has a tendency to put on and take off the clown nose when convenient.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He was effective in getting Crossfire canceled and result is that instead of debate..."
Crossfire wasn't debate. That was Stewart's point. It was yelling.
Sa'eed, I have listed every time Rick Sanchez was mentioned on the Daily Show. He was not targeted any more than other newscasters on CNN or otherwise. He seems to have been the only one with a problem about it, though.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really, really, really, really hate to say anything that even sort of almost kind of resembles agreeing with Sa'eed. But I do think that there might be a grain of truth to the idea that Stewart has a tendency to put on and take off the clown nose when convenient.
Really? First of all, for the sake of argument, let's say this is true: so what? The guy runs a comedy show. Isn't the real reason you find this objectionable - and also the real reason you're so uncomfortable agreeing with Sa'eed - is that he more often takes shots at conservatives and a conservative agenda doing it, Dan_Frank?
He's not kyrptonite. His rhetoric isn't unassailable, or at least theoretically it isn't. It's not actually being assailed at all here except in theory. The very fact that he is a comedian means that yes, he can dodge substantive criticism more easily if he chooses to do so - but, y'know, Stewart seems to take substantive criticism pretty straight on - but it also makes him much easier to brush off. You can hear examples from folks like O'Reilly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I really, really, really, really hate to say anything that even sort of almost kind of resembles agreeing with Sa'eed. But I do think that there might be a grain of truth to the idea that Stewart has a tendency to put on and take off the clown nose when convenient.
One might even say that he tends to run a comedy show on comedy central when convenient.
Stewart is a remarkable asset when it comes to the evolution and maintenance of political discourse in this country. But the fact that we were ever at a point where a comedian running a comedy show is exactly what we needed to re-rail our media and jingoistic political morass is kind of a perfect example of how pathetic the nation has gotten in this regard. That we're now down to people criticizing him for his journalistic presentation via a comedy show as though we have to look to a show on comedy central for cues into standards for journalism, we're in trouble.
To quote Stewart himself, in response to Sa'eed's remarkably clueless screed: "The show that leads into mine is puppets making crank calls. What is wrong with you?"
quote:I really, really, really, really hate to say anything that even sort of almost kind of resembles agreeing with Sa'eed. But I do think that there might be a grain of truth to the idea that Stewart has a tendency to put on and take off the clown nose when convenient.
Really? First of all, for the sake of argument, let's say this is true: so what? The guy runs a comedy show. Isn't the real reason you find this objectionable - and also the real reason you're so uncomfortable agreeing with Sa'eed - is that he more often takes shots at conservatives and a conservative agenda doing it, Dan_Frank?
I will never understand the double standard here of when it is and isn't okay to put words in other people's mouths. But, whatever.
Okay, so, certainly the reason I personally don't have all that much interest in/respect for Stewart is certainly that I think he is woefully wrong about many political issues/movements/people.
(I also don't see that he was ever "exactly what this country needed," but in full disclosure I almost never watch TV news, outside of occasional clips I see online. I prefer reading my news, in most cases. So maybe I just don't have a good enough concept of the dire straits Samp seems to think we were in.)
So, you could say that the reason I don't like Stewart is that he has a political agenda I disagree with. Much the same way I could say Samp doesn't like, say, Rush Limbaugh, because he has a political agenda Samp disagrees with.
And I'll freely admit that I am probably more annoyed by the clown nose behavior than I would be if he was a snarky conservative comedian/newscaster. Because I'm in agreement with the people whose arguments he deflects with the clown nose. If you're someone who thinks those arguments are just stupid ramblings from some right wing jerk then you'd be less bothered when Stewart deflects it with a joke instead of a response (like in the famous, and quite funny, deflection Samp quoted from the Crossfire event.)
But ultimately I do think that the clown nose response to criticism is a total cop-out. It means that I consider Stewart wholly a comedian. And I am honestly perplexed and a little bit boggled when I see people refer to him as a journalist, or say that they get most of their news from him, or otherwise accord him a level of professionalism that I don't think he really displays.
Edit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But the fact that we were ever at a point where a comedian running a comedy show is exactly what we needed to re-rail our media and jingoistic political morass is kind of a perfect example of how pathetic the nation has gotten in this regard. That we're now down to people criticizing him for his journalistic presentation via a comedy show as though we have to look to a show on comedy central for cues into standards for journalism, we're in trouble.
See, as long as we consider him a comedian running a comedy show, I'm fine with that. People criticize him for his journalistic integrity when droves of kids act like Stewart is a real journalist. Or, not just a real journalist, but the best journalist working today.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, you could say that the reason I don't like Stewart is that he has a political agenda I disagree with. Much the same way I could say Samp doesn't like, say, Rush Limbaugh, because he has a political agenda Samp disagrees with.
I think it's actually completely childish to dislike someone because you disagree with their political agenda. I don't dislike rush limbaugh because he has a political agenda I disagree with. I dislike him, or anyone, whose chosen tactics pollute newsmedia with lies and disinformation to advance that political agenda.
This disconnect, now that I think about it, could have a lot to do with why you'll stick up for someone like Breitbart as a credible source.
quote:See, as long as we consider him a comedian running a comedy show, I'm fine with that. People criticize him for his journalistic integrity when droves of kids act like Stewart is a real journalist. Or, not just a real journalist, but the best journalist working today.
Stewart's integrity as a host of a comedy show does much better when you let him speak for himself, as opposed to letting droves of hypothetical kids speak for him.
But what the kids have right is that stewart's influence on newsmedia is positive — moreso than most people in our country who should be shouldering the responsibility of respectable journalism, and aren't.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, you could say that the reason I don't like Stewart is that he has a political agenda I disagree with. Much the same way I could say Samp doesn't like, say, Rush Limbaugh, because he has a political agenda Samp disagrees with.
I think it's actually completely childish to dislike someone because you disagree with their political agenda. I don't dislike rush limbaugh because he has a political agenda I disagree with. I dislike him, or anyone, whose chosen tactics pollute newsmedia with lies and disinformation to advance that political agenda.
This disconnect, now that I think about it, could have a lot to do with why you'll stick up for someone like Breitbart as a credible source.
Sorry, I thought it was self-evident that you see lies and disinformation when you look at people with a political agenda you disagree with.
Because, um... you do. Just so we're clear.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry, I thought it was self-evident that you see lies and disinformation when you look at people with a political agenda you disagree with.
Let's try this again, and see if you get it any better: I see lies and disinformation when I look at people who engage in the spreading of lies and disinformation. This can be for people for whom I generally find agreement or disagreement with when it comes to shared political goals.
I dislike people for being serial misinformers. I respect people who have political agendas I disagree with, but do so without polluting newsmedia with lies and disinformation. I don't dislike them simply because of the political disagreement. This is different and unambiguously better than what you are saying you do.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
