vBCms Comments
Welcome To Hunting Country
General Hunting Forums
Archery & Bowhunting
Shooting Sports
Manufacturers' Corner
Firearms
Classifieds
Not Hunting / General Chit Chat
1.) Swamp Fox - 07/01/2017
In the event that you can't find another thread to post in, feel free to dump the trash here.
The "Grey Lady" is undeniably senile:
BTW, the [I]Times[/I] is in the middle of a big lay-off of copy editors in an effort to save money...What could go wrong?
The "Grey Lady" is undeniably senile:
Dozens of people were wounded by gunfire at a nightclub early Saturday morning in downtown Arkansas https://t.co/XK4uwVzwwn
— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 1, 2017
BTW, the [I]Times[/I] is in the middle of a big lay-off of copy editors in an effort to save money...What could go wrong?
2.) DParker - 07/02/2017
What am I missing here? (In the interest of full disclosure I might have enjoyed a few craft beers in the past couple of hours.)
3.) Swamp Fox - 07/02/2017
[QUOTE]Dozens of people were wounded by gunfire at a nightclub early Saturday morning in [B]downtown Arkansas[/B] [/QUOTE]....
4.) DParker - 07/02/2017
LOL. Thanks.
5.) Swamp Fox - 07/06/2017
[B][SIZE=2]CNN’s Jim Acosta Calls Trump Presser A “Fake News Conference,” Gets Fact Wrong[/SIZE][/B]
I believe the article will soon update to show Acosta 0 for 3 on facts, instead of just "0 for 2 and we'll get back to you on #3."
#3: Trump gave his first question to [I]The Daily Mail [/I]and his second to MSNBC. So not a fake news conference. (Apparently if you give your initial questions to friendly media, that's a fake news conference, according to Acosta.)
Not anything too amazing here if you've been following journalism's decline for any length of time, or Trump Derangement Syndrome for that matter. But I thought it was a good marker for some clearly stated facts about Obama's response to Russian hacking/interference/heavy breathing, and the reality of what "intelligence agencies" were concluding or not concluding about it. In case anyone's interested. Those were Acosta's blunders 1 and 2.
Most press and pundits don't seem to be in a big hurry to clarify those areas or explain how they've allowed public misimpressions to develop and percolate.
[url]http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/06/cnns-jim-acosta-calls-trump-presser-fake-news-conference-gets-fact-wrong/[/url]
I believe the article will soon update to show Acosta 0 for 3 on facts, instead of just "0 for 2 and we'll get back to you on #3."
#3: Trump gave his first question to [I]The Daily Mail [/I]and his second to MSNBC. So not a fake news conference. (Apparently if you give your initial questions to friendly media, that's a fake news conference, according to Acosta.)
Not anything too amazing here if you've been following journalism's decline for any length of time, or Trump Derangement Syndrome for that matter. But I thought it was a good marker for some clearly stated facts about Obama's response to Russian hacking/interference/heavy breathing, and the reality of what "intelligence agencies" were concluding or not concluding about it. In case anyone's interested. Those were Acosta's blunders 1 and 2.
Most press and pundits don't seem to be in a big hurry to clarify those areas or explain how they've allowed public misimpressions to develop and percolate.
[url]http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/06/cnns-jim-acosta-calls-trump-presser-fake-news-conference-gets-fact-wrong/[/url]
6.) DParker - 07/06/2017
While not national...or really of any consequence other than as another illustration of the theme...I'll add the following as an award candidate:
The Columbia {Missouri} Daily Tribune publishes a piece by one of its more cantankerous aging liberal columnists in which he recounts his harrowing experience being pulled over by a pair of local sheriff’s deputies for failing to signal a turn. "Ol' Clark" (how the author refers to himself) informs us that the deputies were such jack-booted thugs that they pulled him over for "no reason" (though he's certain it was really because of all his liberal bumper stickers), were generally mean and nasty to him and he even feels lucky that he wasn't shot! He concludes by exercising his inner SJW with...
[quote]I’ve just come to appreciate even more the words of those minorities when they speak of harassment and police arrogance. I had a good dose of arrogance on this evening and, in my rear view mirror, the image of the second officer out of the car, his hands ready in case I made the wrong move. My life seemed to be in danger.
I fully understand how a person can lose their respect for law officers. When you are in the shoes of the minority, you learn a lot more about their journey.[/quote]
Here's the original story: [URL="http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/20170630/ol-clark-has-run-in-with-law"]http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/20170630/ol-clark-has-run-in-with-law[/URL]
Apparently (insert video of funny red-headed "apparently" kid here)...Ol' Clark isn't smart enough to know that it's pretty common for law enforcement vehicles to be equipped with dash-mounted video+audio recording gear. And unfortunately for Ol' Clark, Boone County Sheriff Dwayne Carey is not only aware of his agency's use of said equipment, it seems he also reads the Columbia Daily Tribune...or at least did that day. Upon hearing about how poorly a citizen was treated by a pair of his deputies the good sheriff immediately conducted an investigation, whereupon he found and reviewed the audio-visual recording of the incident. As it turns out, Ol' Clark is a lying sack of crap. In reality the cops conducted themselves in about as polite and professional a manner as you can imagine, and it was Ol' Clark who was the confrontational a**hole at the party.
Here's a piece on it, with the video appearing at the end of the story: [URL="https://bluelivesmatter.blue/video-bill-clark-boone-county-sheriff/"]https://bluelivesmatter.blue/video-bill-clark-boone-county-sheriff/[/URL]
Yeah...journalism.
The Columbia {Missouri} Daily Tribune publishes a piece by one of its more cantankerous aging liberal columnists in which he recounts his harrowing experience being pulled over by a pair of local sheriff’s deputies for failing to signal a turn. "Ol' Clark" (how the author refers to himself) informs us that the deputies were such jack-booted thugs that they pulled him over for "no reason" (though he's certain it was really because of all his liberal bumper stickers), were generally mean and nasty to him and he even feels lucky that he wasn't shot! He concludes by exercising his inner SJW with...
[quote]I’ve just come to appreciate even more the words of those minorities when they speak of harassment and police arrogance. I had a good dose of arrogance on this evening and, in my rear view mirror, the image of the second officer out of the car, his hands ready in case I made the wrong move. My life seemed to be in danger.
I fully understand how a person can lose their respect for law officers. When you are in the shoes of the minority, you learn a lot more about their journey.[/quote]
Here's the original story: [URL="http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/20170630/ol-clark-has-run-in-with-law"]http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/20170630/ol-clark-has-run-in-with-law[/URL]
Apparently (insert video of funny red-headed "apparently" kid here)...Ol' Clark isn't smart enough to know that it's pretty common for law enforcement vehicles to be equipped with dash-mounted video+audio recording gear. And unfortunately for Ol' Clark, Boone County Sheriff Dwayne Carey is not only aware of his agency's use of said equipment, it seems he also reads the Columbia Daily Tribune...or at least did that day. Upon hearing about how poorly a citizen was treated by a pair of his deputies the good sheriff immediately conducted an investigation, whereupon he found and reviewed the audio-visual recording of the incident. As it turns out, Ol' Clark is a lying sack of crap. In reality the cops conducted themselves in about as polite and professional a manner as you can imagine, and it was Ol' Clark who was the confrontational a**hole at the party.
Here's a piece on it, with the video appearing at the end of the story: [URL="https://bluelivesmatter.blue/video-bill-clark-boone-county-sheriff/"]https://bluelivesmatter.blue/video-bill-clark-boone-county-sheriff/[/URL]
Yeah...journalism.
7.) Swamp Fox - 07/06/2017
LOL...
Just for the record, entries here don't have to be national. Local journalism used to be funnier, in fact. I should go through my archives.
But the key phrase is "used to be." Oh, well.
****
Ol' Clark is a drama queen and pretty cavalier with his use of quotation marks. Hanging his theme on a flimsy hook like minority-police interactions when there is absolutely no reason to, other than his fevered lefty imagination, is beyond lame.
On the other hand, you have to feel sorry for the poor schlub. He has to churn out a column three times a week in a college town. "Shoot me now."
****
Alright, who wants to argue about the merits of the revenue stop at a T intersection with no traffic and roughly two half-hours of Law Enforcement's time involved. :grin: Maybe in a different thread, LOL.
Just for the record, entries here don't have to be national. Local journalism used to be funnier, in fact. I should go through my archives.
But the key phrase is "used to be." Oh, well.
****
Ol' Clark is a drama queen and pretty cavalier with his use of quotation marks. Hanging his theme on a flimsy hook like minority-police interactions when there is absolutely no reason to, other than his fevered lefty imagination, is beyond lame.
On the other hand, you have to feel sorry for the poor schlub. He has to churn out a column three times a week in a college town. "Shoot me now."
****
Alright, who wants to argue about the merits of the revenue stop at a T intersection with no traffic and roughly two half-hours of Law Enforcement's time involved. :grin: Maybe in a different thread, LOL.
8.) Swamp Fox - 07/07/2017
BTW, there was at least one other similar dust-up that made national news ---or at least made it to the news junkie level---a little while back. Within the last 5 years, say, being liberal. The writer crossed over to the fiction genre---Nay, the [I]complete[/I] fiction genre---about a police stop of some type.
I don't remember the details, but it was a similar situation where the Chief or Commissioner went to the tape for the truth and body-slammed the faker with the facts. If I'm recalling correctly, it was a blue-on-black situation. Or maybe not. Maybe there was one incident that was, and one incident that wasn't. The take-away is that, regardless, I'm not sure the writer(s) has/have ever been heard from again, LOL.
I don't remember the details, but it was a similar situation where the Chief or Commissioner went to the tape for the truth and body-slammed the faker with the facts. If I'm recalling correctly, it was a blue-on-black situation. Or maybe not. Maybe there was one incident that was, and one incident that wasn't. The take-away is that, regardless, I'm not sure the writer(s) has/have ever been heard from again, LOL.
9.) bluecat - 07/07/2017
Journalism at its finest. Do you guys ever watch Live PD? Anyone watching that and not gain some respect for law enforcement and the difficult job that they do, is an idiot.
10.) bluecat - 07/07/2017
Commence with the Missouri jokes?
11.) Swamp Fox - 07/07/2017
LOL...Somehow I knew that was coming...
I'll let the market decide.
I'll let the market decide.
12.) Swamp Fox - 07/07/2017
In other media news: NYT appears to have fallen for the parody North Korea Twitter account pic.twitter.com/TdkJjnmD6b
— Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) July 5, 2017
13.) Swamp Fox - 07/07/2017
"Editing error."
Yeah. Ok.
LOL
Yeah. Ok.
LOL
14.) Swamp Fox - 07/14/2017
Ted Cruz’s so-called Consumer Freedom amendment to be included in new health care plan https://t.co/tVdbp7JNOh pic.twitter.com/QuvubJXSyR
— CNN (@CNN) July 13, 2017
Weird… my search for tweets from CNN mentioning the “so-called Affordable Care Act” turned up no results. https://t.co/fizqTwu9uy https://t.co/hT2GxI3pff
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) July 13, 2017
15.) Swamp Fox - 08/23/2017
In Case You Missed It:
[B]
ESPN under fire for taking announcer off UVA game[/B]
"My name is Lee. Robert Lee."
Okay, I know it's game-calling and not really journalism, but does anyone doubt the same thinking would apply at ESPN if Lee were reporting or doing analysis vs. broadcasting games?
[QUOTE]
According to an ESPN executive, [B]who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the situation[/B], ESPN asked Lee if he would be more comfortable calling another game but gave him the option to stay. Lee chose to switch assignments, and ESPN accommodated him.
...
It seems ESPN was hoping to shield their employee from any potential ridicule or embarrassment. Instead, they made a mountain out of a molehill and the entire thing has backfired spectacularly.
ESPN released the following statement: "We collectively made the decision with Robert to switch games as the tragic events in Charlottesville were unfolding, simply because of the coincidence of his name. In that moment it felt right to all parties. It's a shame that this is even a topic of conversation and [B]we regret that who calls play by play for a football game has become an issue[/B]."
[Emphasis mine]
[url]https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/08/22/espn-pulls-announcer-robert-lee-off-virginia-game-charlottesville-protests/592458001/[/url]
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/23/media/espn-robert-lee-uva-game/index.html[/url]
You know that you've reached peak stupidity when even MSNBC is mocking you for political correctness. But I'd also like to know what kind of weasel pen you have to live in to have to give straight-news background only on condition of anonymity because of the "sensitivity" of the "issue" your employer created all on its lonesome.
[B]
ESPN under fire for taking announcer off UVA game[/B]
"My name is Lee. Robert Lee."
Okay, I know it's game-calling and not really journalism, but does anyone doubt the same thinking would apply at ESPN if Lee were reporting or doing analysis vs. broadcasting games?
[QUOTE]
According to an ESPN executive, [B]who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the situation[/B], ESPN asked Lee if he would be more comfortable calling another game but gave him the option to stay. Lee chose to switch assignments, and ESPN accommodated him.
...
It seems ESPN was hoping to shield their employee from any potential ridicule or embarrassment. Instead, they made a mountain out of a molehill and the entire thing has backfired spectacularly.
ESPN released the following statement: "We collectively made the decision with Robert to switch games as the tragic events in Charlottesville were unfolding, simply because of the coincidence of his name. In that moment it felt right to all parties. It's a shame that this is even a topic of conversation and [B]we regret that who calls play by play for a football game has become an issue[/B]."
[Emphasis mine]
[url]https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/08/22/espn-pulls-announcer-robert-lee-off-virginia-game-charlottesville-protests/592458001/[/url]
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/23/media/espn-robert-lee-uva-game/index.html[/url]
You know that you've reached peak stupidity when even MSNBC is mocking you for political correctness. But I'd also like to know what kind of weasel pen you have to live in to have to give straight-news background only on condition of anonymity because of the "sensitivity" of the "issue" your employer created all on its lonesome.
16.) DParker - 08/23/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;51066]You know that you've reached peak stupidity when even MSNBC is mocking you for political correctness.[/QUOTE]
Excellent point. My son and I were laughing our asses of over this last night. ESPN has been a joke for years anyway, so maybe they've just resigned themselves to embracing their stupidity.
Excellent point. My son and I were laughing our asses of over this last night. ESPN has been a joke for years anyway, so maybe they've just resigned themselves to embracing their stupidity.
17.) Swamp Fox - 08/23/2017
I missed it last night, so I haven't been able to stop laughing all morning. I'm just hoping it will stop before I have lunch, or I'll get the hiccups.
18.) DParker - 08/23/2017
I should be thanking them though, because now, no matter what dumb things I do for the rest of the year, and no matter how stupid I feel for doing them...I can console myself by simply saying, "Well, at least I'm not ESPN management."
19.) bluecat - 08/23/2017
I just heard about it. Unbelievable.
20.) Swamp Fox - 08/23/2017
More nonsense [B]from ESPN[/B], and it makes them look worse:
[QUOTE]Every employee of this fading garbage network should be ruthlessly wedgied until they apologize.
“Eventually.” Imagine this poor bastard being pulled aside by the imbeciles who run ESPN and being, ahem, “asked” not to cover the UVA game because he happens to share a name with a long-dead Confederate at the center of a renewed public debate over white supremacy and memorials. And when he wanted to know why, they wouldn’t even tell him the truth, that they didn’t want to risk getting cross-wise with the left on its latest crusade even by coincidence. “Because of the memes,” they told him.
Because of the memes. How are they doing meme-wise this morning?
Supposedly Lee gave in … “eventually.” The least the network could have done for him would have been to say He fought us all the way on this.” Instead they made him complicit in idiocy to cover their own tracks. He should change his name to Stone Walljackson out of spite and demand to cover only SEC games from now on.
[url]http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/23/espn-replaced-robert-lee-broadcaster-feared-dank-memes/[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Every employee of this fading garbage network should be ruthlessly wedgied until they apologize.
“Eventually.” Imagine this poor bastard being pulled aside by the imbeciles who run ESPN and being, ahem, “asked” not to cover the UVA game because he happens to share a name with a long-dead Confederate at the center of a renewed public debate over white supremacy and memorials. And when he wanted to know why, they wouldn’t even tell him the truth, that they didn’t want to risk getting cross-wise with the left on its latest crusade even by coincidence. “Because of the memes,” they told him.
Because of the memes. How are they doing meme-wise this morning?
Just received this email from an ESPN executive re the Robert Lee controversy. pic.twitter.com/OuBORlWO9f
— Yashar Ali (@yashar) August 23, 2017
Supposedly Lee gave in … “eventually.” The least the network could have done for him would have been to say He fought us all the way on this.” Instead they made him complicit in idiocy to cover their own tracks. He should change his name to Stone Walljackson out of spite and demand to cover only SEC games from now on.
[url]http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/23/espn-replaced-robert-lee-broadcaster-feared-dank-memes/[/url][/QUOTE]
21.) Swamp Fox - 08/23/2017
More nonsense [B]from ESPN[/B], and it makes them look even worse:
[SIZE=2][B]ESPN: We Replaced Robert Lee As Broadcaster Because We Feared Dank Memes
[/B][/SIZE]
[QUOTE]Every employee of this fading garbage network should be ruthlessly wedgied until they apologize.
“Eventually.” Imagine this poor bastard being pulled aside by the imbeciles who run ESPN and being, ahem, “asked” not to cover the UVA game because he happens to share a name with a long-dead Confederate at the center of a renewed public debate over white supremacy and memorials. And when he wanted to know why, they wouldn’t even tell him the truth, that they didn’t want to risk getting cross-wise with the left on its latest crusade even by coincidence. “Because of the memes,” they told him.
Because of the memes. How are they doing meme-wise this morning?
Supposedly Lee gave in … “eventually.” The least the network could have done for him would have been to say "He fought us all the way on this.” Instead they made him complicit in idiocy to cover their own tracks. He should change his name to Stone Walljackson out of spite and demand to cover only SEC games from now on.
[url]http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/23/espn-replaced-robert-lee-broadcaster-feared-dank-memes/[/url][/QUOTE]
[SIZE=2][B]ESPN: We Replaced Robert Lee As Broadcaster Because We Feared Dank Memes
[/B][/SIZE]
[QUOTE]Every employee of this fading garbage network should be ruthlessly wedgied until they apologize.
Just received this email from an ESPN executive re the Robert Lee controversy. pic.twitter.com/OuBORlWO9f
— Yashar Ali (@yashar) August 23, 2017
“Eventually.” Imagine this poor bastard being pulled aside by the imbeciles who run ESPN and being, ahem, “asked” not to cover the UVA game because he happens to share a name with a long-dead Confederate at the center of a renewed public debate over white supremacy and memorials. And when he wanted to know why, they wouldn’t even tell him the truth, that they didn’t want to risk getting cross-wise with the left on its latest crusade even by coincidence. “Because of the memes,” they told him.
Because of the memes. How are they doing meme-wise this morning?
Supposedly Lee gave in … “eventually.” The least the network could have done for him would have been to say "He fought us all the way on this.” Instead they made him complicit in idiocy to cover their own tracks. He should change his name to Stone Walljackson out of spite and demand to cover only SEC games from now on.
[url]http://hotair.com/archives/2017/08/23/espn-replaced-robert-lee-broadcaster-feared-dank-memes/[/url][/QUOTE]
22.) Swamp Fox - 08/23/2017
23.) Swamp Fox - 08/23/2017
.....
24.) DParker - 08/23/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;51091][/QUOTE]
LOL!
[/QUOTE]LOL!
25.) Swamp Fox - 08/23/2017
[I]Stop, I say stop it, boy! You’re doin’ a lot of choppin’ but no chips are flyin’![/I]
---Foghorn Leghorn
---Foghorn Leghorn
26.) Swamp Fox - 10/12/2017
27.) Swamp Fox - 10/12/2017
[url]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nbc-harvey-weinstein_us_59de5688e4b0eb18af059685?qj7[/url]
[url]https://t.co/dfxnxIlEAa[/url]
Good summary here:
[url]https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/10/12/reports-nbc-news-tried-to-kill-weinstein-bombshell-story-n2393964[/url]
[url]https://t.co/dfxnxIlEAa[/url]
Good summary here:
[url]https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/10/12/reports-nbc-news-tried-to-kill-weinstein-bombshell-story-n2393964[/url]
28.) bluecat - 10/12/2017
Wow.
I'm hearing how brave these women were for coming forward. Soon they will all be recognized by Oprah (my thoughts).
Yeah, they were so brave for keeping it in for 20 years so others wouldn't be subjected to the same sort of harassment or worse.
I'm hearing how brave these women were for coming forward. Soon they will all be recognized by Oprah (my thoughts).
Yeah, they were so brave for keeping it in for 20 years so others wouldn't be subjected to the same sort of harassment or worse.
29.) bluecat - 10/12/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;52289][/QUOTE]
+ 3 :wink
[/QUOTE]+ 3 :wink
30.) Swamp Fox - 10/12/2017
I don't know. Beyond fear, ambition and intimidation---and some "It's not my place to get in between him and her" --- I'll bet there's another dynamic at play: Can we say many of these women would have known one another so that warnings were possible without putting them on blast, or that the women would have had contact with the bigger names who probably were aware of the "open secret"? Sometime the small fish don't have the same idea about what's going on in the pond that the big fish do.
On the other hand, I'm sure there are at least one or two who felt "This is just something I have to put up with in this business" at the time, but who won't turn down any hero awards or high profile interviews now.
On the other hand, I'm sure there are at least one or two who felt "This is just something I have to put up with in this business" at the time, but who won't turn down any hero awards or high profile interviews now.
31.) DParker - 10/12/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;52293]I don't know. Beyond fear, ambition and intimidation---and some "It's not my place to get in between him and her" --- I'll bet there's another dynamic at play: Can we say many of these women would have known one another so that warnings were possible without putting them on blast, or that the women would have had contact with the bigger names who probably were aware of the "open secret"? Sometime the small fish don't have the same idea about what's going on in the pond that the big fish do.
On the other hand, I'm sure there's at least one or two who felt "This is just something I have to put up with in this business" at the time, but won't turn down any hero awards or high profile interviews now.[/QUOTE]
Well, in at least one case (Rose McGowan, who has been the loudest of the virtue signalers....*after* The New Yorker spilled the beans) there was a $100,000 check from Weinstein that bought her silence...which makes her excoriating others for covering for him that much more hypocritical.
On the other hand, I'm sure there's at least one or two who felt "This is just something I have to put up with in this business" at the time, but won't turn down any hero awards or high profile interviews now.[/QUOTE]
Well, in at least one case (Rose McGowan, who has been the loudest of the virtue signalers....*after* The New Yorker spilled the beans) there was a $100,000 check from Weinstein that bought her silence...which makes her excoriating others for covering for him that much more hypocritical.
32.) Swamp Fox - 10/12/2017
Right. And one amusing side note: She was suspended by Twitter for rules violations (I assume she was ranting at someone) and Twitter took a beating from the mob, partly led by a woman who doesn't need me to help her promote herself, who a few months ago went crying to Twitter's head honcho to ban a guy who was poking fun at *her* (not harassing, but expert level trolling).
She was successful in getting a ban, to loud third-wave feminist applause.
She was successful in getting a ban, to loud third-wave feminist applause.
33.) Swamp Fox - 10/12/2017
Being able to speak your mind is important, unless you want to say the wrong things.
34.) DParker - 10/12/2017
Watching the entertainment industry go full-cannibal on itself is like watching an episode of [I]The Walking Dead[/I], but with just zombies...that eat other zombies. It's the most entertaining thing to come out of Hollywood in decades.
35.) Swamp Fox - 10/12/2017
By the way, this on-again, off-again speech advocate is a journalist, or at least a writer/commentator.
Not very bright, but with a surprisingly big platform for someone with such a low trigger threshold.
Maybe she's just holding on by her fingernails.
Not very bright, but with a surprisingly big platform for someone with such a low trigger threshold.
Maybe she's just holding on by her fingernails.
36.) Swamp Fox - 10/12/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;52297]Watching the entertainment industry go full-cannibal on itself is like watching an episode of [I]The Walking Dead[/I], but with just zombies...that eat other zombies. It's the most entertaining thing to come out of Hollywood in decades.[/QUOTE]
Maybe Michael Moore will make a movie about it.
Maybe Michael Moore will make a movie about it.
37.) DParker - 10/12/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;52299]Maybe Michael Moore will make a movie about it.[/QUOTE]
[I]Night Of The Living Donuts[/I]
[I]Night Of The Living Donuts[/I]
38.) Swamp Fox - 10/12/2017
[B][SIZE=2]Harvey Weinstein Celebrates Michael Moore's Movie "Sicko"[/SIZE][/B]
">
[url]http://www.gettyimages.com/event/harvey-weinstein-celebrates-michael-moores-documentary-sicko-79163410?esource=SEO_GIS_CDN_Redirect#producer-harvey-weinstein-and-filmmaker-michael-moore-attend-a-picture-id79200051[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko[/url]
[url]http://www.gettyimages.com/event/harvey-weinstein-celebrates-michael-moores-documentary-sicko-79163410?esource=SEO_GIS_CDN_Redirect#producer-harvey-weinstein-and-filmmaker-michael-moore-attend-a-picture-id79200051[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko[/url]
39.) Swamp Fox - 10/12/2017
[B][SIZE=2]Harvey Weinstein Celebrates Michael Moore's Movie "Sicko"[/SIZE][/B] ...
Embed from Getty Images
[url]http://www.gettyimages.com/event/harvey-weinstein-celebrates-michael-moores-documentary-sicko-79163410#producer-harvey-weinstein-and-filmmaker-michael-moore-attend-a-picture-id79200051[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko[/url]
Embed from Getty Images
[url]http://www.gettyimages.com/event/harvey-weinstein-celebrates-michael-moores-documentary-sicko-79163410#producer-harvey-weinstein-and-filmmaker-michael-moore-attend-a-picture-id79200051[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko[/url]
40.) Swamp Fox - 10/12/2017
But wait ... There's more:
41.) DParker - 10/12/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;52303]But wait ... There's more:
[/QUOTE]
I believe the correct term for that is, "support group".
[/QUOTE]I believe the correct term for that is, "support group".
42.) Swamp Fox - 10/12/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;52304]I believe the correct term for that is, "support group".[/QUOTE]
[I]Au contraire.[/I]
The correct term for that is 40 years.
:tap:
[I]Au contraire.[/I]
The correct term for that is 40 years.
:tap:
43.) DParker - 10/12/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;52305][I]Au contraire.[/I]
The correct term for that is 40 years.
:tap:[/QUOTE]
Well, I [I]was[/I] going to go with, "Whatever you do, don't accept any offered cigars."
The correct term for that is 40 years.
:tap:[/QUOTE]
Well, I [I]was[/I] going to go with, "Whatever you do, don't accept any offered cigars."
44.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
45.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
She just doesn't seem to ever be in the right place with the right people at the right time.
I wonder what that means?
I wonder what that means?
46.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
Just a lot of bad luck, I guess.
47.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
I hope someone follows up with Hill's claim that there's "no one" to give the Weinstein political donations back to, and that she'll donate it as "part of" the 10% of her income she gives to charity every year. ---WTF???
Not surprised Fahreed Zakaria didn't swing at those two slow, looping meatballs.
If she could just launder the money, that'd be great. ("What? ... Like with some soap or something?")
:pop:
[url]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-harvey-weinstein-donations_us_59deae70e4b0eb18af06157d[/url]
[url]https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-says-shell-donate-harvey-weinsteins-contributions[/url]
Not surprised Fahreed Zakaria didn't swing at those two slow, looping meatballs.
If she could just launder the money, that'd be great. ("What? ... Like with some soap or something?")
:pop:
[url]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-harvey-weinstein-donations_us_59deae70e4b0eb18af06157d[/url]
[url]https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-says-shell-donate-harvey-weinsteins-contributions[/url]
48.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
[B]LOL ...[/B]
49.) bluecat - 10/13/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;52310]I hope someone follows up with Hill's claim that there's "no one" to give the Weinstein political donations back to, and that she'll donate it as "part of" the 10% of her income she gives to charity every year. ---WTF???
[/QUOTE]
boom
[/QUOTE]
boom
50.) DParker - 10/13/2017
Well, you see...cash is a fungible asset. So that 10% she already gives to charity was previously made up of dollars that she siphoned from the Clinton Foundation, but now part of it will be replaced by dollars that she takes from sexual predators (more specifically, sexual predators who aren't married to her). It's all totally legit accounting.
51.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
Breaking news:
[B][SIZE=3]
Hillary Team Unveils New 2020 Campaign Logo: First Peek Here[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Revisions Already Demanded [/SIZE]
[/B]
[B][SIZE=2]
Update --- Clinton Campaign Concurs: Logo To Be Revised With Seven Colors Of Gay Pride Flag
Immigration Groups Call For Brown
Sharpton Announces Press Conference [/SIZE][/B]
[B][SIZE=1]Stay tuned. [/SIZE][/B]
[B][SIZE=3]
Hillary Team Unveils New 2020 Campaign Logo: First Peek Here[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Revisions Already Demanded [/SIZE]
[/B]
[B][SIZE=2]
Update --- Clinton Campaign Concurs: Logo To Be Revised With Seven Colors Of Gay Pride Flag
Immigration Groups Call For Brown
Sharpton Announces Press Conference [/SIZE][/B]
[B][SIZE=1]Stay tuned. [/SIZE][/B]
52.) DParker - 10/13/2017
So...a circle-jerk. That seems appropriate.
53.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
It works on a lot of different levels ...LOL, if I do say so myself.
:-)
:wink
:-)
:wink
54.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;52313]Well, you see...cash is a fungible asset. So that 10% she already gives to charity was previously made up of dollars that she siphoned from the Clinton Foundation, but now part of it will be replaced by dollars that she takes from sexual predators (more specifically, sexual predators who aren't married to her). It's all totally legit accounting.[/QUOTE]
What are the odds she tries to give at least some of the money TO the Clinton Foundation? ... LOL
Official Campaign Song:
[I]The Wheels On The Bus Go Round and Round[/I]
Oh, great. Now that song is stuck in my head.
What are the odds she tries to give at least some of the money TO the Clinton Foundation? ... LOL
Official Campaign Song:
[I]The Wheels On The Bus Go Round and Round[/I]
Oh, great. Now that song is stuck in my head.
55.) bluecat - 10/13/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;52317]So...a circle-jerk. That seems appropriate.[/QUOTE]
+ 360 :wink
+ 360 :wink
56.) DParker - 10/13/2017
When asked if Weinstein's behavior was comparable to her husband's, she said, "Close, but no cigar".
57.) bluecat - 10/13/2017
Well, also, those negotiations were above the table.
58.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;52321]When asked if Weinstein's behavior was comparable to her husband's, she said, "Close, but no cigar".[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=bluecat;52322]Well, also, those negotiations were above the table.[/QUOTE]
I'm feeling generous. +5s all around.
:beer:
[QUOTE=bluecat;52322]Well, also, those negotiations were above the table.[/QUOTE]
I'm feeling generous. +5s all around.
:beer:
59.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
....
60.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
In a rare case of genuine kudos to the press (possibly because column-writing in the high caliber of William Safire is mostly as dead as he is) I commend this piece to you. I have been wrestling with the vagaries of pronounciation ever since the Anthony Weiner scandal broke, and now we have Harvey Weinstein. Somewhat along the lines of a mullet, his name has a lot of stuff going on. It's "ine" in the front and "een" in the back, apparently.
Anthony "Weener" has a name that, by the rules, should be pronounced "Winer." If you buy a hot dog, you may call it a wiener, but can't pronounce it weiner. But it IS a weiner, and you should spell it that way. Anthony Weiner exposed his weiner and nobody asks how he got his name.
So I can't figure that one out, either.
Eether it's Weiner, which is what everybody says, or it's Winer, which is how it's spelled. But that doesn't make sense, iither.
(For the record, I say "eether" and know very few people in real life who say "iither".)
So I think what I've decided is that I can remember that Anthony Weiner exposed his weiner, just because it's easy to remember he's screwed up on all levels (as long as you don't wein about niggling details, or drink too much [I]wein[/I]) but I'm really having a hard time with what to do about Harvey.
[QUOTE]Your house may not be your castle, but your moniker is your property to pronounce the way you like and to correct others about. Tony Dorsett of the Dallas Cowboys prefers ''Dor-SETT,'' and pronunciations rhyming with ''corset'' are incorrect as applied to him. In the same way, quarterbacks named Taliaferro may want their names Anglicized to ''Tolliver,'' which is stretching it, but if Cholmondeley is pronounced ''Chumley,'' it's Tolliver in the pocket. We cannot go overboard - I cannot demand that everyone pronounce my name ''Robert Redford'' - but within bounds of common sense, it's our call.
Sometimes people with hard-to-pronounce names simplify life for others by making the spelling easier; at other times, people who insist on pronouncing names their way change the spelling to fit the pronunciation. In my family, the name is usually spelled Safir (from the Hebrew word sofer , ''scribe''); according to Aunt Toots (Mrs. Dorothy Goodman), my father and all my uncles and aunts pronounced the name like ''sapphire.'' In the Army, I tired of correcting the sergeants, who called me everything from ''safer'' to ''zephyr,'' and added an e . Nobody in the family followed; I am now the only one correctly pronounced by strangers and am a black sheep at a bar mitzvah. I think Morley Safer is a relation.
What about steen and stine ? Is there any rhyme or reason to the chosen pronunciation? Everyone named Stein, and Stein alone, pronounces the name stine . Stein is a stein is a stein, as Gertrude used to say. Yet Andrew Stein, Borough President of Manhattan, and soon to be a candidate for Congress from the ''silk-stocking district,'' has an industrialist father named Jerry Finkles tein, who pronounces the last syllable steen . When son Andrew shortened the name, the pronunciation automatically shifted.
Here are a few stines : John Steinbeck, Albert Einstein, Gloria Steinem, Mayor Dianne Feinstein; the ''eye'' pronunciation of the ei can also be heard in the names of Dwight Eisenhower, Carl Reiner, Caspar Weinberger and Barbra (only two a 's) Streisand.
Now here are a few steens : Leonard Bernstein, Carl Bernstein, Robert Brustein. Gambler Nicky Arnstein married Fanny Brice, played by Barbra Streisand, in a confusing ee-eye-o.
A pattern is seen by John Algeo, professor of English at the University of Georgia. ''The German names are usually pronounced with an eye sound. Most of the Jewish names have had the American influence of the ee sound, as in the words weird or receive , particularly that ei after the letter c .'' Professor Algeo notes that, in Yiddish, a sound change occurred, with the ei pronounced as a long a , as in stain , but changed in American-influenced Yiddish to ee . ''The ending of stein , pronounced steen ,'' he concludes, ''reflects an American influence.''
From this, we can formulate Stein's Rule: Although names ending in stein can be pronounced either stein or steen , names consisting exclusively of Stein are pronounced stine . (In the rare case of a person named Stein refusing to go along with the crowd, this is changed to ''Steen's Rule.'') [url]http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/25/magazine/on-language-stine-or-steen.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Anthony "Weener" has a name that, by the rules, should be pronounced "Winer." If you buy a hot dog, you may call it a wiener, but can't pronounce it weiner. But it IS a weiner, and you should spell it that way. Anthony Weiner exposed his weiner and nobody asks how he got his name.
So I can't figure that one out, either.
Eether it's Weiner, which is what everybody says, or it's Winer, which is how it's spelled. But that doesn't make sense, iither.
(For the record, I say "eether" and know very few people in real life who say "iither".)
So I think what I've decided is that I can remember that Anthony Weiner exposed his weiner, just because it's easy to remember he's screwed up on all levels (as long as you don't wein about niggling details, or drink too much [I]wein[/I]) but I'm really having a hard time with what to do about Harvey.
[QUOTE]Your house may not be your castle, but your moniker is your property to pronounce the way you like and to correct others about. Tony Dorsett of the Dallas Cowboys prefers ''Dor-SETT,'' and pronunciations rhyming with ''corset'' are incorrect as applied to him. In the same way, quarterbacks named Taliaferro may want their names Anglicized to ''Tolliver,'' which is stretching it, but if Cholmondeley is pronounced ''Chumley,'' it's Tolliver in the pocket. We cannot go overboard - I cannot demand that everyone pronounce my name ''Robert Redford'' - but within bounds of common sense, it's our call.
Sometimes people with hard-to-pronounce names simplify life for others by making the spelling easier; at other times, people who insist on pronouncing names their way change the spelling to fit the pronunciation. In my family, the name is usually spelled Safir (from the Hebrew word sofer , ''scribe''); according to Aunt Toots (Mrs. Dorothy Goodman), my father and all my uncles and aunts pronounced the name like ''sapphire.'' In the Army, I tired of correcting the sergeants, who called me everything from ''safer'' to ''zephyr,'' and added an e . Nobody in the family followed; I am now the only one correctly pronounced by strangers and am a black sheep at a bar mitzvah. I think Morley Safer is a relation.
What about steen and stine ? Is there any rhyme or reason to the chosen pronunciation? Everyone named Stein, and Stein alone, pronounces the name stine . Stein is a stein is a stein, as Gertrude used to say. Yet Andrew Stein, Borough President of Manhattan, and soon to be a candidate for Congress from the ''silk-stocking district,'' has an industrialist father named Jerry Finkles tein, who pronounces the last syllable steen . When son Andrew shortened the name, the pronunciation automatically shifted.
Here are a few stines : John Steinbeck, Albert Einstein, Gloria Steinem, Mayor Dianne Feinstein; the ''eye'' pronunciation of the ei can also be heard in the names of Dwight Eisenhower, Carl Reiner, Caspar Weinberger and Barbra (only two a 's) Streisand.
Now here are a few steens : Leonard Bernstein, Carl Bernstein, Robert Brustein. Gambler Nicky Arnstein married Fanny Brice, played by Barbra Streisand, in a confusing ee-eye-o.
A pattern is seen by John Algeo, professor of English at the University of Georgia. ''The German names are usually pronounced with an eye sound. Most of the Jewish names have had the American influence of the ee sound, as in the words weird or receive , particularly that ei after the letter c .'' Professor Algeo notes that, in Yiddish, a sound change occurred, with the ei pronounced as a long a , as in stain , but changed in American-influenced Yiddish to ee . ''The ending of stein , pronounced steen ,'' he concludes, ''reflects an American influence.''
From this, we can formulate Stein's Rule: Although names ending in stein can be pronounced either stein or steen , names consisting exclusively of Stein are pronounced stine . (In the rare case of a person named Stein refusing to go along with the crowd, this is changed to ''Steen's Rule.'') [url]http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/25/magazine/on-language-stine-or-steen.html[/url][/QUOTE]
61.) bluecat - 10/13/2017
Who really nos this stuff anyway?
62.) DParker - 10/13/2017
Tomato....tomato.
Wait...what?
Wait...what?
63.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
And that whole I before E thing is *right* out!
64.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
[QUOTE=bluecat;52327]Who really nos this stuff anyway?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DParker;52328]Tomato....tomato.
Wait...what?[/QUOTE]
+4s :-)
[QUOTE=DParker;52328]Tomato....tomato.
Wait...what?[/QUOTE]
+4s :-)
65.) DParker - 10/13/2017
David Spade used to do a bit in his stand-up act about the group "Sade" pronouncing it "shar-DAY". Something to the effect of....
[i]Like we don't have any rules for pronouncing things here. My name is spelled D-A-V-I-D, which is why I don't pronounce it, "Ned".[/i]
[i]Like we don't have any rules for pronouncing things here. My name is spelled D-A-V-I-D, which is why I don't pronounce it, "Ned".[/i]
66.) bluecat - 10/13/2017
"I wonder why I was never approached by Harvey."
67.) DParker - 10/13/2017
I don't think you're being fair to that pig (I mean...the one in the middle.)
68.) Swamp Fox - 10/13/2017
[QUOTE=DParker;52331]David Spade used to do a bit in his stand-up act about the group "Sade" pronouncing it "shar-DAY". Something to the effect of....
[i]Like we don't have any rules for pronouncing things here. My name is spelled D-A-V-I-D, which is why I don't pronounce it, "Ned".[/i][/QUOTE]
LOL ... Try figuring out how to pronounce anything in Irish or Gaelic, if you see it written.
(In my case, it shows how far the mighty have fallen ...:wink)
Colbert
Mack
This is brilliant:
If anyone's interested:
Bringing this back to the press, I love how some of them fall all over themselves to pronounce things in exotic ways: Chillay, Nayzshjeer, Cutter, Pockeeston .... Cowboy up, you mo-rons ... If you pronounced it Pah-ree you'd be rightfully mocked, and run out of the business.
(I also enjoy exaggerated Spanish tongue-rolling pronunciations in the media ... Although if you want to pronounce "Univision" with Spanish inflection and even an accent, have at it. I've decided that's alright, because--well-- no one would watch that channel if they didn't speak Spanish.)
[i]Like we don't have any rules for pronouncing things here. My name is spelled D-A-V-I-D, which is why I don't pronounce it, "Ned".[/i][/QUOTE]
LOL ... Try figuring out how to pronounce anything in Irish or Gaelic, if you see it written.
(In my case, it shows how far the mighty have fallen ...:wink)
Colbert
Mack
This is brilliant:
If anyone's interested:
Bringing this back to the press, I love how some of them fall all over themselves to pronounce things in exotic ways: Chillay, Nayzshjeer, Cutter, Pockeeston .... Cowboy up, you mo-rons ... If you pronounced it Pah-ree you'd be rightfully mocked, and run out of the business.
(I also enjoy exaggerated Spanish tongue-rolling pronunciations in the media ... Although if you want to pronounce "Univision" with Spanish inflection and even an accent, have at it. I've decided that's alright, because--well-- no one would watch that channel if they didn't speak Spanish.)
69.) bluecat - 10/14/2017
Here is an article you'll appreciate. I'd heard this but didn't know if it was true. Apparently it is.
[url]http://www.espn.com/chicago/ncf/story/_/page/heisman-chicago-week4/joe-theismann[/url]
Theismann was originally pronounced 'Theese man'.
[url]http://www.espn.com/chicago/ncf/story/_/page/heisman-chicago-week4/joe-theismann[/url]
Theismann was originally pronounced 'Theese man'.
70.) Swamp Fox - 10/14/2017
[QUOTE]It was, at the time, a casual crack, he said, and maybe even a bit of a sarcastic one at that. Because while Theismann had a good reputation as a quarterback out of New Jersey's South River High School, he looked like a runt as he ran into the stadium with his Fighting Irish teammates that afternoon. Theismann (then pronounced Theesman) was all of 162 pounds, according to Joe Doyle, then the sports editor of the South Bend Tribune who "threw him on a scale" not long before and weighed the QB himself.
"Someone said, 'There's Joe Theismann,'" recalled Valdiserri, a longtime sports information director for Notre Dame. "I said, 'No, it's Thighsman, as in Heisman.'"
…
The details change slightly depending on who is telling the story. But what Theismann remembers is Valdiserri calling him into his office and asking him to pronounce his last name.
"I said, 'Theesman,' and Roger said, 'No, it's not, it's Thighsman,'" Theismann recalled. "I said, 'Give me the phone,' and I called my dad back home. I said, 'Dad, it's Joey, how do you pronounce our last name?'
"There was a pregnant pause, and he said, 'Son, what have you been doing that last 20 years?' I said, 'Don't worry, I'll explain later.'"
…
Nevertheless, "Theismann as in Heisman" remains one of the most memorable slogans in the history of the trophy, which still amuses Valdiserri for one reason in particular.
"The funny thing about it," he said, "is that Joe went home and told his parents, who laughed and still go by my pronunciation of Thighsman."
Theismann, who recently found a "Theismann for Heisman" button buried in his office, remembers calling his paternal grandmother to break the news about the pronunciation change.
"I said, 'Granny, look, they want to change the pronunciation of our last name to Thighsman.'" he said. "And in her German accent she said, 'Actually, that's the correct pronunciation.'"
"Mom and dad didn't mind at all. And my children are Thighsman. But when I go back to New Jersey, I'm Joey Theesman," he said." To all my buddies and friends I grew up with, I'll always be Joe Theesman. And when we used to play the Giants, five or six rows behind our bench, they'd yell, 'You're still Theesman."
[/QUOTE]
That's a great find, and a GREAT story! I have a very vague memory of hearing of the change, but that's excellent history. :tu:
You hear about how people's names got changed sometimes, but there's usually not a great story behind it, LOL.
Must be something to this Americanization thing of "ie" (pronounced "e") being changed to the pronunciation of to "ei" (prounounced "i") that Safire brought up.
Other than in names, and in eether vs. iither, and with "wiener" vs. the incorrectly spelled "weiner" (for sausage, hot dog, or Anthony), I can't think of another word that Americans are loose about with, ie vs ei.
Let me know if know if I should add to my list. :beer:
(The common " i before e except after c etc. etc." words don't count. Only interested in inconsistencies and variations in pronunciation or spelling. Thx.)
"Someone said, 'There's Joe Theismann,'" recalled Valdiserri, a longtime sports information director for Notre Dame. "I said, 'No, it's Thighsman, as in Heisman.'"
…
The details change slightly depending on who is telling the story. But what Theismann remembers is Valdiserri calling him into his office and asking him to pronounce his last name.
"I said, 'Theesman,' and Roger said, 'No, it's not, it's Thighsman,'" Theismann recalled. "I said, 'Give me the phone,' and I called my dad back home. I said, 'Dad, it's Joey, how do you pronounce our last name?'
"There was a pregnant pause, and he said, 'Son, what have you been doing that last 20 years?' I said, 'Don't worry, I'll explain later.'"
…
Nevertheless, "Theismann as in Heisman" remains one of the most memorable slogans in the history of the trophy, which still amuses Valdiserri for one reason in particular.
"The funny thing about it," he said, "is that Joe went home and told his parents, who laughed and still go by my pronunciation of Thighsman."
Theismann, who recently found a "Theismann for Heisman" button buried in his office, remembers calling his paternal grandmother to break the news about the pronunciation change.
"I said, 'Granny, look, they want to change the pronunciation of our last name to Thighsman.'" he said. "And in her German accent she said, 'Actually, that's the correct pronunciation.'"
"Mom and dad didn't mind at all. And my children are Thighsman. But when I go back to New Jersey, I'm Joey Theesman," he said." To all my buddies and friends I grew up with, I'll always be Joe Theesman. And when we used to play the Giants, five or six rows behind our bench, they'd yell, 'You're still Theesman."
[/QUOTE]
That's a great find, and a GREAT story! I have a very vague memory of hearing of the change, but that's excellent history. :tu:
You hear about how people's names got changed sometimes, but there's usually not a great story behind it, LOL.
Must be something to this Americanization thing of "ie" (pronounced "e") being changed to the pronunciation of to "ei" (prounounced "i") that Safire brought up.
Other than in names, and in eether vs. iither, and with "wiener" vs. the incorrectly spelled "weiner" (for sausage, hot dog, or Anthony), I can't think of another word that Americans are loose about with, ie vs ei.
Let me know if know if I should add to my list. :beer:
(The common " i before e except after c etc. etc." words don't count. Only interested in inconsistencies and variations in pronunciation or spelling. Thx.)
71.) DParker - 10/15/2017
72.) bluecat - 10/15/2017
Those are some brave ass womens.
73.) Swamp Fox - 10/15/2017
Sometimes I think it's the media that enjoys drama, maybe more than actors and actresses. The latter just want to act and be celebrities. The media, on the other hand, relishes hair and asses on fire. Hairy asses on fire are the best, because that's social justice.
Courtney Love was warning women "back in the day", as were a few others. Hers is an interesting story. I'm sure anyone who put up a fuss paid a price. I can see how people shut up and shrugged, or were too timid or intimidated to speak up. A lot harder to understand is what you're pointing out: almost everybody's a hero now that they're talking to the press, no matter how they played their cards originally.
That's just follow-the-herd journalism. But woe to anyone who has a different take.
Courtney Love was warning women "back in the day", as were a few others. Hers is an interesting story. I'm sure anyone who put up a fuss paid a price. I can see how people shut up and shrugged, or were too timid or intimidated to speak up. A lot harder to understand is what you're pointing out: almost everybody's a hero now that they're talking to the press, no matter how they played their cards originally.
That's just follow-the-herd journalism. But woe to anyone who has a different take.
74.) Swamp Fox - 11/07/2017
I saw this a few days ago but forgot to post it. It's along the line of DP's note about a pundit's Twitter goof of a similar nature, but somehow this takes it to the next level of mock-worthy. For one thing, unlike Twitter, GQ presumably still has editors.
[QUOTE][B] GQ corrects story after asking why Trump didn't seek death penalty for deceased Las Vegas shooter[/B]
"An earlier version of this article used a headline noting that Trump had publicly called for the death penalty in the New York attack, but not the Las Vegas shooting in particular," read the correction, which was attached to a piece by Jay Willis. "That discrepancy is probably related to the fact that the Las Vegas shooter is dead. We regret the error."
[url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gq-corrects-story-after-asking-why-trump-didnt-seek-death-penalty-for-deceased-las-vegas-shooter/article/2639462[/url][/QUOTE]
Probably so. Probably so ...
[QUOTE][B] GQ corrects story after asking why Trump didn't seek death penalty for deceased Las Vegas shooter[/B]
"An earlier version of this article used a headline noting that Trump had publicly called for the death penalty in the New York attack, but not the Las Vegas shooting in particular," read the correction, which was attached to a piece by Jay Willis. "That discrepancy is probably related to the fact that the Las Vegas shooter is dead. We regret the error."
[url]http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gq-corrects-story-after-asking-why-trump-didnt-seek-death-penalty-for-deceased-las-vegas-shooter/article/2639462[/url][/QUOTE]
Probably so. Probably so ...
75.) DParker - 11/07/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;52946]I saw this a few days ago but forgot to post it. It's along the line of DP note about a pundit's Twitter goof of a similar nature, but somehow this takes it to the next level of mock-worthy. For one thing, unlike Twitter, GQ presumably still has editors.
Probably so. Probably so ...[/QUOTE]
LOL!
Probably so. Probably so ...[/QUOTE]
LOL!
76.) Swamp Fox - 11/07/2017
If the gig as a political journalist doesn't work out, there's always gun-writing:
[QUOTE]Unfortunately for decades now the gun lobby has traded on the ignorance of idiotic urban liberals in order to persuade otherwise sensible deer hunters and target pistol shooters that AR-15s and their many imitators are as useful in their preferred form of an entertainment as a [B].306[/B] or a 12-gauge. The us vs. them narrative has been so successful that many of my own friends and relations who only a decade ago would have gladly accepted commonsense restrictions on weapons of this kind now own the guns themselves.
[url]http://theweek.com/articles/735590/adolescent-cult-ar15[/url][/QUOTE]
Emphasis mine.
The point of the article is that AR owners are a cult of toy-clutching children who have been brainwashed to resist the idea that their guns are the problem whenever some nutbag goes off.
He probably could have used another day to think about that before he clicked SEND, but that's just me.
[QUOTE]Unfortunately for decades now the gun lobby has traded on the ignorance of idiotic urban liberals in order to persuade otherwise sensible deer hunters and target pistol shooters that AR-15s and their many imitators are as useful in their preferred form of an entertainment as a [B].306[/B] or a 12-gauge. The us vs. them narrative has been so successful that many of my own friends and relations who only a decade ago would have gladly accepted commonsense restrictions on weapons of this kind now own the guns themselves.
[url]http://theweek.com/articles/735590/adolescent-cult-ar15[/url][/QUOTE]
Emphasis mine.
The point of the article is that AR owners are a cult of toy-clutching children who have been brainwashed to resist the idea that their guns are the problem whenever some nutbag goes off.
He probably could have used another day to think about that before he clicked SEND, but that's just me.
77.) Swamp Fox - 11/15/2017
[B][SIZE=4]WATCH:[/SIZE][/B]
[B][COLOR="#FF0000"][SIZE=3]Pump-action AR15 vs. Watermelon High On Man-Made Pesticides: [/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]
[B][SIZE=2]
Good Guy With Gun Is Actually Bad Guy, Preys On Troubled Fruit[/SIZE][/B]
GMOs Prone To Violence, Sexual Assault?
[I][SIZE=2]Not As Dangerous As Unattended Military-Grade Civilian Weapons, Survey Says
[/SIZE]
[/I]
[B][COLOR="#FF0000"][SIZE=3]Pump-action AR15 vs. Watermelon High On Man-Made Pesticides: [/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]
[B][SIZE=2]
Good Guy With Gun Is Actually Bad Guy, Preys On Troubled Fruit[/SIZE][/B]
GMOs Prone To Violence, Sexual Assault?
[I][SIZE=2]Not As Dangerous As Unattended Military-Grade Civilian Weapons, Survey Says
[/SIZE]
[/I]
78.) bluecat - 11/15/2017
Damn, them AR-15's are powerful...
79.) Swamp Fox - 11/15/2017
NBC is doing a segment on lax regulation of chainsaw bayonets this evening.
There's a woman in Connecticut who wants them outlawed, and calls on Democrat legislators to show leadership.
There's a woman in Connecticut who wants them outlawed, and calls on Democrat legislators to show leadership.
80.) DParker - 11/15/2017
Won't somebody think of the produce?!!!!
81.) Swamp Fox - 11/15/2017
Vegetables are our future ...
82.) Swamp Fox - 11/15/2017
Don't antagonize them ...
83.) bluecat - 11/15/2017
Cauliflower lives matter
84.) Swamp Fox - 11/15/2017
85.) Swamp Fox - 11/15/2017
[B][SIZE=2]Vegetables in Academia:
[/SIZE][/B]
[B]It's Not Just The Students Anymore[/B]
[B]
ABSTRACT:
This article examines the symbolic whiteness associated with pumpkins in the contemporary United States. Starbucks’ pumpkin spice latte, a widely circulated essay in McSweeney’s on “Decorative Gourd Season,” pumpkins in aspirational lifestyle magazines, and the reality television show Punkin Chunkin provide entry points into whiteness–pumpkin connections. Such analysis illuminates how class, gender, place, and especially race are employed in popular media and marketing of food and flavor; it suggests complicated interplay among food, leisure, labor, nostalgia, and race. Pumpkins in popular culture also reveal contemporary racial and class coding of rural versus urban places. Accumulation of critical, relational, and contextual analyses, including things seemingly as innocuous as pumpkins, points the way to a food studies of humanities and geography. When considered vis-à-vis violence and activism that incorporated pumpkins, these analyses point toward the perils of equating pumpkins and whiteness.
[url]http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2373566X.2015.1099421?scroll=top&needAccess=true[/url]
[/B]
[/SIZE][/B]
[B]It's Not Just The Students Anymore[/B]
[B]
ABSTRACT:
This article examines the symbolic whiteness associated with pumpkins in the contemporary United States. Starbucks’ pumpkin spice latte, a widely circulated essay in McSweeney’s on “Decorative Gourd Season,” pumpkins in aspirational lifestyle magazines, and the reality television show Punkin Chunkin provide entry points into whiteness–pumpkin connections. Such analysis illuminates how class, gender, place, and especially race are employed in popular media and marketing of food and flavor; it suggests complicated interplay among food, leisure, labor, nostalgia, and race. Pumpkins in popular culture also reveal contemporary racial and class coding of rural versus urban places. Accumulation of critical, relational, and contextual analyses, including things seemingly as innocuous as pumpkins, points the way to a food studies of humanities and geography. When considered vis-à-vis violence and activism that incorporated pumpkins, these analyses point toward the perils of equating pumpkins and whiteness.
[url]http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2373566X.2015.1099421?scroll=top&needAccess=true[/url]
[/B]
86.) Swamp Fox - 11/15/2017
You know you're in for a rough Fall semester when your professor assigns [B][I]The Perilous Whiteness of Pumpkins[/I][/B]...
87.) bluecat - 11/15/2017
Leeks are right out!
88.) Swamp Fox - 11/15/2017
[B][I]Trump On Administration Leeks: Bitter After Being Burned[/I][/B]
89.) Swamp Fox - 11/21/2017
Clickbait über Alles:
'FAKE' APOLLO MOON LANDING PHOTO CLAIMS TO SHOW PROOF THE MISSION WAS A HOAX
BY HARRIET SINCLAIR ON 11/19/17 AT 11:19 AM
[url]http://www.newsweek.com/fake-apollo-moon-landing-photo-claims-show-proof-mission-was-hoax-716221[/url]
'FAKE' APOLLO MOON LANDING PHOTO CLAIMS TO SHOW PROOF THE MISSION WAS A HOAX
BY HARRIET SINCLAIR ON 11/19/17 AT 11:19 AM
[url]http://www.newsweek.com/fake-apollo-moon-landing-photo-claims-show-proof-mission-was-hoax-716221[/url]
So, Fox is publishing stories based on youtube moon conspiracy videos? https://t.co/aNl85D928Q
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 20, 2017
This story, which is a literal description of a youtube moon-landing-conspiracy video, was published in the "Science" section of Fox's website. pic.twitter.com/rMfnmfAnRS
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) November 20, 2017
90.) Swamp Fox - 11/21/2017
You be the judge: Skeptics say picture debunks moon landing https://t.co/zA1zpgqwWL
— Fox News (@FoxNews) November 20, 2017
91.) DParker - 11/21/2017
Speaking of things that never get old, I'm alway looking for an excuse to post this one.
[video=youtube;OROlF8zB9z0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OROlF8zB9z0[/video]
[video=youtube;OROlF8zB9z0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OROlF8zB9z0[/video]
92.) Swamp Fox - 11/21/2017
LOL ... I think I missed that.
I'd like to get Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity on a show together where they could go at each other's conspiracy theories and maybe inspire themselves to new ones. It would be great TV, even though it would make everyone twice as dumb twice as fast.
[I][B][SIZE=3]
Sean Hannity has become the media’s top conspiracy theorist[/SIZE]
How far he’s gone down the rabbit hole
[/B][/I]
[url]https://www.vox.com/2017/11/15/16649292/hannity-conspiracy-theorist-transcript-data[/url]
Have only skimmed that ^^^^ so far. Saving it for later. I know it's a lot of Vox, and ordinarily I'm on a Vox-free diet, but WTH ...
Nibble on it with some of these Rachel Maddow snacks to balance things out:
[url]http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/21/2011-flashback-rachel-maddow-spreads-yfrog-conspiracy-theory-to-defend-anthony-weiner/[/url]
[url]http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/25/hasnt-rachel-maddow-apologized-anthony-weiner-conspiracy-theories/[/url]
[url]http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/huffpo-calls-out-rachel-maddow-for-niger-conspiracy-theory/[/url]
[url]http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/10/25/glenn-makes-a-mockery-of-maddows-ludicrous-conspiracy-theory/[/url]
(Glenn Beck, LOL)
I'd like to get Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity on a show together where they could go at each other's conspiracy theories and maybe inspire themselves to new ones. It would be great TV, even though it would make everyone twice as dumb twice as fast.
[I][B][SIZE=3]
Sean Hannity has become the media’s top conspiracy theorist[/SIZE]
How far he’s gone down the rabbit hole
[/B][/I]
[url]https://www.vox.com/2017/11/15/16649292/hannity-conspiracy-theorist-transcript-data[/url]
Have only skimmed that ^^^^ so far. Saving it for later. I know it's a lot of Vox, and ordinarily I'm on a Vox-free diet, but WTH ...
Nibble on it with some of these Rachel Maddow snacks to balance things out:
[url]http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/21/2011-flashback-rachel-maddow-spreads-yfrog-conspiracy-theory-to-defend-anthony-weiner/[/url]
[url]http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/25/hasnt-rachel-maddow-apologized-anthony-weiner-conspiracy-theories/[/url]
[url]http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/huffpo-calls-out-rachel-maddow-for-niger-conspiracy-theory/[/url]
[url]http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/10/25/glenn-makes-a-mockery-of-maddows-ludicrous-conspiracy-theory/[/url]
(Glenn Beck, LOL)
93.) DParker - 11/21/2017
Best part of that whole set of links:
[QUOTE]WARNING: Clip contains the sound of Rachel Maddow’s voice.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]WARNING: Clip contains the sound of Rachel Maddow’s voice.[/QUOTE]
94.) Swamp Fox - 11/21/2017
Good catch, LOL
95.) Swamp Fox - 11/21/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53245]Clickbait über Alles:
'
[url]http://www.newsweek.com/fake-apollo-moon-landing-photo-claims-show-proof-mission-was-hoax-716221[/url]
>[/QUOTE]
'
[url]http://www.newsweek.com/fake-apollo-moon-landing-photo-claims-show-proof-mission-was-hoax-716221[/url]
>[/QUOTE]
Someone forgot all about Obama's "Audacity of Hope" speech.
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) November 21, 2017
96.) Swamp Fox - 11/21/2017
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;53245]Clickbait über Alles:
'
[url]http://www.newsweek.com/fake-apollo-moon-landing-photo-claims-show-proof-mission-was-hoax-716221[/url]
>[/QUOTE]
'
[url]http://www.newsweek.com/fake-apollo-moon-landing-photo-claims-show-proof-mission-was-hoax-716221[/url]
>[/QUOTE]
Someone forgot all about Obama's "Audacity of Hope" speech.
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) November 21, 2017
97.) bluecat - 11/22/2017
Lol!
98.) Swamp Fox - 12/03/2017
Headlines From An Alternate Universe (But that you can or can't imagine):
[B][SIZE=4]Sexist Republican Senator Bullies Colleague[/SIZE][/B]
----[B][SIZE=3]Viscious Body-Shaming Response To Joke[/SIZE][/B]
[I]Is What You Wear Fair Game For Criticism? ---Professional Women Speak Out[/I]
--------[B][SIZE=2]Aide Escalates To Violent Speculation[/SIZE][/B]
[QUOTE]“Did you hear him challenge me to a duel,” Collins said.
Reed joked with Collins, saying, “You could beat the s--- out of him.”
Collins said in response, “He’s so unattractive. It’s unbelievable.”
Then she added, “Did you see that picture of him in his pajamas?”
[url]https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/susan-collins-calls-farenthold-so-unattractive-on-hot-mic[/url]
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/12/01/texas_republican_blake_farenthold_used_taxpayer_money_to_pay_84_000_to_resolve.html[/url]
[B][SIZE=4]Sexist Republican Senator Bullies Colleague[/SIZE][/B]
----[B][SIZE=3]Viscious Body-Shaming Response To Joke[/SIZE][/B]
[I]Is What You Wear Fair Game For Criticism? ---Professional Women Speak Out[/I]
--------[B][SIZE=2]Aide Escalates To Violent Speculation[/SIZE][/B]
[QUOTE]“Did you hear him challenge me to a duel,” Collins said.
Reed joked with Collins, saying, “You could beat the s--- out of him.”
Collins said in response, “He’s so unattractive. It’s unbelievable.”
Then she added, “Did you see that picture of him in his pajamas?”
[url]https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/susan-collins-calls-farenthold-so-unattractive-on-hot-mic[/url]
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/12/01/texas_republican_blake_farenthold_used_taxpayer_money_to_pay_84_000_to_resolve.html[/url]
99.) Swamp Fox - 04/08/2018
[B]American Journalists Are Hysterical Knuckleheads[/B]
[url]https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/american-journalists-hysterical-knuckleheads/[/url]
And that's the truth ....
[url]https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/american-journalists-hysterical-knuckleheads/[/url]
And that's the truth ....
100.) Swamp Fox - 04/23/2018
[QUOTE]Williamson wasn’t fired because of what he wrote for the Atlantic (one piece) but for his potential to disrupt the left’s information bubble on their home turf. The Atlantic set out to offer a broader perspective and wound up proving many on the left aren’t interested in that. What the far left wants these days is conformity and, failing that, silence.
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/2018/04/20/kevin-williamson-brief-stint-atlantic/[/url][/QUOTE].....
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/2018/04/20/kevin-williamson-brief-stint-atlantic/[/url][/QUOTE].....
101.) Swamp Fox - 04/23/2018
[I]The Tennessean[/I] originally headlined how the young man [B]"unarmed"[/B] the shooter.
I'm just glad it wasn't a Carolina paper that done that.
[url]https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2018/04/22/waffle-house-shooting-hero-stopped-shooter/540061002/[/url]
I'm just glad it wasn't a Carolina paper that done that.
[url]https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2018/04/22/waffle-house-shooting-hero-stopped-shooter/540061002/[/url]
102.) DParker - 04/23/2018
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;55744][I]The Tennessean[/I] originally headlined how the young man [B]"unarmed"[/B] the shooter.
I'm just glad it wasn't a Carolina paper that done that.
[url]https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2018/04/22/waffle-house-shooting-hero-stopped-shooter/540061002/[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I seen that.
I'm just glad it wasn't a Carolina paper that done that.
[url]https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2018/04/22/waffle-house-shooting-hero-stopped-shooter/540061002/[/url][/QUOTE]
Yeah, I seen that.
103.) Swamp Fox - 04/23/2018
LOL .... +3
104.) DParker - 04/23/2018
By the way...isn't some nut-job wearing nothing but a jacket walking in and shooting up the place pretty much what you expect when sitting in a Waffle House at 3am?
105.) Swamp Fox - 04/23/2018
Emma Gonzalez thinks it's a red herring to address a half-naked murderer's mental health.
Tell me again why anyone's listening to these scholars?
Tell me again why anyone's listening to these scholars?
(1/4) He was white and he used an AR-15. The @NRA is about to say this man had mental health issues, so that the rest of us will get scared of anyone with poor mental health and buy a gun in preemptive defense so that gun sales increase. Shootings don’t just happen in schools, https://t.co/FIzyTCvuA1
— Emma González (@Emma4Change) April 22, 2018
106.) bluecat - 04/23/2018
Whoa, that bitch cray cray.
107.) Swamp Fox - 01/20/2019
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;57657][B][SIZE=2]‘AYFKM’? NBC New York’s getting torched over their ‘weird euphemism for an armed home invader’[/SIZE][/B]
[url]https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/01/11/ayfkm-nbc-new-yorks-getting-torched-over-their-weird-euphemism-for-an-armed-home-invader/[/url]
LOL[/QUOTE]
Do I detect a trend?
[url]https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/01/11/ayfkm-nbc-new-yorks-getting-torched-over-their-weird-euphemism-for-an-armed-home-invader/[/url]
LOL[/QUOTE]
Do I detect a trend?
What apparently began as a home invasion turned quickly into a frightening scene for the suspects, after the resident started to defend himself. https://t.co/xNmuGmqobx
— ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) January 19, 2019
108.) Swamp Fox - 04/20/2019
Actual AP headline:
“Tourist Mecca Notre Dame Also Revered As Place Of Worship”
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/2019/04/19/actual-ap-headline-tourist-mecca-notre-dame-also-revered-place-worship/[/url]
“Tourist Mecca Notre Dame Also Revered As Place Of Worship”
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/2019/04/19/actual-ap-headline-tourist-mecca-notre-dame-also-revered-place-worship/[/url]
109.) Swamp Fox - 04/20/2019
[I]A Priest Saved ‘The Body of Christ’ From Notre Dame, and NY Times Thought He Meant a Statue[/I]
[url]https://freebeacon.com/blog/a-priest-saved-the-body-of-christ-from-notre-dame-and-ny-times-thought-he-meant-a-statue/[/url]
[QUOTE] Hooooo boy. I figured this was common knowledge, but Christians do this thing once a week where, as one modern-day saint put it, we drink our little wine and eat our little cracker. We call the bread the "Body of Christ" and the wine the "Blood of Christ," a ceremony that dates back to the example Jesus himself set the night before he was crucified. Catholics in particular assign more importance to communion than most Protestants do, teaching that the bread becomes the literal body of Jesus Christ.
There's the possibility of some sort of translation error, but the Times reporter in question appears to be fluent in French. No, something was lost in translation alright, but I suspect that it was just a case of good-old fashioned religious illiteracy. The guy assigned to report on the biggest religion story of the day was really that ignorant of one of the most important ceremonies in the dominant religion on both sides of the Atlantic.
Ironically, the phrase "body of Christ" has led to this sort of mix-up before. The Washington Post‘s Kathleen Parker was horrified, just horrified that Ted Cruz said during a rally that "the body of Christ" should "rise up" to support him. "I don’t know anyone who takes their religion seriously who would think that Jesus should rise from the grave and resurrect himself to serve Ted Cruz," she complained.
For someone so versed in religion, Parker somehow didn't know that "body of Christ" is also a widely-used metaphor that means the Church as a whole. Cruz wanted Christians to vote for him, not for Jesus to rise from the grave and give him a thumbs-up. (Christians don't even believe that Jesus has a grave to resurrect himself from. We plan to celebrate that this Sunday. It's not a big deal, just sort of the basis of our entire religion.)
Is it really too much to ask that the pundits who weigh in on and the journalists who report on Christian matters know the first thing about Christianity? It's embarrassing when reporters botch stories on say, Judaism (like the AP reporter who thought Jews "sit and shiver"), but ignorance of the religious practices of 2% of Americans is at least somewhat understandable. The mainstream media has shown time and time against that they are ignorant of the basics of the deeply-held beliefs of a majority of their fellow Americans.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://freebeacon.com/blog/a-priest-saved-the-body-of-christ-from-notre-dame-and-ny-times-thought-he-meant-a-statue/[/url]
[QUOTE] Hooooo boy. I figured this was common knowledge, but Christians do this thing once a week where, as one modern-day saint put it, we drink our little wine and eat our little cracker. We call the bread the "Body of Christ" and the wine the "Blood of Christ," a ceremony that dates back to the example Jesus himself set the night before he was crucified. Catholics in particular assign more importance to communion than most Protestants do, teaching that the bread becomes the literal body of Jesus Christ.
There's the possibility of some sort of translation error, but the Times reporter in question appears to be fluent in French. No, something was lost in translation alright, but I suspect that it was just a case of good-old fashioned religious illiteracy. The guy assigned to report on the biggest religion story of the day was really that ignorant of one of the most important ceremonies in the dominant religion on both sides of the Atlantic.
Ironically, the phrase "body of Christ" has led to this sort of mix-up before. The Washington Post‘s Kathleen Parker was horrified, just horrified that Ted Cruz said during a rally that "the body of Christ" should "rise up" to support him. "I don’t know anyone who takes their religion seriously who would think that Jesus should rise from the grave and resurrect himself to serve Ted Cruz," she complained.
For someone so versed in religion, Parker somehow didn't know that "body of Christ" is also a widely-used metaphor that means the Church as a whole. Cruz wanted Christians to vote for him, not for Jesus to rise from the grave and give him a thumbs-up. (Christians don't even believe that Jesus has a grave to resurrect himself from. We plan to celebrate that this Sunday. It's not a big deal, just sort of the basis of our entire religion.)
Is it really too much to ask that the pundits who weigh in on and the journalists who report on Christian matters know the first thing about Christianity? It's embarrassing when reporters botch stories on say, Judaism (like the AP reporter who thought Jews "sit and shiver"), but ignorance of the religious practices of 2% of Americans is at least somewhat understandable. The mainstream media has shown time and time against that they are ignorant of the basics of the deeply-held beliefs of a majority of their fellow Americans.[/QUOTE]
110.) Swamp Fox - 04/20/2019
[QUOTE]In an article about the aftermath of the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, the Associated Press wrote that Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel had described visiting the families of the victims.
“I’ve been to their homes where they sit and shiver,” the AP quoted him as saying.
But what Israel actually said was “I’ve been to their homes where they’re sitting shiva.”
The AP issued a correction four days later.
Read more: [url]https://forward.com/fast-forward/395228/the-associated-press-thinks-jews-in-mourning-sit-and-shiver/[/url][/QUOTE] .....
“I’ve been to their homes where they sit and shiver,” the AP quoted him as saying.
But what Israel actually said was “I’ve been to their homes where they’re sitting shiva.”
The AP issued a correction four days later.
Read more: [url]https://forward.com/fast-forward/395228/the-associated-press-thinks-jews-in-mourning-sit-and-shiver/[/url][/QUOTE] .....
111.) Swamp Fox - 04/20/2019
This is getting to be like bashing used-car salesmen at this point ...
112.) bluecat - 04/20/2019
Those are pretty good. I heard where some "journalist" was trying to ban Sound of Music because it is Nazi music, and of course, Donald Trump is a Nazi.
113.) Swamp Fox - 04/22/2019
I remember my dad telling me stories how the German troops struck fear in the American lines at the Battle of the Bulge by singing [I]A Doe A Deer A Female Deer[/I] between shellings ...
114.) DParker - 04/22/2019
Was that the WWII battle where Brian Williams won an honorary Medal of Honor for single-handedly taking out 3 German MG nests armed only with his pen and notepad?
115.) bluecat - 04/22/2019
Sure, but none of that is as bad as the killer joke.
116.) bluecat - 04/22/2019
[url]https://youtu.be/_yo9WHrTvks[/url]
117.) Swamp Fox - 04/22/2019
LOL ...
+10 for making the connection ...
+10 for making the connection ...
118.) Swamp Fox - 04/22/2019
Some of the Germans killed by that joke, I assume, were good people ...
119.) bluecat - 04/22/2019
You always have a little collateral damage.
120.) bluecat - 04/25/2019
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;58116]Some of the Germans killed by that joke, I assume, were good people ...[/QUOTE]
There were good people on both sides...
There were good people on both sides...
121.) Swamp Fox - 04/27/2019
I challenge you to find a Frenchman who wasn't in the Resistance ...
122.) Swamp Fox - 04/27/2019
This knucklehead doesn't count, so don't even try ... see voo play
123.) Swamp Fox - 04/27/2019
All the cheese-eating surrender monkeys were on the right side of history ...
124.) Swamp Fox - 04/27/2019
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;58139]I challenge you to find a Frenchman who wasn't in the Resistance ...[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;58140]This knucklehead doesn't count, so don't even try ... see voo play
[/QUOTE]
But technically, he *wasn't* in the Resistance ...
I'll admit that.
I'm tough, but fair.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;58140]This knucklehead doesn't count, so don't even try ... see voo play
But technically, he *wasn't* in the Resistance ...
I'll admit that.
I'm tough, but fair.
125.) DParker - 04/27/2019
126.) Swamp Fox - 04/27/2019
LOL ...
127.) Swamp Fox - 04/29/2019
I enjoy all the enlightened opinion leaders, students of history, Resistance enthusiasts and anti-Nazis in the media. Thank God we have their example to follow.
[QUOTE]As prejudices go, anti-Semitism can sometimes be hard to pin down, but on Thursday the opinion pages of The New York Times international edition provided a textbook illustration of it.
Except that The Times wasn’t explaining anti-Semitism. It was purveying it.
It did so in the form of a cartoon, provided to the newspaper by a wire service and published directly above an unrelated column by Tom Friedman, in which a guide dog with a prideful countenance and the face of Benjamin Netanyahu leads a blind, fat Donald Trump wearing dark glasses and a black yarmulke. Lest there be any doubt as to the identity of the dog-man, it wears a collar from which hangs a Star of David.
Here was an image that, in another age, might have been published in the pages of Der Stürmer. The Jew in the form of a dog. The small but wily Jew leading the dumb and trusting American. The hated Trump being Judaized with a skullcap. The nominal servant acting as the true master. The cartoon checked so many anti-Semitic boxes that the only thing missing was a dollar sign.
The image also had an obvious political message: Namely, that in the current administration, the United States follows wherever Israel wants to go. This is false — consider Israel’s horrified reaction to Trump’s announcement last year that he intended to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria — but it’s beside the point. There are legitimate ways to criticize Trump’s approach to Israel, in pictures as well as words. But there was nothing legitimate about this cartoon.
So what was it doing in The Times?
For some Times readers — or, as often, former readers — the answer is clear: The Times has a longstanding Jewish problem, dating back to World War II, when it mostly buried news about the Holocaust, and continuing into the present day in the form of intensely adversarial coverage of Israel. The criticism goes double when it comes to the editorial pages, whose overall approach toward the Jewish state tends to range, with some notable exceptions, from tut-tutting disappointment to thunderous condemnation.
For these readers, the cartoon would have come like the slip of the tongue that reveals the deeper institutional prejudice. What was long suspected is, at last, revealed.
The real story is a bit different, though not in ways that acquit The Times. The cartoon appeared in the print version of the international edition, which has a limited overseas circulation, a much smaller staff, and far less oversight than the regular edition. Incredibly, the cartoon itself was selected and seen by just one midlevel editor right before the paper went to press.
An initial editor’s note acknowledged that the cartoon “included anti-Semitic tropes,” “was offensive,” and that “it was an error of judgment to publish it.” On Sunday, The Times issued an additional statement saying it was “deeply sorry” for the cartoon and that “significant changes” would be made in terms of internal processes and training.
[B]In other words, the paper’s position is that it is guilty of a serious screw-up but not a cardinal sin. Not quite.
The problem with the cartoon isn’t that its publication was a willful act of anti-Semitism. It wasn’t. The problem is that its publication was an astonishing act of ignorance of anti-Semitism — and that, at a publication that is otherwise hyper-alert to nearly every conceivable expression of prejudice, from mansplaining to racial microaggressions to transphobia.
Imagine, for instance, if the dog on a leash in the image hadn’t been the Israeli prime minister but instead a prominent woman such as Nancy Pelosi, a person of color such as John Lewis, or a Muslim such as Ilhan Omar. Would that have gone unnoticed by either the wire service that provides the Times with images or the editor who, even if he were working in haste, selected it?
The question answers itself. And it raises a follow-on: How have even the most blatant expressions of anti-Semitism become almost undetectable to editors who think it’s part of their job to stand up to bigotry?[/B]
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/opinion/cartoon-nytimes.html[/url]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]As prejudices go, anti-Semitism can sometimes be hard to pin down, but on Thursday the opinion pages of The New York Times international edition provided a textbook illustration of it.
Except that The Times wasn’t explaining anti-Semitism. It was purveying it.
It did so in the form of a cartoon, provided to the newspaper by a wire service and published directly above an unrelated column by Tom Friedman, in which a guide dog with a prideful countenance and the face of Benjamin Netanyahu leads a blind, fat Donald Trump wearing dark glasses and a black yarmulke. Lest there be any doubt as to the identity of the dog-man, it wears a collar from which hangs a Star of David.
Here was an image that, in another age, might have been published in the pages of Der Stürmer. The Jew in the form of a dog. The small but wily Jew leading the dumb and trusting American. The hated Trump being Judaized with a skullcap. The nominal servant acting as the true master. The cartoon checked so many anti-Semitic boxes that the only thing missing was a dollar sign.
The image also had an obvious political message: Namely, that in the current administration, the United States follows wherever Israel wants to go. This is false — consider Israel’s horrified reaction to Trump’s announcement last year that he intended to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria — but it’s beside the point. There are legitimate ways to criticize Trump’s approach to Israel, in pictures as well as words. But there was nothing legitimate about this cartoon.
So what was it doing in The Times?
For some Times readers — or, as often, former readers — the answer is clear: The Times has a longstanding Jewish problem, dating back to World War II, when it mostly buried news about the Holocaust, and continuing into the present day in the form of intensely adversarial coverage of Israel. The criticism goes double when it comes to the editorial pages, whose overall approach toward the Jewish state tends to range, with some notable exceptions, from tut-tutting disappointment to thunderous condemnation.
For these readers, the cartoon would have come like the slip of the tongue that reveals the deeper institutional prejudice. What was long suspected is, at last, revealed.
The real story is a bit different, though not in ways that acquit The Times. The cartoon appeared in the print version of the international edition, which has a limited overseas circulation, a much smaller staff, and far less oversight than the regular edition. Incredibly, the cartoon itself was selected and seen by just one midlevel editor right before the paper went to press.
An initial editor’s note acknowledged that the cartoon “included anti-Semitic tropes,” “was offensive,” and that “it was an error of judgment to publish it.” On Sunday, The Times issued an additional statement saying it was “deeply sorry” for the cartoon and that “significant changes” would be made in terms of internal processes and training.
[B]In other words, the paper’s position is that it is guilty of a serious screw-up but not a cardinal sin. Not quite.
The problem with the cartoon isn’t that its publication was a willful act of anti-Semitism. It wasn’t. The problem is that its publication was an astonishing act of ignorance of anti-Semitism — and that, at a publication that is otherwise hyper-alert to nearly every conceivable expression of prejudice, from mansplaining to racial microaggressions to transphobia.
Imagine, for instance, if the dog on a leash in the image hadn’t been the Israeli prime minister but instead a prominent woman such as Nancy Pelosi, a person of color such as John Lewis, or a Muslim such as Ilhan Omar. Would that have gone unnoticed by either the wire service that provides the Times with images or the editor who, even if he were working in haste, selected it?
The question answers itself. And it raises a follow-on: How have even the most blatant expressions of anti-Semitism become almost undetectable to editors who think it’s part of their job to stand up to bigotry?[/B]
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/opinion/cartoon-nytimes.html[/url]
[/QUOTE]
128.) Swamp Fox - 04/29/2019
Today we commemorate the 74th Anniversary of the Liberation of #BergenBelsen Concentration Camp. Anne Frank was killed here, and 40,000 other victims are buried but not identified. #neveragain pic.twitter.com/OLNieaNq12
— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) April 28, 2019
129.) Swamp Fox - 08/31/2019
I have tried to select excerpts of this article so as to not violate copyright, but am not up to the task. Each paragraph is worth highlighting.
So:
[url]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/30/24_hours_of_media_malpractice.html[/url]
[QUOTE]In the Trump era, it increasingly appears that journalistic standards are on life support. Consider, if you will, what a day in the life of contemporary journalism now looks like.
Late Tuesday afternoon, some conservatives on Twitter started grumbling about an article the Washington Post published that morning. The op-ed in question accused best-selling conservative author J.D. Vance of being racist, and otherwise tried dubiously to connect the dots between mainstream pro-life advocates and white supremacists. At a speech in July, Vance said the following: “Our people aren’t having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us.” Washington Post contributor Marissa Brostoff characterized the remark by saying, “Vance did not spell out exactly who was included in the word ‘our.’ He didn’t need to.” Her clear implication was that Vance was referring to the fact he only wanted to have white children. This would be news to Vance, since he’s married to a woman of color, and his best-selling “Hillbilly Elegy” *– a movie version, directed by Oscar winner Ron Howard, is in post-production – is a very critical look at the mores of poor white Americans.
And Vance did, in fact, spell out exactly what his pronoun referred to. A couple of sentences earlier in his remarks, which Brostoff didn’t bother to read closely, he makes it clear he’s referring to all Americans. Low birth rates are a serious concern in Western countries for many reasons, including the need to sustain liberal welfare policies, which have nothing to do with racism.
The Post printed a correction after all this was pointed out, but that doesn’t answer the question of how it got published in the first place. Once upon a time, accusing people of racism was a serious matter. If you were going to do it in print, editors would demand it was sufficiently backed up by evidence. But if Brostoff is to be believed, “my editor suggested that Vance’s comments might be added to the list of evidence being marshaled” and “we both did our due diligence in putting them in context.” Perhaps it’s telling that this op-ed appeared in a section of the Washington Post’s website called “Post Everything,” a title that, based on many other ill-advised opinion pieces that have run under that heading, appears to have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The whole point of journalism is that you don’t post everything – you make sure it’s fair and accurate first.
A few hours after the controversy over Brostoff’s article flared up, on Lawrence O’Donnell’s 10 p.m. MSNBC show he delivered a blockbuster report that a Russian oligarch co-signed loans Trump took out. O’Donnell apparently kept repeating “if true” in regard to the assertion throughout the segment.
The very next morning, just before 10 a.m., someone else at the Washington Post made another outrageous and unsupported accusation of racism. The New York Times’ Jeremy Peters had written an article assessing the impact of the Tea Party protests 10 years later. Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery, who is the paper’s “national correspondent covering law enforcement, justice and their intersection with politics and policy” -- and ostensibly not an opinion journalist -- took to Twitter to express his disapproval of the story. “How do you write a 10 years later piece on the Tea Party and not mention - not once, not even in passing - the fact that it was essentially a hysterical grassroots tantrum about the fact that a black guy was president? Journalistic malpractice,” he tweeted out to his 600,000 followers.
It's true that there were a few racially charged signs that popped up at Tea Party rallies, but there are always fringe characters in every large crowd, especially at political protests. I covered multiple Tea Party rallies at the time – Lowery was still a teenager in 2009, so I presume he doesn’t have a lot of first-hand experience talking to Tea Party protesters – and I saw and heard nothing to indicate widespread racial animus. If the media covered the nearly concurrent Occupy Wall Street protests by highlighting the same fringe extremism, we’d unfairly dismiss the left’s sincerity out of hand and conclude that they were engaged in a hysterical tantrum in support of rape and defecating on cop cars.
Of course, it’s hard to blame Lowery for thinking this was what the protests were about. The coverage then was also shameful. When Democratic congressmen claimed they were called racial epithets at a Tea Party protest, the media reported it as a fact even though it was just an allegation. The slurs were supposedly made in broad daylight with dozens of cameras around. Conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart pledged $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if anyone could provide evidence supporting the congressmen’s claims. No one ever did. It’s probably worth taking Tea Partiers at their word when they said their protests were, among other things, about a very expensive and complicated health care law that didn’t have popular support and caused millions to lose their insurance after a president, who happened to be black, brazenly lied about it.
Still, Lowery’s objections – and those of lots of other journalists and angry social media activists – to the Times piece won the day. Tuesday afternoon, just after 2 p.m., the Times’ official Twitter account made it, well, official: “We have updated this story assessing the policy failures of the Tea Party movement 10 years after its rise to include context about attacks on President Barack Obama and racist displays at some Tea Party rallies.”
The capitulation was particularly notable because it’s the second time in a month the Times has caved to political pressure. The paper ran the headline “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” to describe the president’s remarks after two mass shootings, but soon changed the headline to “Assailing Hate, But Not Guns” after the social media eruption.
This is an ominous trend for the Times. As an acquaintance quipped, “The Times used to have a public editor. Now they're edited by the general public.” Telling people what they want to hear may be good for business, but it’s not journalism.
While that minor controversy was still dying down, at 3:53 p.m. on Wednesday Lawrence O’Donnell tweeted, “Last night I made an error in judgment by reporting an item about the president’s finances that didn’t go through our rigorous verification and standards process. I shouldn’t have reported it and I was wrong to discuss it on the air. I will address the issue on my show tonight.” He did so, but didn’t go so far as to explain MSNBC’s broader problems related to years of unduly sensational and misleading Trump-Russia coverage. The concession came a few hours after President Trump’s personal attorney threatened legal action.
Exactly two minutes before Lawrence O’Donnell’s admission of error, a reporter at the military news website Task and Purpose tweeted out a story headlined “Children of US troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship, Trump administration says.” The story merited obvious skepticism from the get-go and was soon revealed to be premised on a misreading of a minor policy change. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service quickly clarified: The new policy would not affect all kids of service members. It would affect only a tiny minority of service members in rare circumstances.
Nonetheless, the story was dutifully regurgitated by many other media outlets – many of which appear to have done no reporting of their own – and spread far and wide by journalists on social media. On Wednesday night, Twitter was still full of misinformation and anti-Trump invective generated by an inaccurate story.
Again, all of this played out in about 24 hours, and a recap of media conduct in recent years doesn’t make this day look like an especially abnormal performance for our political press. Indeed, the very next day the Washington Post published another seriously ill-advised op-ed, headlined “Conservatives say we’ve abandoned reason and civility. The Old South used the same language to defend slavery,” which, yes, actually makes the argument that fretting about reason and civility is racist.
Donald Trump has taken a lot of criticism for his pointed attacks on the media and having gone so far as to call them the “enemy of the people.” That kind of egregious attack doesn’t help, as we desperately need a functioning media to provide us with accurate information – democracy can’t function without it.
But we also need to be very clear that what we currently have is a media that, with little forethought and much less remorse, engages in lazy character assassination, has no trouble attributing the worst possible motives to tens of millions of sincere Americans, routinely runs with wild and unverified allegations, and expresses zero skepticism when it’s obviously warranted. All that seems to matter is that the story is critical of politicians – or even ordinary voters – the media clearly doesn’t like.
Despite concerns about Trump’s own motives and relationship with the truth, the fact of the matter is that at some point he will no longer be president, and perhaps as soon a year and a half from now. We’re likely to be stuck with a media that apparently has no desire to reform itself or restore the institutional credibility it started losing long before Trump landed in the White House. The press may not be the enemy of the people, but these days it’s not doing us many favors, either.
[url]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/30/24_hours_of_media_malpractice.html[/url][/QUOTE]
So:
[url]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/30/24_hours_of_media_malpractice.html[/url]
[QUOTE]In the Trump era, it increasingly appears that journalistic standards are on life support. Consider, if you will, what a day in the life of contemporary journalism now looks like.
Late Tuesday afternoon, some conservatives on Twitter started grumbling about an article the Washington Post published that morning. The op-ed in question accused best-selling conservative author J.D. Vance of being racist, and otherwise tried dubiously to connect the dots between mainstream pro-life advocates and white supremacists. At a speech in July, Vance said the following: “Our people aren’t having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us.” Washington Post contributor Marissa Brostoff characterized the remark by saying, “Vance did not spell out exactly who was included in the word ‘our.’ He didn’t need to.” Her clear implication was that Vance was referring to the fact he only wanted to have white children. This would be news to Vance, since he’s married to a woman of color, and his best-selling “Hillbilly Elegy” *– a movie version, directed by Oscar winner Ron Howard, is in post-production – is a very critical look at the mores of poor white Americans.
And Vance did, in fact, spell out exactly what his pronoun referred to. A couple of sentences earlier in his remarks, which Brostoff didn’t bother to read closely, he makes it clear he’s referring to all Americans. Low birth rates are a serious concern in Western countries for many reasons, including the need to sustain liberal welfare policies, which have nothing to do with racism.
The Post printed a correction after all this was pointed out, but that doesn’t answer the question of how it got published in the first place. Once upon a time, accusing people of racism was a serious matter. If you were going to do it in print, editors would demand it was sufficiently backed up by evidence. But if Brostoff is to be believed, “my editor suggested that Vance’s comments might be added to the list of evidence being marshaled” and “we both did our due diligence in putting them in context.” Perhaps it’s telling that this op-ed appeared in a section of the Washington Post’s website called “Post Everything,” a title that, based on many other ill-advised opinion pieces that have run under that heading, appears to have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The whole point of journalism is that you don’t post everything – you make sure it’s fair and accurate first.
A few hours after the controversy over Brostoff’s article flared up, on Lawrence O’Donnell’s 10 p.m. MSNBC show he delivered a blockbuster report that a Russian oligarch co-signed loans Trump took out. O’Donnell apparently kept repeating “if true” in regard to the assertion throughout the segment.
The very next morning, just before 10 a.m., someone else at the Washington Post made another outrageous and unsupported accusation of racism. The New York Times’ Jeremy Peters had written an article assessing the impact of the Tea Party protests 10 years later. Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery, who is the paper’s “national correspondent covering law enforcement, justice and their intersection with politics and policy” -- and ostensibly not an opinion journalist -- took to Twitter to express his disapproval of the story. “How do you write a 10 years later piece on the Tea Party and not mention - not once, not even in passing - the fact that it was essentially a hysterical grassroots tantrum about the fact that a black guy was president? Journalistic malpractice,” he tweeted out to his 600,000 followers.
It's true that there were a few racially charged signs that popped up at Tea Party rallies, but there are always fringe characters in every large crowd, especially at political protests. I covered multiple Tea Party rallies at the time – Lowery was still a teenager in 2009, so I presume he doesn’t have a lot of first-hand experience talking to Tea Party protesters – and I saw and heard nothing to indicate widespread racial animus. If the media covered the nearly concurrent Occupy Wall Street protests by highlighting the same fringe extremism, we’d unfairly dismiss the left’s sincerity out of hand and conclude that they were engaged in a hysterical tantrum in support of rape and defecating on cop cars.
Of course, it’s hard to blame Lowery for thinking this was what the protests were about. The coverage then was also shameful. When Democratic congressmen claimed they were called racial epithets at a Tea Party protest, the media reported it as a fact even though it was just an allegation. The slurs were supposedly made in broad daylight with dozens of cameras around. Conservative journalist Andrew Breitbart pledged $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if anyone could provide evidence supporting the congressmen’s claims. No one ever did. It’s probably worth taking Tea Partiers at their word when they said their protests were, among other things, about a very expensive and complicated health care law that didn’t have popular support and caused millions to lose their insurance after a president, who happened to be black, brazenly lied about it.
Still, Lowery’s objections – and those of lots of other journalists and angry social media activists – to the Times piece won the day. Tuesday afternoon, just after 2 p.m., the Times’ official Twitter account made it, well, official: “We have updated this story assessing the policy failures of the Tea Party movement 10 years after its rise to include context about attacks on President Barack Obama and racist displays at some Tea Party rallies.”
The capitulation was particularly notable because it’s the second time in a month the Times has caved to political pressure. The paper ran the headline “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” to describe the president’s remarks after two mass shootings, but soon changed the headline to “Assailing Hate, But Not Guns” after the social media eruption.
This is an ominous trend for the Times. As an acquaintance quipped, “The Times used to have a public editor. Now they're edited by the general public.” Telling people what they want to hear may be good for business, but it’s not journalism.
While that minor controversy was still dying down, at 3:53 p.m. on Wednesday Lawrence O’Donnell tweeted, “Last night I made an error in judgment by reporting an item about the president’s finances that didn’t go through our rigorous verification and standards process. I shouldn’t have reported it and I was wrong to discuss it on the air. I will address the issue on my show tonight.” He did so, but didn’t go so far as to explain MSNBC’s broader problems related to years of unduly sensational and misleading Trump-Russia coverage. The concession came a few hours after President Trump’s personal attorney threatened legal action.
Exactly two minutes before Lawrence O’Donnell’s admission of error, a reporter at the military news website Task and Purpose tweeted out a story headlined “Children of US troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship, Trump administration says.” The story merited obvious skepticism from the get-go and was soon revealed to be premised on a misreading of a minor policy change. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service quickly clarified: The new policy would not affect all kids of service members. It would affect only a tiny minority of service members in rare circumstances.
Nonetheless, the story was dutifully regurgitated by many other media outlets – many of which appear to have done no reporting of their own – and spread far and wide by journalists on social media. On Wednesday night, Twitter was still full of misinformation and anti-Trump invective generated by an inaccurate story.
Again, all of this played out in about 24 hours, and a recap of media conduct in recent years doesn’t make this day look like an especially abnormal performance for our political press. Indeed, the very next day the Washington Post published another seriously ill-advised op-ed, headlined “Conservatives say we’ve abandoned reason and civility. The Old South used the same language to defend slavery,” which, yes, actually makes the argument that fretting about reason and civility is racist.
Donald Trump has taken a lot of criticism for his pointed attacks on the media and having gone so far as to call them the “enemy of the people.” That kind of egregious attack doesn’t help, as we desperately need a functioning media to provide us with accurate information – democracy can’t function without it.
But we also need to be very clear that what we currently have is a media that, with little forethought and much less remorse, engages in lazy character assassination, has no trouble attributing the worst possible motives to tens of millions of sincere Americans, routinely runs with wild and unverified allegations, and expresses zero skepticism when it’s obviously warranted. All that seems to matter is that the story is critical of politicians – or even ordinary voters – the media clearly doesn’t like.
Despite concerns about Trump’s own motives and relationship with the truth, the fact of the matter is that at some point he will no longer be president, and perhaps as soon a year and a half from now. We’re likely to be stuck with a media that apparently has no desire to reform itself or restore the institutional credibility it started losing long before Trump landed in the White House. The press may not be the enemy of the people, but these days it’s not doing us many favors, either.
[url]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/30/24_hours_of_media_malpractice.html[/url][/QUOTE]
130.) DParker - 08/31/2019
Yeah, that pretty much nails it.
131.) Swamp Fox - 01/07/2020
I guess they didn't want to see what a jury thought of their journalism ... LOL :
[url]https://www.fox19.com/2020/01/07/cnn-settles-lawsuit-with-nick-sandmann/[/url]
[url]https://www.fox19.com/2020/01/07/cnn-settles-lawsuit-with-nick-sandmann/[/url]
132.) bluecat - 01/07/2020
Awesome. Good on Nick.
133.) Swamp Fox - 01/07/2020
Yeah, no ax to grind from this journalist:
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/01/07/1619-project-editor-responds-criticism-atlantic/[/url]
[url]https://twitter.com/nhannahjones?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1214540697216397315&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchives%2Fjohn-s-2%2F2020%2F01%2F07%2F1619-project-editor-responds-criticism-atlantic%2F[/url]
Talk about embarrassing:
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/01/07/1619-project-editor-responds-criticism-atlantic/[/url]
[url]https://twitter.com/nhannahjones?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1214540697216397315&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Farchives%2Fjohn-s-2%2F2020%2F01%2F07%2F1619-project-editor-responds-criticism-atlantic%2F[/url]
Talk about embarrassing:
I’m literally embarrassed that this is the argument put forth against a project assessing the legacy of racialized chattel slavery. You’re using some kumbaya melting pot nonsense to #alllivesmatter slavery and the unique experiences and contributions of black Americans. https://t.co/opT93GdG3E
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) January 7, 2020
134.) Swamp Fox - 01/07/2020
"Literally embarrassed" and this:
I'm literally surprised she got a job as a print journalist at anything above a county weekly with writing like this.
I'm looking at you, [I]Manhattan Times[/I] ...
The fact that you are so uncomfortable with a project commemorating the 400th anniversary of the slavery of African-descended people actually focusing on the experience and role of African-descended people is something you might want to contemplate.
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) January 7, 2020 ">I'm literally surprised she got a job as a print journalist at anything above a county weekly with writing like this.
I'm looking at you, [I]Manhattan Times[/I] ...
135.) Swamp Fox - 01/07/2020
136.) Swamp Fox - 01/08/2020
Here's the very measured critique that is giving the NYT project editor and her allies the vapors:
[QUOTE][B][SIZE=2]1776 Honors America’s Diversity in a Way 1619 Does Not[/SIZE]
Academic historians, conservatives, and Trotskyist socialists rightly reject The New York Times’ reframing of the past.
[url]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/inclusive-case-1776-not-1619/604435/[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
A long read, but worth your time.
[QUOTE][B][SIZE=2]1776 Honors America’s Diversity in a Way 1619 Does Not[/SIZE]
Academic historians, conservatives, and Trotskyist socialists rightly reject The New York Times’ reframing of the past.
[url]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/inclusive-case-1776-not-1619/604435/[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
A long read, but worth your time.
137.) Swamp Fox - 01/11/2020
Came across this today and LITERALLY LOL'd.
The only thing I could think of is they just don't know what "neutral" means, or have never consumed much content from sources that they place in or close to that column ...
:re:
The only thing I could think of is they just don't know what "neutral" means, or have never consumed much content from sources that they place in or close to that column ...
:re:
138.) DParker - 01/13/2020
I scarcely know where to begin with that one, so I'm just going to sit here and roll my eye derisively.
139.) Swamp Fox - 03/12/2020
[B]Acosta: Calling Coronavirus ‘Foreign’ Smacks Of Xenophobia
[/B]
[QUOTE][url]https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/03/12/acosta-calling-coronavirus-foreign-xenophobic/[/url]
That said, having figures in the US media suggests it’s “xenophobic” for the President of the United States to mention that the virus originated in China clearly helps the Chinese propaganda effort. To the degree it gets people to think they shouldn’t discuss this fact (lest they sound xenophobic) that’s a plus for China which ultimately wants people to stop talking about where and how this originated.
If Acosta were a better reporter I think he would have shared some of this context on CNN last night, i.e. that the president appeared to be taking a firm stance against an ongoing Chinese propaganda effort to suggest the origin of the virus is either a) unknown or b) the United States. Instead, he told CNN viewers the president’s statement of the facts was xenophobic.
At some point, CNN might want to clarify with Acosta whether his job is inform people about what’s going on in the world or simply to attack President Trump on camera.
[/QUOTE]
Well, he didn't [I]exactly[/I] accuse the President of xenophobia. He said the phrasing "would strike some people" that way. But we know what he meant, even conjuring a bizarre connection to routine, non-pandemic immigration policy. And then Cuomo made it worse with some psycho-analysis, Jimbo nodding along.
So kudos again to CNN for missing the real story, while screwing up the one they were focused on.
[/B]
[QUOTE][url]https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/03/12/acosta-calling-coronavirus-foreign-xenophobic/[/url]
That said, having figures in the US media suggests it’s “xenophobic” for the President of the United States to mention that the virus originated in China clearly helps the Chinese propaganda effort. To the degree it gets people to think they shouldn’t discuss this fact (lest they sound xenophobic) that’s a plus for China which ultimately wants people to stop talking about where and how this originated.
If Acosta were a better reporter I think he would have shared some of this context on CNN last night, i.e. that the president appeared to be taking a firm stance against an ongoing Chinese propaganda effort to suggest the origin of the virus is either a) unknown or b) the United States. Instead, he told CNN viewers the president’s statement of the facts was xenophobic.
At some point, CNN might want to clarify with Acosta whether his job is inform people about what’s going on in the world or simply to attack President Trump on camera.
[/QUOTE]
Well, he didn't [I]exactly[/I] accuse the President of xenophobia. He said the phrasing "would strike some people" that way. But we know what he meant, even conjuring a bizarre connection to routine, non-pandemic immigration policy. And then Cuomo made it worse with some psycho-analysis, Jimbo nodding along.
So kudos again to CNN for missing the real story, while screwing up the one they were focused on.
140.) DParker - 03/12/2020
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;60292]f Acosta were a better reporter I think he would have shared some of this context on CNN last night.[/QUOTE]
False premise. If Acosta were any kind of a competent journalist he wouldn't be at CNN.
False premise. If Acosta were any kind of a competent journalist he wouldn't be at CNN.
141.) Swamp Fox - 03/12/2020
[QUOTE=DParker;60295]False premise. If Acosta were any kind of a competent journalist he wouldn't be at CNN.[/QUOTE]
False premise. The call was for Acosta to be merely a *better* reporter. :-)
Obviously competence has nothing to do with CNN.
It's just a matter of degrees of horribleness.
False premise. The call was for Acosta to be merely a *better* reporter. :-)
Obviously competence has nothing to do with CNN.
It's just a matter of degrees of horribleness.
142.) DParker - 03/12/2020
Case in point:
This is brutal pic.twitter.com/bHTRnr2ypG
— Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) March 12, 2020
143.) Swamp Fox - 03/12/2020
LOL ...
144.) Swamp Fox - 03/12/2020
That's another fine mess they've gotten themselves into, Ollie.
145.) Swamp Fox - 03/12/2020
[url]http://www.stanlaurelandoliverhardy.com/nicemess.htm[/url]
146.) DParker - 03/12/2020
And don't even get me started on the racism behind Spanish Flu, Hong Kong Flu, Ebola, West Nile Virus, German Measles, Marburg Virus, Lassa Fever, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, etc, etc
147.) Swamp Fox - 03/12/2020
The Black Plague was the worst ...
[...ducks...]
[...ducks...]
148.) Swamp Fox - 03/12/2020
Some history and Halloween costume ideas in the same post:
(Who says this site is not full of information? Luv2? Pshaw!)
[url]https://plaguedoctormasks.com/history/[/url]
(Who says this site is not full of information? Luv2? Pshaw!)
[url]https://plaguedoctormasks.com/history/[/url]
149.) DParker - 03/12/2020
'ere, 'e says 'e's not dead yet!
150.) Swamp Fox - 03/12/2020
Norwegian Blue Lives Matter ...
151.) Swamp Fox - 03/12/2020
Seriously, someone on CNN should explain that The Plague (the Black Death) came from China (as far as anyone knows, I guess) .... It'd be fun to watch all the heads explode ... LOL
152.) DParker - 03/13/2020
LOL!
153.) Swamp Fox - 03/13/2020
Update on this previous post:
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;59801]Here's the very measured critique that is giving the NYT project editor and her allies the vapors:
1776 Honors America’s Diversity in a Way 1619 Does Not
Academic historians, conservatives, and Trotskyist socialists rightly reject The New York Times’ reframing of the past.
[url]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...t-1619/604435/[/url]
A long read, but worth your time.[/QUOTE]
[B]After months of defending the unsupportable (and wrong-headed) claim that a primary motivation for the American Revolution was to preserve the institution of slavery in the colonies, the New York Times makes a small ---very small-- edit.[/B]
[QUOTE][I]It’s not clear what prompted the belated change of heart but if I had to guess it was, at least in part, the piece Politico published March 6 by Northwestern historian Leslie Harris who said she had objected to the same passage about the revolution prior to publication. Here’s a bit of what she wrote:[/I]
[QUOTE][I]On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America…
Weeks before, I had received an email from a New York Times research editor. Because I’m an historian of African American life and slavery, in New York, specifically, and the pre-Civil War era more generally, she wanted me to verify some statements for the project. At one point, she sent me this assertion: “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”
I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.[/I] [ClOSE QUOTE]
[I]Harris was making the same point about the Revolution that previous critics had made. In fact, it’s fair to ask if the change made yesterday will satisfy the critics. Pulitzer Prize winning historian Gordon Wood wrote, in his response to the NY Times refusal to issue a correction, that there was no evidence any significant group of American colonists were motivated by the desire to protect slavery:[/I]
[QUOTE][I]I have spent my career studying the American Revolution and cannot accept the view that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” I don’t know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves. No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776. If southerners were concerned about losing their slaves, why didn’t they make efforts to ally with the slaveholding planters in the British West Indies? Perhaps some southern slaveholders were alarmed by news of the Somerset decision, but we don’t have any evidence of that. Besides, that decision was not known in the colonies until the fall of 1772 and by that date the colonists were well along in their drive to independence. Remember, it all started in 1765 with the Stamp Act. The same is true of Dunmore’s proclamation of 1775. It may have tipped the scales for some hesitant Virginia planters, but by then the revolutionary movement was already well along in Virginia.
There is no evidence in 1776 of a rising movement to abolish the Atlantic slave trade, as the 1619 Project erroneously asserts, nor is there any evidence the British government was eager to do so. But even if either were the case, ending the Atlantic slave trade would have been welcomed by the Virginia planters, who already had more slaves than they needed. Indeed, the Virginians in the years following independence took the lead in moving to abolish the despicable international slave trade.[/I] [CLOSE QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/03/12/ny-times-issues-long-overdue-correction-1619-project/[/url]
It's actually sad and suspicious --even scandalous-- how small and spineless the edit is, but not surprising.
You can see it and compare it to the original text at the link above.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;59801]Here's the very measured critique that is giving the NYT project editor and her allies the vapors:
1776 Honors America’s Diversity in a Way 1619 Does Not
Academic historians, conservatives, and Trotskyist socialists rightly reject The New York Times’ reframing of the past.
[url]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...t-1619/604435/[/url]
A long read, but worth your time.[/QUOTE]
[B]After months of defending the unsupportable (and wrong-headed) claim that a primary motivation for the American Revolution was to preserve the institution of slavery in the colonies, the New York Times makes a small ---very small-- edit.[/B]
[QUOTE][I]It’s not clear what prompted the belated change of heart but if I had to guess it was, at least in part, the piece Politico published March 6 by Northwestern historian Leslie Harris who said she had objected to the same passage about the revolution prior to publication. Here’s a bit of what she wrote:[/I]
[QUOTE][I]On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America…
Weeks before, I had received an email from a New York Times research editor. Because I’m an historian of African American life and slavery, in New York, specifically, and the pre-Civil War era more generally, she wanted me to verify some statements for the project. At one point, she sent me this assertion: “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.”
I vigorously disputed the claim. Although slavery was certainly an issue in the American Revolution, the protection of slavery was not one of the main reasons the 13 Colonies went to war.[/I] [ClOSE QUOTE]
[I]Harris was making the same point about the Revolution that previous critics had made. In fact, it’s fair to ask if the change made yesterday will satisfy the critics. Pulitzer Prize winning historian Gordon Wood wrote, in his response to the NY Times refusal to issue a correction, that there was no evidence any significant group of American colonists were motivated by the desire to protect slavery:[/I]
[QUOTE][I]I have spent my career studying the American Revolution and cannot accept the view that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” I don’t know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves. No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776. If southerners were concerned about losing their slaves, why didn’t they make efforts to ally with the slaveholding planters in the British West Indies? Perhaps some southern slaveholders were alarmed by news of the Somerset decision, but we don’t have any evidence of that. Besides, that decision was not known in the colonies until the fall of 1772 and by that date the colonists were well along in their drive to independence. Remember, it all started in 1765 with the Stamp Act. The same is true of Dunmore’s proclamation of 1775. It may have tipped the scales for some hesitant Virginia planters, but by then the revolutionary movement was already well along in Virginia.
There is no evidence in 1776 of a rising movement to abolish the Atlantic slave trade, as the 1619 Project erroneously asserts, nor is there any evidence the British government was eager to do so. But even if either were the case, ending the Atlantic slave trade would have been welcomed by the Virginia planters, who already had more slaves than they needed. Indeed, the Virginians in the years following independence took the lead in moving to abolish the despicable international slave trade.[/I] [CLOSE QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/03/12/ny-times-issues-long-overdue-correction-1619-project/[/url]
It's actually sad and suspicious --even scandalous-- how small and spineless the edit is, but not surprising.
You can see it and compare it to the original text at the link above.
154.) Swamp Fox - 03/13/2020
Next edit from the [I]Times[/I]:
[B][I]Real Socialism Has *Almost* Never Been Tried[/I][/B]
In three, two, one ....
[B][I]Real Socialism Has *Almost* Never Been Tried[/I][/B]
In three, two, one ....
155.) Swamp Fox - 03/21/2020
[QUOTE][B]The Coronavirus Is Not Chinese[/B]
[I]We need to use the right language in a pandemic.[/I]
Picture of Sarah Schweppe
Sarah Schweppe
BuzzFeed News Reporter
[url]https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sarahschweppecopy/coronavirus-copy-style-quibbles-bits-newsletter[/url][/QUOTE]
Good stuff.
She's a Buzzfeed news reporter, you know. It says so right in her byline.
[I]We need to use the right language in a pandemic.[/I]
Picture of Sarah Schweppe
Sarah Schweppe
BuzzFeed News Reporter
[url]https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sarahschweppecopy/coronavirus-copy-style-quibbles-bits-newsletter[/url][/QUOTE]
Good stuff.
She's a Buzzfeed news reporter, you know. It says so right in her byline.
156.) Swamp Fox - 03/21/2020
She left unanswered one question I would ask:
Does she like Kung Fu Flu better than Kung Flu?
But maybe that is mostly a question for poets and literary types ...
[QUOTE][B]Aphrodisiac[/B]
--by Swamp Fox
There once was a fishmonger named Wong
Who also sold bats in Wuhan.
The bats, it was said,
Made you hard in the head
So Wong thought he'd done nothing wrong. [/QUOTE]
Does she like Kung Fu Flu better than Kung Flu?
But maybe that is mostly a question for poets and literary types ...
[QUOTE][B]Aphrodisiac[/B]
--by Swamp Fox
There once was a fishmonger named Wong
Who also sold bats in Wuhan.
The bats, it was said,
Made you hard in the head
So Wong thought he'd done nothing wrong. [/QUOTE]
157.) bluecat - 03/22/2020
That is wong in so many ways.
+ 5
+ 5
158.) Swamp Fox - 04/13/2020
Speaking of edits by the NYT:
[QUOTE][B]The New York Times Disappears Their Own Coverage Of Biden And Tara Reade[/B]
Two things happened in the press this weekend related to Tara Reade’s recent accusations of sexual assault against Joe Biden, one somewhat less remarkable than the other. The more remarkable event was the fact that the New York Times finally published a story about the allegations. (Keep in mind that Reade originally made the claim on March 25th and it’s now April 13th.) To their credit, they included most of the details of what she was claiming.
In what was probably the less shocking event regarding this story, they quickly moved to edit out one part of a key sentence that painted Biden in a less than flattering light. Fox News has the details.
[QUOTE]The New York Times stealth-edited its article on the sexual-assault allegation against Joe Biden by his former Senate staffer Tara Reade just minutes after it was published on Sunday morning, removing all references in a key paragraph to the multiple past accusations by seven women that the former vice president had touched them inappropriately…
According to a copy of the Times’ article saved by the Internet archive Wayback Machine, the Times originally reported: “No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.”
That paragraph now reads: “No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.”
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps even more embarrassing for the Gray Lady was the fact that they had tweeted out the offending sentence when the article was published. It apparently took others pointing this out on Twitter before the editors rushed to delete the tweet without making any reference to the fact that they were doing so.
When some of us were discussing this turn of events on social media yesterday, I posed the question of what the style guide and editorial standards at the Times have to say about this. Once an article is published, if it is later edited, they’re supposed to include an editor’s note at the bottom indicating what was changed in the original version of the article and why. There is no such note in the current version of the article, so this was a definite and obvious “stealth edit” intended to flush the offensive language down the memory hole.
And what possible, reasonable excuse could be offered for making this change? The offending text read, “beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.” That can’t be viewed as inaccurate in any way. Even the New York Times has been forced to reluctantly report on these incidents in the past, involving God only knows how many women at this point. Videos of “Creepy Joe Biden” take up a significant slice of entries on YouTube and most media outlets.
That portion of the paragraph that silently vanished was neither inaccurate nor inapplicable to the story being covered. There was absolutely no reason for it to be removed other than a blatant effort to offer cover to Biden and avoid damaging his chances to defeat Donald Trump in November. This shameful behavior by a newspaper that’s supposedly one of the preeminent news sources on the planet would be shocking if we didn’t already know about the liberal bias that overwhelms their newsroom.
[B]Of course, as I pointed out on Twitter last night, we should give some credit to the New York Times. They at least mentioned that Tara Reade is an actual person who exists. Several weeks after the allegations were made, a search of CNN’s website for her name still produces zero results.[/B]
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/04/13/new-york-times-disappears-coverage-biden-tara-reade/[/url]
[/QUOTE]
Emphasis mine.
[QUOTE][B]The New York Times Disappears Their Own Coverage Of Biden And Tara Reade[/B]
Two things happened in the press this weekend related to Tara Reade’s recent accusations of sexual assault against Joe Biden, one somewhat less remarkable than the other. The more remarkable event was the fact that the New York Times finally published a story about the allegations. (Keep in mind that Reade originally made the claim on March 25th and it’s now April 13th.) To their credit, they included most of the details of what she was claiming.
In what was probably the less shocking event regarding this story, they quickly moved to edit out one part of a key sentence that painted Biden in a less than flattering light. Fox News has the details.
[QUOTE]The New York Times stealth-edited its article on the sexual-assault allegation against Joe Biden by his former Senate staffer Tara Reade just minutes after it was published on Sunday morning, removing all references in a key paragraph to the multiple past accusations by seven women that the former vice president had touched them inappropriately…
According to a copy of the Times’ article saved by the Internet archive Wayback Machine, the Times originally reported: “No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.”
That paragraph now reads: “No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.”
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps even more embarrassing for the Gray Lady was the fact that they had tweeted out the offending sentence when the article was published. It apparently took others pointing this out on Twitter before the editors rushed to delete the tweet without making any reference to the fact that they were doing so.
When some of us were discussing this turn of events on social media yesterday, I posed the question of what the style guide and editorial standards at the Times have to say about this. Once an article is published, if it is later edited, they’re supposed to include an editor’s note at the bottom indicating what was changed in the original version of the article and why. There is no such note in the current version of the article, so this was a definite and obvious “stealth edit” intended to flush the offensive language down the memory hole.
And what possible, reasonable excuse could be offered for making this change? The offending text read, “beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.” That can’t be viewed as inaccurate in any way. Even the New York Times has been forced to reluctantly report on these incidents in the past, involving God only knows how many women at this point. Videos of “Creepy Joe Biden” take up a significant slice of entries on YouTube and most media outlets.
That portion of the paragraph that silently vanished was neither inaccurate nor inapplicable to the story being covered. There was absolutely no reason for it to be removed other than a blatant effort to offer cover to Biden and avoid damaging his chances to defeat Donald Trump in November. This shameful behavior by a newspaper that’s supposedly one of the preeminent news sources on the planet would be shocking if we didn’t already know about the liberal bias that overwhelms their newsroom.
[B]Of course, as I pointed out on Twitter last night, we should give some credit to the New York Times. They at least mentioned that Tara Reade is an actual person who exists. Several weeks after the allegations were made, a search of CNN’s website for her name still produces zero results.[/B]
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2020/04/13/new-york-times-disappears-coverage-biden-tara-reade/[/url]
[/QUOTE]
Emphasis mine.
159.) Swamp Fox - 06/17/2020
[url]https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself?r=1ejgy[/url]
160.) Swamp Fox - 06/17/2020
^^^
When [I] Rolling Stone[/I] can't get behind your ideology, maybe you're in trouble, Lefty.
When [I] Rolling Stone[/I] can't get behind your ideology, maybe you're in trouble, Lefty.
161.) DParker - 06/17/2020
I read that a couple of days ago, and while it's a good piece with a lot of solid points the first thing that struck me was how these guys can't say [i]anything[/i] without first establishing their I-Hate-Trump bona fides, no matter how irrelevant he is to the subject at hand.
162.) Swamp Fox - 06/17/2020
That is very true, but predictable.
You can't be undeplorable without declaring your distaste for Trump.
And being undeplorable is where it's it at right now ...At a minimum.
You can't be undeplorable without declaring your distaste for Trump.
And being undeplorable is where it's it at right now ...At a minimum.
163.) Swamp Fox - 07/30/2020
Well, we've skipped over a lot in the last few months, but this kinda tells you where we are with journalism these days:
Headline:
[QUOTE][B]“Tell Us, Specifically, If You Would, What The Conseuquences Are Going To Be”[/B][/QUOTE]
[url]https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2020/07/tell-us-specifically-conseuquences-going/[/url]
Linking to this story:
[QUOTE]
He brought up how Google has actually donated to Jordan and asked why he thinks they would do that. Jordan insisted they can give him money if they wan’t but “that doesn’t change who I am.”[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-to-jim-jordan-what-actual-consequences-will-republicans-get-big-tech-companies-to-face/[/url]
Heads should roll ...
Headline:
[QUOTE][B]“Tell Us, Specifically, If You Would, What The Conseuquences Are Going To Be”[/B][/QUOTE]
[url]https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2020/07/tell-us-specifically-conseuquences-going/[/url]
Linking to this story:
[QUOTE]
He brought up how Google has actually donated to Jordan and asked why he thinks they would do that. Jordan insisted they can give him money if they wan’t but “that doesn’t change who I am.”[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-to-jim-jordan-what-actual-consequences-will-republicans-get-big-tech-companies-to-face/[/url]
Heads should roll ...
164.) Swamp Fox - 08/27/2020
Not a parody:
165.) bluecat - 08/27/2020
They are talking about that right now on the Ben Shapiro show.
or Bette Midler saying that Melania wasn't able to speak English...(inference that she is stupid) and Melania knows about 5 languages.
or Bette Midler saying that Melania wasn't able to speak English...(inference that she is stupid) and Melania knows about 5 languages.
166.) bluecat - 08/27/2020
The fact that Joe Biden had an affair with Jill and covered it up and stated that they met on a blind date is coming out.
167.) Swamp Fox - 08/27/2020
[QUOTE=bluecat;61751]They are talking about that right now on the Ben Shapiro show.
or Bette Midler saying that Melania wasn't able to speak English...(inference that she is stupid) and Melania knows about 5 languages.[/QUOTE]
The problem isn't that Midler said something stupid about someone with an accent who DOES speak English well -- It's that nobody under age 75 knows why Bette Midler is taking up oxygen on the planet in the first place ...
or Bette Midler saying that Melania wasn't able to speak English...(inference that she is stupid) and Melania knows about 5 languages.[/QUOTE]
The problem isn't that Midler said something stupid about someone with an accent who DOES speak English well -- It's that nobody under age 75 knows why Bette Midler is taking up oxygen on the planet in the first place ...
168.) bluecat - 08/27/2020
She's a lot of hot air beneath my...never mind.
169.) Swamp Fox - 08/27/2020
[QUOTE=bluecat;61752]The fact that Joe Biden had an affair with Jill and covered it up and stated that they met on a blind date is coming out.[/QUOTE]
He was driving her husband's brown Corvette ....
LOL ...
C'mon, man! :tap::wink
Also: Brown Corvette?
:bad::bad::bad:
He was driving her husband's brown Corvette ....
LOL ...
C'mon, man! :tap::wink
Also: Brown Corvette?
:bad::bad::bad:
170.) Swamp Fox - 08/27/2020
Prince is rolling over in his grave ...
171.) bluecat - 08/27/2020
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;61755]
Also: Brown Corvette?
:bad::bad::bad:[/QUOTE]
I think that is the real crime.
Also: Brown Corvette?
:bad::bad::bad:[/QUOTE]
I think that is the real crime.
172.) Swamp Fox - 08/28/2020
[QUOTE=bluecat;61754]She's a lot of hot air beneath my...never mind.[/QUOTE]
+4 .....
+4 .....
173.) Swamp Fox - 09/04/2020
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;61753]The problem isn't that Midler said something stupid about someone with an accent who DOES speak English well -- It's that nobody under age 75 knows why Bette Midler is taking up oxygen on the planet in the first place ...[/QUOTE]
I rest my case ....
I rest my case ....
174.) Swamp Fox - 09/30/2020
We're living in stupid, stupid times ...
[B]Great Moments In Journalism: USA Today Fact-Checks Satire Site, Declares It “Satirical”[/B]
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/09/29/great-moments-journalism-usa-today-fact-checks-satire-site-declares-satirical/[/url]
[B]Great Moments In Journalism: USA Today Fact-Checks Satire Site, Declares It “Satirical”[/B]
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/09/29/great-moments-journalism-usa-today-fact-checks-satire-site-declares-satirical/[/url]
175.) Swamp Fox - 03/09/2021
LOL ...
At least for the moment, she failed up ....
This is why we're screwed.
[B]No Stranger To Scandal: Newly Hired Teen Vogue Editor-In-Chief Under Fire For Past Tweets
[/B]
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/karen-townsend/2021/03/09/no-stranger-scandal-newly-hired-teen-vogue-editor-chief-fire-past-tweets/[/url]
At least for the moment, she failed up ....
This is why we're screwed.
[B]No Stranger To Scandal: Newly Hired Teen Vogue Editor-In-Chief Under Fire For Past Tweets
[/B]
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/karen-townsend/2021/03/09/no-stranger-scandal-newly-hired-teen-vogue-editor-chief-fire-past-tweets/[/url]
176.) Swamp Fox - 03/10/2021
......
177.) Swamp Fox - 03/10/2021
As a writer and a "commentator", Karen Townsend usually reminds me of a sixth-grade girl on the school bus and makes my eyes roll up into the back of my head, but in this case she is on it like white on rice and will have a hard time topping it for the rest of her career:
[QUOTE]Instead of instructing minors on how to go about getting an abortion, the staff of Teen Vogue is busy canceling their new boss. [/QUOTE]
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/karen-townsend/2021/03/09/no-stranger-scandal-newly-hired-teen-vogue-editor-chief-fire-past-tweets/[/url]
[QUOTE]Instead of instructing minors on how to go about getting an abortion, the staff of Teen Vogue is busy canceling their new boss. [/QUOTE]
[url]https://hotair.com/archives/karen-townsend/2021/03/09/no-stranger-scandal-newly-hired-teen-vogue-editor-chief-fire-past-tweets/[/url]
178.) DParker - 03/12/2021
We have another contender. Not surprisingly, from CNN....
179.) Swamp Fox - 03/14/2021
Is that Brian Stelter on air in shorts, or something more incompetent?
180.) DParker - 03/14/2021
Damn...the photo disappeared.
ETA: Luckily, I saved a copy of it.
ETA: Luckily, I saved a copy of it.
181.) Swamp Fox - 03/14/2021
LOL ...
That's the same with me ...
I'd say I eat about two or three hours a day...
Not around the clock ...
But also, I read while I'm eating, so there's some time in there for that ...
That's the same with me ...
I'd say I eat about two or three hours a day...
Not around the clock ...
But also, I read while I'm eating, so there's some time in there for that ...
182.) Swamp Fox - 05/18/2021
More good news from CNN:
[B]
CNN: We finally got around to firing our Hitler-promoting contributor[/B]
[url]https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2021/05/17/cnn-we-finally-got-around-to-firing-our-hitler-promoting-contributor-n390426[/url]
[B]
CNN: We finally got around to firing our Hitler-promoting contributor[/B]
[url]https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2021/05/17/cnn-we-finally-got-around-to-firing-our-hitler-promoting-contributor-n390426[/url]
183.) Swamp Fox - 05/18/2021
[QUOTE]Here’s a better question: why is Twitter allowing this blue-check anti-Semite to maintain his account? They banned American blue-checks for much less, especially over the issue of hate speech, and cheering the Holocaust certainly qualifies as such. I’m no fan of Twitter’s speech-code enforcement, but like CNN, Raja points out their shifting standards on such matters. ---See above ---[/QUOTE] ....
184.) DParker - 05/18/2021
If it weren't for double standards CNN wouldn't have any standards at all.
185.) Swamp Fox - 05/18/2021
[QUOTE=DParker;63784]If it weren't for double standards CNN wouldn't have any standards at all.[/QUOTE]
Double standards barely scratch the surface ...
[QUOTE]-
Didn't take too long 'fore I found out
What people mean by down and out
Spent my money, took my car
Started tellin' her friends she gonna be a star
I don't know, but I been told
A big-legged woman ain't got no soul ...[/QUOTE]
:ek:
Double standards barely scratch the surface ...
[QUOTE]-
Didn't take too long 'fore I found out
What people mean by down and out
Spent my money, took my car
Started tellin' her friends she gonna be a star
I don't know, but I been told
A big-legged woman ain't got no soul ...[/QUOTE]
:ek:
186.) bluecat - 05/18/2021
Those lyrics will go over like a lead balloon.
187.) Swamp Fox - 05/23/2021
+8
So you're saying that's like my Kung Fu Flu thread going over like I'm bat-shit crazy...
:wave:
So you're saying that's like my Kung Fu Flu thread going over like I'm bat-shit crazy...
:wave:
188.) Swamp Fox - 05/23/2021
Funny how the "reporters" are now beginning to report on Wuhan again ...
But I guess when you think about it, this is why they are called reporters, rather than news-breakers ...
But I guess when you think about it, this is why they are called reporters, rather than news-breakers ...
189.) DParker - 05/24/2021
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;63791]Funny how the "reporters" are now beginning to report on Wuhan again ...
But I guess when you think about it, this is why they are called reporters, rather than news-breakers ...[/QUOTE]
Even Fauci was trying to play catch-up a couple of days ago by saying that isn't sure that the WuFlu originated naturally. He's lied repeatedly from the beginning, so I don't take anything he says seriously. But it's funny to watch the press being forced to acknowledge the possibility...and starting to look like the probability...that it's a lab escapee after all of they're pushing the "that's a stupid conspiracy theory" narrative.
But I guess when you think about it, this is why they are called reporters, rather than news-breakers ...[/QUOTE]
Even Fauci was trying to play catch-up a couple of days ago by saying that isn't sure that the WuFlu originated naturally. He's lied repeatedly from the beginning, so I don't take anything he says seriously. But it's funny to watch the press being forced to acknowledge the possibility...and starting to look like the probability...that it's a lab escapee after all of they're pushing the "that's a stupid conspiracy theory" narrative.
190.) Swamp Fox - 05/24/2021
If the NYT and WaPo would pay closer attention to HC, maybe Luv2 would come back ..
191.) Swamp Fox - 05/24/2021
"Shane!"
192.) Swamp Fox - 05/24/2021
If it's between "it escaped from a high-tech Communist Chinese laboratory" and "it escaped from a greasy Chinese Communist meat market", I'm going with the phuckin' Chinese Communists ...
This is why we can't have nice things ....
This is why we can't have nice things ....
193.) bluecat - 05/24/2021
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;63791]Funny how the "reporters" are now beginning to report on Wuhan again ...
But I guess when you think about it, this is why they are called reporters, rather than news-breakers ...[/QUOTE]
This just in, there are unidentified flying machines that have been reported lately. Credible sources too! Some believe this has been going on for awhile. More later.
But I guess when you think about it, this is why they are called reporters, rather than news-breakers ...[/QUOTE]
This just in, there are unidentified flying machines that have been reported lately. Credible sources too! Some believe this has been going on for awhile. More later.
194.) bluecat - 05/24/2021
Now that Donald Trump is out of office, it is now permissable to delve deeper into a host of things previously dismissed (Wuhan, hydroxychloroquine is now a safe drug again, etc.)
195.) Swamp Fox - 05/29/2022
Oof! ---[B][I]A Gun-Control Advocate and His Fabricated ‘Facts’[/I][/B]
[QUOTE]The table cited by Professor Cornell makes no mention of AR-style rifles or of the 5.56mm NATO cartridge they typically fire, that cartridge not having been developed until a decade later. It does contain an estimate that World War II–era machine guns were about 115 times as lethal as Revolutionary-era muskets. [...] — the major point is that the study not only does not characterize AR-style rifles as 200 times more lethal than 18th-century muskets, it does not characterize them in any way whatsoever.
[...]
In response to my criticism, Slate has appended a correction to the article, which now says that the problem was an “extrapolation” error and that the real number is something like 50x. How that figure was arrived at is anybody’s guess, given that Professor Cornell doesn’t know how he arrived at the earlier one, but the most relevant point is that this explanation is a lie. There was no extrapolation error, because there was no extrapolation, because there was nothing from which to extrapolate. The matter of AR-style rifles simply is not considered in the study, and there isn’t anything comparable from which to extrapolate. This is just Professor Cornell assigning an arbitrary number to his subjective assessment — the subjective assessment of a not especially well-informed academic who as of Wednesday morning did not, by his own account, appreciate the difference between firearms that are used to shoot squirrels in 2022 and those that were used to shoot down airplanes in World War II.
Like any other working journalist, I have made arithmetic errors and misunderstood statistics. What should be emphasized here is not that Professor Cornell produced the wrong number but that he simply made up a number and then attributed it to a study that says nothing at all about the thing he claims it characterizes. The number could have been 10x, 10,000x, or pi times the radius squared — any figure would have been equally fictitious.
I have a good deal of experience in writing about bias in gun-policy journalism. But this is not bias — it is fabrication. Here we have a professor at a major university writing an article in a major media outlet on the subject of a very contentious public-policy matter, and the first claim of fact in the piece is simply made up in order to bolster a weak argument made by a writer who believed — with good reason, apparently — that he could count on the bias and laziness of his editors and the stupidity of his readers to permit the fabrication to go undetected and unchallenged. This is precisely the sort of thing that undermines confidence in our journalistic institutions and fuels conspiracy-theory nonsense. If our institutions do not have enough self-respect to stand up for their own values, then who is going to do it for them?
We need honest journalists and honest academics. The Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University is not one of them.
[url]https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/a-gun-control-advocate-and-his-fabricated-facts/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=hero&utm_content=related&utm_term=second[/url]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The table cited by Professor Cornell makes no mention of AR-style rifles or of the 5.56mm NATO cartridge they typically fire, that cartridge not having been developed until a decade later. It does contain an estimate that World War II–era machine guns were about 115 times as lethal as Revolutionary-era muskets. [...] — the major point is that the study not only does not characterize AR-style rifles as 200 times more lethal than 18th-century muskets, it does not characterize them in any way whatsoever.
[...]
In response to my criticism, Slate has appended a correction to the article, which now says that the problem was an “extrapolation” error and that the real number is something like 50x. How that figure was arrived at is anybody’s guess, given that Professor Cornell doesn’t know how he arrived at the earlier one, but the most relevant point is that this explanation is a lie. There was no extrapolation error, because there was no extrapolation, because there was nothing from which to extrapolate. The matter of AR-style rifles simply is not considered in the study, and there isn’t anything comparable from which to extrapolate. This is just Professor Cornell assigning an arbitrary number to his subjective assessment — the subjective assessment of a not especially well-informed academic who as of Wednesday morning did not, by his own account, appreciate the difference between firearms that are used to shoot squirrels in 2022 and those that were used to shoot down airplanes in World War II.
Like any other working journalist, I have made arithmetic errors and misunderstood statistics. What should be emphasized here is not that Professor Cornell produced the wrong number but that he simply made up a number and then attributed it to a study that says nothing at all about the thing he claims it characterizes. The number could have been 10x, 10,000x, or pi times the radius squared — any figure would have been equally fictitious.
I have a good deal of experience in writing about bias in gun-policy journalism. But this is not bias — it is fabrication. Here we have a professor at a major university writing an article in a major media outlet on the subject of a very contentious public-policy matter, and the first claim of fact in the piece is simply made up in order to bolster a weak argument made by a writer who believed — with good reason, apparently — that he could count on the bias and laziness of his editors and the stupidity of his readers to permit the fabrication to go undetected and unchallenged. This is precisely the sort of thing that undermines confidence in our journalistic institutions and fuels conspiracy-theory nonsense. If our institutions do not have enough self-respect to stand up for their own values, then who is going to do it for them?
We need honest journalists and honest academics. The Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University is not one of them.
[url]https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/a-gun-control-advocate-and-his-fabricated-facts/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=hero&utm_content=related&utm_term=second[/url]
[/QUOTE]
196.) DParker - 05/29/2022
I'm shocked....SHOCKED, I tell you!
197.) Swamp Fox - 05/29/2022
I know, right? ---LOL
Not sure how this professor manages to tie his shoes in the morning ...
Not sure how this professor manages to tie his shoes in the morning ...
198.) Swamp Fox - 05/29/2022
199.) Swamp Fox - 06/07/2022
[B][B]Now *that's* a spicy meatball !!!:[/B][/B]
[QUOTE]
[url]https://www.mediaite.com/tv/italian-tv-host-absolutely-wrecks-colleague-for-softball-interview-with-kremlin-total-servilism-to-the-worst-kind-of-propaganda/[/url]
An Italian journalist took a flamethrower to his colleague on live TV for, in his view, running interference for the Kremlin with a softball interview of a top spokesperson, and a Russian TV host.
The stunning on-air moment happened Sunday night on Italy’s La7 channel. Italian journalist Alessandro Salusti went after his cohort Massimo Giletti for traveling to Russia and conducting what Salusti deemed to be a very easy interview of Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova and Russian State TV host Vladimir Solovyov.
“I imagined you were going to speak with a top official and you were going to make us proud of our free press,” Salusti said, according to a translation provided by the BBC’s Francis Scarr and confirmed by Reuters. “Instead … I am witnessing total servility to the worst kind of propaganda.”
From there, Salusti proceeded to dismantle his colleague and the entire proceeding in a brutal 90-second rant.
[B]“That palace behind you,” Salusti said, referring to the Kremlin, “…is where the worst crimes against humanity of the 20th and 21st centuries were organized. That palace is full of shit! You should have the courage to say to your hosts there that the palace behind you is a place full of shit! Because from there, communists orchestrated the worst tragedies of the last two centuries. … It makes me upset to see a journalist I respect to be called “child” and an incompetent by an idiot [Zakharova] who doesn’t know what she’s speaking about.”
Salusti proceeded to walk off the broadcast. But not before delivering a massive parting shot.
“I will not be the fig-leaf for these two idiots next to you,” he told Giletti, referring to Zakharova and Solovyov. “Thus, I decide to leave, I refuse my remuneration, and I end my participation in this farce.”
[/B]
Watch above.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
[url]https://www.mediaite.com/tv/italian-tv-host-absolutely-wrecks-colleague-for-softball-interview-with-kremlin-total-servilism-to-the-worst-kind-of-propaganda/[/url]
An Italian journalist took a flamethrower to his colleague on live TV for, in his view, running interference for the Kremlin with a softball interview of a top spokesperson, and a Russian TV host.
The stunning on-air moment happened Sunday night on Italy’s La7 channel. Italian journalist Alessandro Salusti went after his cohort Massimo Giletti for traveling to Russia and conducting what Salusti deemed to be a very easy interview of Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova and Russian State TV host Vladimir Solovyov.
“I imagined you were going to speak with a top official and you were going to make us proud of our free press,” Salusti said, according to a translation provided by the BBC’s Francis Scarr and confirmed by Reuters. “Instead … I am witnessing total servility to the worst kind of propaganda.”
From there, Salusti proceeded to dismantle his colleague and the entire proceeding in a brutal 90-second rant.
[B]“That palace behind you,” Salusti said, referring to the Kremlin, “…is where the worst crimes against humanity of the 20th and 21st centuries were organized. That palace is full of shit! You should have the courage to say to your hosts there that the palace behind you is a place full of shit! Because from there, communists orchestrated the worst tragedies of the last two centuries. … It makes me upset to see a journalist I respect to be called “child” and an incompetent by an idiot [Zakharova] who doesn’t know what she’s speaking about.”
Salusti proceeded to walk off the broadcast. But not before delivering a massive parting shot.
“I will not be the fig-leaf for these two idiots next to you,” he told Giletti, referring to Zakharova and Solovyov. “Thus, I decide to leave, I refuse my remuneration, and I end my participation in this farce.”
[/B]
Watch above.[/QUOTE]
200.) DParker - 06/07/2022
Bravissimo. I will say that unless I'd determined that I had nothing to live for, I don't know whether or not I'd be brave enough to call a Russian official out on their BS while I was physically with them in Moscow myself.
201.) Swamp Fox - 06/08/2022
^^^^
Radioactive tea is the best tea ...
[url]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/fb-5465397/A-poisoned-umbrella-tip-radioactive-tea-Russian.html[/url]
Radioactive tea is the best tea ...
[url]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/fb-5465397/A-poisoned-umbrella-tip-radioactive-tea-Russian.html[/url]
202.) bluecat - 06/08/2022
"Excuse me, miss, this tea tastes funny - oh, and it's glowing."
203.) Swamp Fox - 06/08/2022
"Did you just gender me? Here, have another cup ..."
It's come to this ...
It's come to this ...
204.) bluecat - 06/08/2022
[QUOTE=bluecat;66990]"Excuse me, miss, this tea tastes funny - oh, and it's glowing."[/QUOTE]
Excuse me, bipedal hominid, this tea tastes funny - oh, and it's glowing."
FIFMe
Excuse me, bipedal hominid, this tea tastes funny - oh, and it's glowing."
FIFMe
205.) Swamp Fox - 06/08/2022
In another 15 years, the way we're going, everyone will prolly be bipedal...
206.) Swamp Fox - 06/08/2022
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;66993]In another 15 years, the way we're going, everyone will prolly be bipedal...[/QUOTE]
I don't know what that means, really.
I just thought it was funny.
Don't fire me ...
I don't know what that means, really.
I just thought it was funny.
Don't fire me ...
207.) DParker - 06/08/2022
[I]So this guy comes up to me after a show and asks me, "Hey, are you bi?" Well, I mean, I speak a little Spanish, so I say, "Yeah, I'm Bi". So he says, "Cool, we're having some S&M people at the house later if you'd like to stop by." And I think, "Great, Spaniards and Mexicans. I'll go, speak a little Spanish and have the intellectual thing."[/I]
~Steve Martin
~Steve Martin
208.) Swamp Fox - 06/08/2022
LOL ...
209.) Swamp Fox - 06/09/2022
Tripped across this just now by coinkydink ...
[QUOTE]
[url]https://news.gallup.com/poll/393464/growing-lgbt-seen-across-major-racial-ethnic-groups.aspx[/url]
The driving factor in increasing U.S. LGBT identification is the greater tendency for younger adults -- millennials and, particularly, adult members of Generation Z -- to identify as something other than heterosexual. Roughly one in five adults in Generation Z (those born between 1997 and 2003) and one in 10 millennials (those born between 1981 and 1996) identify as LGBT, compared with fewer than one in 20 in older generations.[/QUOTE]
LOL.... ^^^
See the graph at the link. I wonder if anything happened in 2016 and 2020? :fire:
[QUOTE]
[url]https://news.gallup.com/poll/393464/growing-lgbt-seen-across-major-racial-ethnic-groups.aspx[/url]
The driving factor in increasing U.S. LGBT identification is the greater tendency for younger adults -- millennials and, particularly, adult members of Generation Z -- to identify as something other than heterosexual. Roughly one in five adults in Generation Z (those born between 1997 and 2003) and one in 10 millennials (those born between 1981 and 1996) identify as LGBT, compared with fewer than one in 20 in older generations.[/QUOTE]
LOL.... ^^^
See the graph at the link. I wonder if anything happened in 2016 and 2020? :fire:
210.) bluecat - 06/09/2022
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;66993]In another 15 years, the way we're going, everyone will prolly be bipedal...[/QUOTE]
Two bikes for each citizen?
Two bikes for each citizen?
211.) Swamp Fox - 06/10/2022
That's better than two young children ...
Sorry ... Sorry ... I'll let myself out.
Sorry ... Sorry ... I'll let myself out.
212.) bluecat - 06/10/2022
Is a bipedophile someone that loves two wheeled bicycles?
213.) Swamp Fox - 06/10/2022
Is poly-pedal tricycles on up?
214.) Swamp Fox - 09/18/2022
[url]https://www.thedailybeast.com/want-trust-in-media-to-improve-do-basic-fact-checking?ref=author[/url]
215.) Swamp Fox - 09/18/2022
[QUOTE]Despite the embarrassing results, there is little reason to believe that anyone will be chastened for not doing basic journalism. Rather than contemplating why these mistakes keep being made, on Friday, The Washington Post wrote a piece explaining how BYU’s history of racism explains why the story went viral. Amazing.
Whatever happened to talking to sources and tracking down the video? How about expressing a healthy skepticism of any source that makes an explosive allegation? Why did a conservative student newspaper do the rudimentary reporting that scores of professional journalists chose not to?
Matt Lewis
Some of this surely has to do with the rise of social media and the “shoot from the hip” style of journalism that gets clicks and ratings these days. The old journalism maxim that “If your mother says she loves you, check it out,” has been bested by Ricky Bobby’s adage, “If you ain’t first, you’re last.” Some stories are too good to verify, and this is especially true of stories that confirm a popular media narrative. Rinse and repeat.
It’s worth noting that this phenomenon is not exclusive to liberals in the mainstream media. Conservative media are just as likely to fall prey to confirmation bias.
One fairly recent example was the NYPD’s Shake Shack hoax. In case you missed it, during the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020, police unions pushed a story that police officers were deliberately poisoned by Shake Shack workers, and started throwing up. Upon closer inspection, the officers never got sick, the shakes were ordered on an app (so there was no way anyone could have known they were ordered by police), and the shake machines had just been cleaned (but apparently not thoroughly rinsed).
Ultimately, a police investigation found that there was “no criminality,” but not before mainstream media outlets (and yes, Fox News is a mainstream outlet) credulously reported the allegation.
Fox & Friends ran a segment claiming the officers had been “poisoned” and calling it a “horrendous attack.” Prominent right-wingers tweeted that police were “deliberately poisoned with bleach.” And another prominent (but fringy) right-wing blog wrote that “the left is killing our police officers.”
Other examples of conservative confirmation bias include some Fox News personalities’ baseless assertion that former DNC staffer Seth Rich leaked thousands of emails to WikiLeaks before being gunned down on a Washington, D.C. street, stories about cops going into comas after exposure to fentanyl, and the alleged murder of Kate Steinjle by an undocumented immigrant. (And it goes without saying that reports about the “stolen” 2020 election, to the degree they are credulously advanced, are the product of a similar “too good to check” ethos.)
It’s human nature to want to believe that bad people do bad things, and in today’s polarized world, someone from the other “tribe” is automatically assumed to be “bad people.” Conversely, someone from your own tribe is to be reflexively believed, without discussion. As a result, too many journalists often don’t do basic vetting of stories before launching them into the ether.
This negatively impacts trust in the media—which, you might have heard, is at an all-time low (and dropping further every day). What is more, by advancing stories that later blow up in their faces, ideologically motivated journalists are undermining their own cause.
The point of professionalism and institutions like the media is to rise above this nature. We, the fourth estate, are failing spectacularly.[/QUOTE] ....
Whatever happened to talking to sources and tracking down the video? How about expressing a healthy skepticism of any source that makes an explosive allegation? Why did a conservative student newspaper do the rudimentary reporting that scores of professional journalists chose not to?
Matt Lewis
Some of this surely has to do with the rise of social media and the “shoot from the hip” style of journalism that gets clicks and ratings these days. The old journalism maxim that “If your mother says she loves you, check it out,” has been bested by Ricky Bobby’s adage, “If you ain’t first, you’re last.” Some stories are too good to verify, and this is especially true of stories that confirm a popular media narrative. Rinse and repeat.
It’s worth noting that this phenomenon is not exclusive to liberals in the mainstream media. Conservative media are just as likely to fall prey to confirmation bias.
One fairly recent example was the NYPD’s Shake Shack hoax. In case you missed it, during the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020, police unions pushed a story that police officers were deliberately poisoned by Shake Shack workers, and started throwing up. Upon closer inspection, the officers never got sick, the shakes were ordered on an app (so there was no way anyone could have known they were ordered by police), and the shake machines had just been cleaned (but apparently not thoroughly rinsed).
Ultimately, a police investigation found that there was “no criminality,” but not before mainstream media outlets (and yes, Fox News is a mainstream outlet) credulously reported the allegation.
Fox & Friends ran a segment claiming the officers had been “poisoned” and calling it a “horrendous attack.” Prominent right-wingers tweeted that police were “deliberately poisoned with bleach.” And another prominent (but fringy) right-wing blog wrote that “the left is killing our police officers.”
Other examples of conservative confirmation bias include some Fox News personalities’ baseless assertion that former DNC staffer Seth Rich leaked thousands of emails to WikiLeaks before being gunned down on a Washington, D.C. street, stories about cops going into comas after exposure to fentanyl, and the alleged murder of Kate Steinjle by an undocumented immigrant. (And it goes without saying that reports about the “stolen” 2020 election, to the degree they are credulously advanced, are the product of a similar “too good to check” ethos.)
It’s human nature to want to believe that bad people do bad things, and in today’s polarized world, someone from the other “tribe” is automatically assumed to be “bad people.” Conversely, someone from your own tribe is to be reflexively believed, without discussion. As a result, too many journalists often don’t do basic vetting of stories before launching them into the ether.
This negatively impacts trust in the media—which, you might have heard, is at an all-time low (and dropping further every day). What is more, by advancing stories that later blow up in their faces, ideologically motivated journalists are undermining their own cause.
The point of professionalism and institutions like the media is to rise above this nature. We, the fourth estate, are failing spectacularly.[/QUOTE] ....
216.) Swamp Fox - 10/07/2022
This is worth a few minutes of your time:
[QUOTE][url]https://mkhammer.substack.com/p/in-the-age-of-quiet-quitting-i-was[/url]
[SIZE=2]
[B]In the Age of Quiet Quitting, I Was Quiet Suspended, And I Can't Shut Up About It--[/B][/SIZE]
[I]On Toobin's wake, professionalism, and the lessons I thought we learned in #MeToo
[/I]
It came to my attention in July that I had been punished under old CNN leadership— kept off air since January— for tweeting about Jeffrey Toobin in a Twitter dust-up with Andrew Kaczynski (another CNN employee) regarding our network's coverage of the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting.
You can read about that Twitter fight, here, which — although it got heated and brought in ugly trolling from others — remained basically above board between Kaczynski and me and resulted in no bad blood, as far as I knew, and as I assessed in an after-action debrief over private messages.
[...]
[B]In case you're wondering, as I did, how my punishment for tweeting about Toobin compares to Toobin's suspension for his offense, I can tell you. He was off air for eight months; I was off for seven. One month was the difference between punishment for jacking off at work versus commenting on the inadvisability of jacking off at work.
[/B]
On one hand, the people who made this call about me are gone from the network, so maybe I could let it lie. But on the other hand, many of my colleagues no doubt knew about my banning from air, but not the reasons behind it, thereby leaving the impression I must have done something tantamount to Toobining. I did not.
I was told it was Jeff Zucker, now gone, who put this order in place and a deputy, also gone, who kept it there. I was also told I wasn't informed of the network's displeasure because I had just had a baby and someone in the old leadership thought I might be a "loose cannon." Not as loose as Toobin's, but I digress.
[...]
In the #MeToo era, I have been asked to make public comment on basically every errant penis in the media, government, sports, and entertainment worlds, sometimes to the exclusion of everything else in the news, and at the expense of some amount of professional dignity. It is ironic that in shining a light on bad behavior, which is the right thing to do, you're still a woman on TV talking about penises. Every professional woman in a green room, preparing to talk about Weinstein’s penchant for potted plants for the 17th time, knows this feeling. Nonetheless, speaking up remains the right thing to do, and I flatly reject the notion, then and now, that Toobin's flagrantly errant member is the one I am not allowed to talk about— that this is the one offense about which I should be silent. I also reject the idea I’m to be quiet about being punished over it.
I’ve talked about so many instances of sexual misconduct, I had to develop a rubric for what made a credible allegation, so that I wasn’t ignoring due process entirely. Toobin didn’t need a rubric; there was video.
Despite a surprisingly sympathetic raft of pieces marshalled on his behalf about the changing nature of the pandemic-era workplace and the blurred lines that apparently made it understandable to drop trou, it was obvious to anyone with a job outside of media that this was an offense from which one need not be publicly rehabbed. It seemed obvious to me that I would not have been professionally rehabbed after such an offense, except perhaps on OnlyFans.
[...]
That is the downside of quiet, no-drama professionalism, the posture I attempt to take most of the time. That path has its upsides, and it’s often the right choice, but it can handicap you in a conflict. Avoiding airing dirty laundry has often protected those who didn't deserve it and caused the perpetuation of workplace bullshit to which I do not wish to be a party. I remain surprised that I ended up in this position in 2022, and I wish I hadn’t. The era of keeping our mouths shut about obvious sexual misconduct from colleagues did not serve us well. Wasn't that part of the lesson of #MeToo? My takeaway was that I wanted younger women to see that I spoke up about my treatment when warranted and survived, even thrived. Among those young women are my three daughters. I can’t tell them this story in good conscience if it ends with “Mom went right back to work with a smile on her face after that.” I don't get a rehabilitation interview to reflect on my absence or to plug a book, as Toobin did, but I can write this.
I was treated unfairly by the people who punished me. Simply shutting up about it does not sit right with me. In the course of any career, perhaps particularly a public-facing media career — even more a political media career — you're gonna run into some jerks who treat you badly. Sometimes it's condescension, sometimes paternalism, or harassment. The latter was the story at Fox, where I had a 10-year run during which I went completely un-harassed, a fact I am at pains to disclose every time I speak publicly about my career. Roger Ailes was not interested in me, but even in not harassing me, his actions put me in an uncomfortable position. Such is the lose-lose nature of that kind of thing. I later learned what friends and colleagues endured behind closed doors.
[B]I have grown up in this industry, on national TV, proudly going toe-to-toe with people far older and more powerful than I since I was 26 years old. I've had three kids since I started in this business and I'm working on the fourth. I've seen great loss, my life torn asunder and beautifully rebuilt.
Through all of it, I have tried my best to make my commentary worthwhile, argue without being a total blowhard, maintain good relationships with people who disagree with me, check my own biases with those people, and act in good faith in a very strange time of a lot of political change. I know very well I'm in the ideological minority in many of the places I speak, and certainly in the Zucker era at CNN, that made me dispensable. But being the weirdo is why I went to those places, whether it's CNN, major universities, or my own hometown. I enjoy it and it benefits my brain. I believe it’s healthy to be the one in the room who disagrees, even if they don’t want to hear about how everyone was wrong about Russiagate or school closings.
To that end, I thought hard about how I should behave in this situation. I have not been asked to leave CNN. In fact, I've been invited back by the new guard to do the job I was prevented from doing by the old guard. Clean slate, as if nothing happened. But something did happen.
I have never been great at being quiet, and it’s not in my nature to start. So, that’s where I’ve been. I determined it was impossible for me to come back without saying why I’d been gone.
[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Emphases mine.
[QUOTE][url]https://mkhammer.substack.com/p/in-the-age-of-quiet-quitting-i-was[/url]
[SIZE=2]
[B]In the Age of Quiet Quitting, I Was Quiet Suspended, And I Can't Shut Up About It--[/B][/SIZE]
[I]On Toobin's wake, professionalism, and the lessons I thought we learned in #MeToo
[/I]
It came to my attention in July that I had been punished under old CNN leadership— kept off air since January— for tweeting about Jeffrey Toobin in a Twitter dust-up with Andrew Kaczynski (another CNN employee) regarding our network's coverage of the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting.
You can read about that Twitter fight, here, which — although it got heated and brought in ugly trolling from others — remained basically above board between Kaczynski and me and resulted in no bad blood, as far as I knew, and as I assessed in an after-action debrief over private messages.
[...]
[B]In case you're wondering, as I did, how my punishment for tweeting about Toobin compares to Toobin's suspension for his offense, I can tell you. He was off air for eight months; I was off for seven. One month was the difference between punishment for jacking off at work versus commenting on the inadvisability of jacking off at work.
[/B]
On one hand, the people who made this call about me are gone from the network, so maybe I could let it lie. But on the other hand, many of my colleagues no doubt knew about my banning from air, but not the reasons behind it, thereby leaving the impression I must have done something tantamount to Toobining. I did not.
I was told it was Jeff Zucker, now gone, who put this order in place and a deputy, also gone, who kept it there. I was also told I wasn't informed of the network's displeasure because I had just had a baby and someone in the old leadership thought I might be a "loose cannon." Not as loose as Toobin's, but I digress.
[...]
In the #MeToo era, I have been asked to make public comment on basically every errant penis in the media, government, sports, and entertainment worlds, sometimes to the exclusion of everything else in the news, and at the expense of some amount of professional dignity. It is ironic that in shining a light on bad behavior, which is the right thing to do, you're still a woman on TV talking about penises. Every professional woman in a green room, preparing to talk about Weinstein’s penchant for potted plants for the 17th time, knows this feeling. Nonetheless, speaking up remains the right thing to do, and I flatly reject the notion, then and now, that Toobin's flagrantly errant member is the one I am not allowed to talk about— that this is the one offense about which I should be silent. I also reject the idea I’m to be quiet about being punished over it.
I’ve talked about so many instances of sexual misconduct, I had to develop a rubric for what made a credible allegation, so that I wasn’t ignoring due process entirely. Toobin didn’t need a rubric; there was video.
Despite a surprisingly sympathetic raft of pieces marshalled on his behalf about the changing nature of the pandemic-era workplace and the blurred lines that apparently made it understandable to drop trou, it was obvious to anyone with a job outside of media that this was an offense from which one need not be publicly rehabbed. It seemed obvious to me that I would not have been professionally rehabbed after such an offense, except perhaps on OnlyFans.
[...]
That is the downside of quiet, no-drama professionalism, the posture I attempt to take most of the time. That path has its upsides, and it’s often the right choice, but it can handicap you in a conflict. Avoiding airing dirty laundry has often protected those who didn't deserve it and caused the perpetuation of workplace bullshit to which I do not wish to be a party. I remain surprised that I ended up in this position in 2022, and I wish I hadn’t. The era of keeping our mouths shut about obvious sexual misconduct from colleagues did not serve us well. Wasn't that part of the lesson of #MeToo? My takeaway was that I wanted younger women to see that I spoke up about my treatment when warranted and survived, even thrived. Among those young women are my three daughters. I can’t tell them this story in good conscience if it ends with “Mom went right back to work with a smile on her face after that.” I don't get a rehabilitation interview to reflect on my absence or to plug a book, as Toobin did, but I can write this.
I was treated unfairly by the people who punished me. Simply shutting up about it does not sit right with me. In the course of any career, perhaps particularly a public-facing media career — even more a political media career — you're gonna run into some jerks who treat you badly. Sometimes it's condescension, sometimes paternalism, or harassment. The latter was the story at Fox, where I had a 10-year run during which I went completely un-harassed, a fact I am at pains to disclose every time I speak publicly about my career. Roger Ailes was not interested in me, but even in not harassing me, his actions put me in an uncomfortable position. Such is the lose-lose nature of that kind of thing. I later learned what friends and colleagues endured behind closed doors.
[B]I have grown up in this industry, on national TV, proudly going toe-to-toe with people far older and more powerful than I since I was 26 years old. I've had three kids since I started in this business and I'm working on the fourth. I've seen great loss, my life torn asunder and beautifully rebuilt.
Through all of it, I have tried my best to make my commentary worthwhile, argue without being a total blowhard, maintain good relationships with people who disagree with me, check my own biases with those people, and act in good faith in a very strange time of a lot of political change. I know very well I'm in the ideological minority in many of the places I speak, and certainly in the Zucker era at CNN, that made me dispensable. But being the weirdo is why I went to those places, whether it's CNN, major universities, or my own hometown. I enjoy it and it benefits my brain. I believe it’s healthy to be the one in the room who disagrees, even if they don’t want to hear about how everyone was wrong about Russiagate or school closings.
To that end, I thought hard about how I should behave in this situation. I have not been asked to leave CNN. In fact, I've been invited back by the new guard to do the job I was prevented from doing by the old guard. Clean slate, as if nothing happened. But something did happen.
I have never been great at being quiet, and it’s not in my nature to start. So, that’s where I’ve been. I determined it was impossible for me to come back without saying why I’d been gone.
[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Emphases mine.
217.) Swamp Fox - 10/07/2022
Good fur her ... :tu:
[url]https://twitter.com/i/status/1578019431644819458[/url]
[url]https://twitter.com/i/status/1578019431644819458[/url]