1
   

Canadians want Fox News Now!

 
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 06:52 pm
Whether it's a blog or not, whether it's biased or not, you've still missed the point. No one was commenting on the Pentagon Channel other than the Washington Times article. So send your post to the Times.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 06:54 pm
Apologies Lola. I had seen your comments re the Pentagon news posted in several places this week and I didn't follow your link. No, CJR isn't a blog, but with journalism like that you posted, they're likely to lose their credentials as one of the premiere journalism schools in the country. And I don't believe they posted the Times article. They were just commenting on it.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 06:56 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Didn't miss a thing Lola - just makin' my own observation re the criticism of the Washington Times article. I freely acknowledge papers like The Washington Times rile up Libruls. Its their job. Whaddaya think about The Chicago Tribune or The Wallstreet Journal?


Whether they rile Libruls or not is also not the point, Timber. Tell me you understand that. Are they running at a $20,000. a year deficit covered by the Moonies? How many racist ads have they had to apologize for?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 07:00 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Apologies Lola. I had seen your comments re the Pentagon news posted in several places this week and I didn't follow your link. No, CJR isn't a blog, but with journalism like that you posted, they're likely to lose their credentials as one of the premiere journalism schools in the country. And I don't believe they posted the Times article. They were just commenting on it.


I appreciate your apology, Foxfire. But I haven't commented on the Pentagon News, that I remember, ever before. I know I'm getting old, and just because I don't remember doesn't mean I didn't. Can you direct me to those references of mine?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 07:04 pm
And it was not even a piece from the Washington Times so one could decide for himself/herself. It was a very acid and, in my opinion, unobjective commentary ABOUT the Washington Times. Therefore the writer of the article posted is the one to take the heat; not the object of his/her venom.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 07:06 pm
Foxfire wrote:
Quote:
If that is an accurate copy of Coombs writing up there, I think I like her. She is thoroughly un-PC which makes her intellectually honest in my book. I can't see how anything she says paints her as a racist unless there are some here who are so unread to extrapolate Tolkien's White City into a racial euphemism.


Let me get this clear....so I'm not misunderstanding. It is these comments by Coombs that you are praising as intellectually honest?

Quote:
Marian Kester Coombs is a woman who believes America has become a "den of iniquity" thanks to "its efforts to accommodate minorities."
White men should "run, not walk" to wed "racially conscious" white women and avoid being out-bred by non-whites. Latinos are "rising to take this country away from those who made it," the "Euroamericans." Muslims are "human hyenas" who "smell blood" and are "closing in" on their "weakened prey," meaning "the white race." Blacks, Coombs sneers, are "saintly victims who can do no wrong." Black solidarity and non-white immigration are imposing "racial revolution and decomposition" in America.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 07:21 pm
Just for giggles, lets take a look at the article that generated the criticism to which I was referin':



Now, regardless what one may think of The Washington Times, he Moonies, or media in general, all which is irrelevant, what exactly that upsets Libruls does that article say?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 07:23 pm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041226-114855-2257r.htm

Quote:


Here are the relevant parts of the CJR Daily article:

Quote:
The national media, it seems, is "the middleman" -- a phrase that implies its share of shadiness. The media's role, in this characterization, is merely that of a profit-driven peddler who adds nothing of value to the goods he's passing along. In other words, something we'd be better off without.


Quote:
There are two possible explanations for the Times' construction. The first is that the Times is consciously trying to marginalize the national media. After all, the Times was originally created as an antidote to the mainstream media by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who believes himself to be "the savior and messiah of humanity." Moon, along with numerous conservatives, fervently wishes for the relatively small Times to have greater influence, and by describing the mainstream media as a "middleman" who adds nothing to (and perhaps even detracts from) the national discourse, the Times offers up itself (and the Pentagon Channel) as an antidote.


Quote:
"Journalist" is not synonymous with "conduit of officially sanctioned information." Though it often falls short, when journalism is at its best it examines the information being offered up, explains its place in the scheme of things and illuminates its possible ramifications and effects -- all in a rough attempt to bring news closer to the truth.

By equating Pentagon-approved programming with news, the Times has unwittingly condemned itself


I admit the article didn't serve the purpose I intended. I was in a hurry......having fun here, rather than doing my work is my little vice. So it was a poor selection for me to post.

I'll try not to get into such a hurry again.

Now I'm going back to my work........I'm turning off A2K until tomorrow. I hope.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 07:27 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
But that aside, why is it that if Foxfyre (and some others) post something others take exception to, it is up to Foxfyre to defend her post. God forbid we should dare to ask others to show why they think it isn't true. But if somebody else posts something, it is up to Foxfyre (and perhaps some othes) to prove why it should be objected to?

Explain that please.

If someone posts a story that says that one of the politicians or media I regularly defend has stated something crudely racist, I sure as hell am gonna check out whats in it or behind it and whether its true - and I'll mostly report back to either put up a defence against the allegation or express my own condemnation.

Think its kinda just normal / logical.

But yeah, you have so consistently shown an unwillingness to look up anything that was brought up - hell, I've brought up links where you could find stuff in your favour, with exact URL and everything, and you wouldnt bother looking it up - the lack of intellectual curiosity is striking enough to eventually trigger some sarcasm, yeah.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 07:31 pm
Oh, we're all just havin' fun here, Lola - 'least that's what should be goin' on. Some folks tend to lose sight of that, though. Way too many folks take this sorta stuff, and themselves, way too seriously. And that is fairly equitably spread across the political spectrum. Idiocy knows no ideology.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 07:39 pm
Gotta say it seems to me nimh hit a valid point there just now, too. Lotsa intellectual laziness, if not exactly intellectual dishonesty, is pretty evident among the contributions of some folks.

I'll say too its always great fun to play "duelin' facts and figures and charts and tables and links and sources and the like" with nimh - he's real good at it. We've had some memorable exchanges based on that game .... prolly bored helloutta folks who couldn'ta cared less about the nits bein' picked at the times, but fun for nimh and me anyhow. Thanks, nimh.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 07:55 pm
Quote:
If someone posts a story that says that one of the politicians or media I regularly defend has stated something crudely racist, I sure as hell am gonna check out whats in it or behind it and whether its true - and I'll mostly report back to either put up a defence against the allegation or express my own condemnation.

Think its kinda just normal / logical.

But yeah, you have so consistently shown an unwillingness to look up anything that was brought up - hell, I've brought up links where you could find stuff in your favour, with exact URL and everything, and you wouldnt bother looking it up - the lack of intellectual curiosity is striking enough to eventually trigger some sarcasm, yeah.


Nimh, I had never HEARD of Coombs until the article posted. The article gave no direct quotes but simply blasted Coombs as a racist. And I was goaded into commenting. I could have frankly cared less. This was not on my radar screen today. I had other interests to pursue, other fish to fry, other chickens to pluck. I replied I would comment when something useful was posted about the person and went on to something else. I would not have even said that had I not been prodded to comment.

If this doesn't meet with your scholarly standards, well I'm very sorry and I find your immediate reaction to hold a double standard, and your subsequent judgmental characterization to be offensively arrogant. But that's okay. I don't have the right to not be offended either.

When a piece presumably actually written by Coombs was posted, I found it interesting. She raised issues that I think would be productive to debate. And I found the piece pretty well dispelled the accusations of racist that had been leveled against her. And I commented again.

Now, if I am too inferior in intellectual curiosity to be acceptable here, then that's just too bad. (And as I go on my way muttering to myself, I wonder what they put in the water in librulland that gives license to decipher the motives or intent or degree of laziness of others.)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 08:26 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I can't see how anything she says paints her as a racist unless there are some here who are so unread to extrapolate Tolkien's White City into a racial euphemism.

Why would it be "unread" to extrapolate Tolkien's White City into a racial euphemism? Isn't that exactly what she does?

Yes, I've read the LOTR trilogy (kind of a kid's book, I personally think) - so I understand what the reference is to. Now to figure out what it's about, I would say - analogies usually have a point, after all.

Note what she writes again. (And that her articles get a lot but races (or cultures, to be polite)."

She then defines Western "culture" (her self-confessed "polite" euphemism for race) as the superior one and sketches the threats posed by today's immigration as a question of the "rise and fall of peoples". She writes:

"We are the adults of the world, caring for masses of hapless childlike asylum-seekers, economic and political and social refugees, immigrants legal and illegal, as well as entire hapless childlike nations that have not yet physically landed on our shores with hands outstretched." Hell, the West with its superior culture "constitutes a Head Start program for the entire planet". (She actually brings up The Lord of the Rings as an example of our superior culture, unaware I suppose of ancient or modern Indian literature - but, let me not get distracted by sillyness).

The conclusion she draws from all this then, is this:

"Hoping that demography is destiny, the races of the human race are now engaged in a different kind of race: reproduction. Hispanics boast of reconquering California and the Southwest through numbers alone. [..] The same race is on in Kashmir and a hundred other places. Only the West is failing to weaponize population growth."

The vital issue of the day is the demographic race ... between the races.

What the West - notably defined in the article as non-Hispanic America and pre-immigration Europe (ergo, the whites) - should do is realise the importance, in this "race of the races", of "weaponizing population growth".

To fend off attempts on our destiny, our race needs to win the demographic race. Through weaponizing our own population growth to counter that of other races and cultures.

And that's where she files in her metaphor:

"it is possible to believe that we too, like Tolkien's Aragorn, "will not let the White City fall."

Whats the "White City" in this metaphor, Fox? Western culture? Defined by her as the pre-hispanic America, the America of European immigrants, as those "European, Canadian, Australian and American men" whose superior qualities were "a difference of kind, not of degree"? The culture - the superior culture - we have to protect from "the expansion of these Third World populations", from the "reconquering of California and the Southwest" by Hispanics? White culture?

Admittedly, her last few points at first sight appear a bit of a jumble. But they're more consistent than they seem. The West constitutes a Head Start program for the rest of the world, those "masses of hapless childlike" peoples; but its not like they are actually able to learn or catch up with us, for "as with the version tried with 'underprivileged' kids in the U.S., performance improves during the intensive initial effort, but once the program's over, the improvements fade away." Its not just that we're superior right now, our bright minds are superior in kind rather than degree: whatever progress they might make will just fade away again. That is, I suppose, why integration is no option and instead we have to make more white, I mean Western, babies to win the demographic race, if we are at all to have a chance saving that White City.

No jumble there - this is actually pretty consistent supremacist ideology, barring how she mixes up race and culture. Only the metaphor itself is flawed: Rome's Eternal City still stands, after all, even though the Romans imploded demographically. I would say that means all is not lost after all, even should us Whites lose the demographic race - but that's probably just me, for it is that exact "race between the races" she makes the centerpiece of her stirring evocation after all.

Her White City is a metaphor, Fox, yes, a euphemism if you wish. Now what's it a metaphor of?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 08:27 pm
Thanks, Timber. Yes it was fun. <doffs hat>
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 08:39 pm
JustWonders wrote:
You mean the CNN that's headed by Eason Jordan who recently said that United States soldiers are targeting journalists in Iraq? That CNN?


Yup, that's the one, Ms JustWonders.

---------------
As Mr Joe Nation just mentioned,

"Sometimes we'll hit it right, sometimes we'll go down swinging for the fences when we shoulda known better. We think if we piss you off as often as we say something you agree with we're probably on the right track. Now here's what's news to us."
-----------------

If, [note the 'if'] there have been US soldiers who have killed civilians, abused prisoners, thrown Iraqis off bridges, beaten prisoners, sent missiles and artillery where they definitely didn't belong; IF, any of this has happened, then it only stands to reason that there COULD be some soldiers who have targeted, are targeting and will continue to target journalists.

One just has to wonder about reporters who are so put off by a lead that they avoid a potential story. Fox epitomizes this stance.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Fox of war
The Bush administration's case for invading Iraq may have been riddled with unreliable claims, but that didn't stop White House-friendly Fox News from pumping it into America's living rooms.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/30/fox_news/

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I'm just gonna go back and check that first posting of yours. I coulda sworn you said you were a journalist. I'll get back to you after I check.

Have you located those stats I have repeatedly asked for?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 08:41 pm
I did not see her article at all the way you did Nimh. I did not see her focus in any way on race but on cultures and how civilzation got from Point A to Point B. The fact that the Third World consists of people of color is just that: a fact. It has nothing to do with any conclusions about race being a factor in that nor did Coombs draw any such conclusions. She drew the picture from life, not from some fuzzy PC notions about what is polite to say and what isn't.

You drew a conclusion that her metaphor of White City was racist. I did not. And I would guess from her tone and emphasis in the rest of the piece, neither did she. (But then I said previously--was it in this thread?--that in my opinion liberals overall are more racist than conservatives overall because it is liberals who are so focused on race.

The White City I saw as a metaphor for a fortress, strong and splendid but under severe assault. Tolkien's city fell. In Coombs vision, it does not.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 09:24 pm
Foxfyre, she uses the word culture instead of the word race in order, she says herself, to be polite. I think it is polite to tell us what the codewords are. She is a white supremacist.

Joe(Can't conservatives spell the word liberal?)Nation
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 09:30 pm
Hmmm - Fox - please take the goddamned sunglasses off - it might help......
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 09:37 pm
JTT wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
You mean the CNN that's headed by Eason Jordan who recently said that United States soldiers are targeting journalists in Iraq? That CNN?


Yup, that's the one, Ms JustWonders.

I'm just gonna go back and check that first posting of yours. I coulda sworn you said you were a journalist. I'll get back to you after I check.

Have you located those stats I have repeatedly asked for?



Found it, Ms JustWonders. Yup, you suggest that you are indeed a journalist.

"The anti-American ways of the Liberal cabal in Ottawa is frustrating for Canadian writers filing stories to CFP, including yours truly."

But it's back to Journalism 101 for you young lady. The point of journalism, [as has been pointed out in this thread a number of times, the latest, or at least one of the best, was by Lola] is to pursue the truth, NOT avoid it. That means that when a lead is found, that lead is pursued, subject of course to some constraints.

That this lead may in some way affect your own personal beliefs is not really germane. That is the fundamental point that you and other Fox "reporters" so often seem to miss. Your journalism is bent on shifting the story away from the story.

The Fox Tangential Network - We head off on tangents to make it difficult to impossible for you to decide.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Feb, 2005 09:49 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
(But then I said previously--was it in this thread?--that in my opinion liberals overall are more racist than conservatives overall because it is liberals who are so focused on race.


I'll ask, but the likelihood that you'll come up with stats to back up your point, Foxfyre, is about as strong as Ms JustWonders doing the same.

Could you provide some stats that bolster your opinion, please?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 02:55:48