Rice - getting away from "Punish France, ignore Germany..."?

Dan Rather failed as a professional journalist; he's not alone.

0 Replies

It isn't just that Rather failed, C.I., and you're right, he is not alone. Nor was it the first time he had been caught. It is that he intentionaly and knowingly used bogus documents to attempt to smear a sitting President and the alphabet channels have been conciliatory toward him, not one calling for his figurative head on a plattter, not one suggesting he had destroyed his credibility or stature as a journalist. CBS is even giving him a 'retirement' tribute. He was allowed to do the election night coverage for Pete's sake. To me that was a huge slap in the face of anybody who does value honor and integrity in the media.

Compare that with treatment of conservative writers who screw up--the difference in language, the utter contempt shown.

0 Replies

Fox, Dan doesn't need to be told he destroyed his own career. His sloppyness cost him his career. Didn't need anybody else to remind him of his own failure: the world knew and understood, and agreed he needed to leave.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Without the self-appointed judges of public affairs, the media and liberal groups working together, policing, maligning and herding mobs, there would be no PC. Just people going about alternately saying what they please, and complaining about what others say.

The imposing spectre of that power hungry liberal amalgam influences firings, character assassinations and ruins lives--because the majority of the public has given them the power to do so. This is what turns a natural dialogue, good, bad and ugly, in to some Fourth Estate-controlled, false intimidation of free speech.

This fact is why FOX News beats all of them. The conservatives in this country were sick to death of the same old ****--build up the Democrats, vilify the Republicans... Bob Packwood is an old lech--but Bill Clinton has a bad boy complex and a need for love....

Robert Byrd is an upstanding old pol, but Strom Thurmond is a racist, and reminds us of an era best forgotten.

We could go on for pages. When things are biased in YOUR favor--you either like it, and keep your mouth shut--or you just don't see it.

When they are biased against you, overwhelmingly as it was before Fox--you are so surrounded by it--you breathe it.

You all act so dense about it-- And, I'm beginning to see that's your preference.

You are all liberal. You have obviously witnessed the biased lynchings that go on in the US media--predisposed to attack conervatives--and look the other way when liberals commit similar infractions.

You'll never admit Goldberg was right about Bias. If Dan Rather hadn't been caught red-handed, you wouldn't admit the extreme bias of the US news outlets.

You won't admit this, either.

We could provide tapes of news rooms' editorial meetings--wherein our grievances are proven without a shadow of doubt. You'd still deny it. A waste of time.

Lol!! Ditto, only reversed!

That is the reality, I guess - that there is no way to meet minds - though there was some reasonable discussion for a bit there.

Seems it stopped.

0 Replies

He did it before. He did it this time. And if the bloggers had not forced the mainstream media to deal with it this time, it is my opinion that he would be quite happily doing his job and his buddies in the media would still be looking the other way and pretending nothing untoward happened. Evenso they are playing it way down. And he will leave at least pretending he is a righteous journalist of stature.

I have no respect for Dan Rather as a journalist. He may otherwise be a perfectly lovely man. But if nobody else gets a pass on manufactured evidence, then neither should he. It isn't that I have any need to see anybody 'get theirs' but I get sick to death of the politics of personal destruction that these people practice and then pretend they stand on some kind of high moral ground.

And I get sick to death that the media elite can get a virtual pass on something like this while those who aren't in the club are crucified.

The internet yield some really bad stuff when it comes to information. But this time it did a good thing and we can hope it will be harder and harder for the Fifth Estate to operate with immunity.

0 Replies

Quote:

He may otherwise be a perfectly lovely man.

Oh, I think a NY taxi-cab driver or two might take exception to that remark. :wink:

0 Replies

I was never a Dan Rather fan. Just expressing my opinion about how I perceived his misstep.

0 Replies

And I do understand the concept of not kicking somebody when they're down C.I.

I blame the rest of the media as much as Rather on this one. I was once betwen jobs and to keep bread on the table took a job in a radiology department in a hospital. I was standing elbow to elbow with a urologist looking at the films of a kidney and telling his nurse to schedule its removal. I had an hour earlier been standing elbow to elbow with the radiologist who had read the x-ray as negative. The urologist had a strong smell of scotch on his breath.

I told the radiologist of the problem. Quietly the surgery was cancelled and the patient was spared an unnecessary operation and an unnecessary loss of a kidney. The urologist went right on with his practice, played tennis at the Country Club, and made his rounds at the hospital as if nothing had ever happened.

This is very much the same kind of thing. Protect the boys in the old boys club and hold nobody in that club accountable for anything. I think it is dangerous for democracy.

0 Replies

Dlowan, we are still having a reasonable discussion. It's just that Lash and I weren't "PC" in having it tonight.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I was never a Dan Rather fan. Just expressing my opinion about how I perceived his misstep.

C.I. ... Some of my favorite "Blather-isms"....................

"This will show you how tight it is - it's spandex tight."
"We're going to go to some of those longnecks from a long time ago."
"He's going to find that people will hang on him like a coat rack."
"This election swings like one of those pendulum things."
"This race is as tight as the rusted lug nuts on a 57 Ford [or Chevy]."
"What we know is that there will be no decision until some of those races are decided." (He actually said this in the 2000 election LOL)
"Smelling salts for all Democrats please."
"...in Austin, between the 10 gallon hats and the Willie Nelson head bands."
"...none of this television mumbo jumbo, let's get in there and count the votes."
"Maybe you [tossing to a reporter] can bring some perspective on this, we're plum out."
"When the going gets weird, anchor men punt."
"Tipper is probably telling her husband to hook a U[-turn], go back to the house to get a recount."
"It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, Republican or a mug wamp, elected officials play it straight."
"Florida is the whole deal, the real deal, a big deal."
"Frankly we don't know whether to wind the watch or to bark at the moon."

...and my all-time fave.........

"If a frog had side pockets, he'd carry a hand gun."

Laughing

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Dlowan, we are still having a reasonable discussion. It's just that Lash and I weren't "PC" in having it tonight.

Lol - you guys are gonna end up looking so ridiculous with your contortions that the pretzel factories will come looking.

Lash was not not PC - she was rudely dismissive and rabble rousing.

Shrugs.

Like I care.

My definition of PC/non-PC stands.

For the right, PC is something someone else finds offensive that you do not. (Or you pretend not to, cos one of you did it - but if a lefty does it to one of yours, you will squeal)

Genuine insult/sexism/racism (I thought sexism/racism was a PC complaint for you guys? Nemmind - I can never keep up with the ducking and weaving) is what you find offensive, too. Preferably when the left don't.

See - I can be rude and rabble rousing too.

Look how far we got.

But hey - rudeness, it seems is good - cos it is non-PC.

0 Replies

Seems you hafta love what I said, then!!!!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

And - given that I am clearly starting to take stupid crap like this seriously - like the pathetic anti-Europe stuff, and all that - and these ridiculous PC contortions - clearly I need a break from politics on A2k for a bit.

See ya when I have my sense of humour and perspective back!

Or on threads where genuine discussion is occurring.

Byeeeeeeee - have fun.

Oh - I recognize that pathetic crap occurs from the other side, too.

All the more reason to exit, stage left.......

(man - I am hoping for some real political discussion threads, though)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

What is worse? The person who burns an American flag beside the Veteran's Day parade? Or the person who waves a Confederate flag beside the Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade? Are each exercising free speech? Or are each committing a punishable act?

I dont know; what do you think?

(I would hope both would be shooed away, but I wouldnt want either to be punishable)

Foxfyre wrote:

Most of all, those who are simply speaking the truth, however un-PC it may be, should be applauded for speaking the truth, not punished.

But in the case I quoted you on just now, you were heartily describing something you DISagreed with as "un-PC". So I assume that in that case, the person being "un-PC" about Rice should ... not be applauded?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Dlowan, we are still having a reasonable discussion. It's just that Lash and I weren't "PC" in having it tonight.

OK, now I'm really confused. How was the way you and Lash were having this discussion tonight "un-PC" according to the definitions you just supplied us with?

Because you offended political sensibilities?

I dont know, you didnt seem to offend any sensibilities last night until that remark; and while Lash was offensive, it was not particularly my (or dlowans, I'm guessing) "political" sensibilities she offended, let alone "as in matters of sex or race" - so I dont see how "un-PC" in your earlier definition would apply here. She's just being rude, or not "courteous", to use your words.

You'll agree that she wasn't courteous, I assume. But in her case I am guessing you think it was OK, cause she was "speaking the truth", and if you're "speaking the truth", you can be rude about it (sorry: bold-spoken), cause then it's just a question of being "un-PC"? But dont we always think the people we happen to agree with are speaking the truth? So doesnt that just make it OK to be rude - or just "un-PC" - for anyone we agree with - but not for the others? How you gonna avoid that kind of double standard?

Like, I dunno - when Lash is rude, its un-PC, but when, I dunno, PDiddie is rude, he's ... just rude? What if PDiddie posts one of his cartoons in which he maligns Rice or Coulter or whoever, making ample play of their being woman and/or black? Then he's offending political sensibilities in terms of race and/or sex, even, specifically, right? Doesn't that make him, according to the very definitions you gave, quite literally "un-PC"? And if not, what change in the dictionary definition you supplied us with would you propose to make it exclude his cartoons, or the belief on the part of conservatives that he shouldn't be posting such crap?

See, you did come up with a working definition yesterday that one could at least use as the basis of a discussion - I pointed out where the very definition you supplied could easily be applied to the Christian pressure groups when they work to "eliminate" TV programme sthat offend their political or religious sensibilities, for example - but now you seem to revert to using it as a .. dooddoener. (Whats that in English? Non-sequitur, I'm thinking. But my dictionary says "bromide". Either, I suppose.)

Only way to avoid it becoming a label thats applied at will on the basis of political loyalty would be to find a definition that conforms with how you apply it. In that light, how would you revise the definitions you gave us earlier?

0 Replies

Dlowan writes

Quote:

Lol - you guys are gonna end up looking so ridiculous with your contortions that the pretzel factories will come looking.

Lash was not not PC - she was rudely dismissive and rabble rousing.

Shrugs.

Like I care.

And you think personal insults and derogatory assumptions are reasonable discussion? How PC of you. Smile

Nimh, in the example of the American flag and Confederate flag I used, both would be insensitive, hateful, contemptuous, and entirely legal. Burning the American flag would be considered by the PC police, however, to be perhaps inappropriate but simply an expression of free speech by people making a heartfelt statement. Waving the Confederate flag at people celebrating a fallen black leader would be considered a breach of PC by the PC police and worthy of severe censure, public contempt, and loss of job, position, stature.

This is why I hold the PC police in such complete contempt. They pick and choose what is and is not acceptable based on their particular ideology. They pick and choose those we are supposed to treat with sensitivity and understanding and those we can malign, insult, and/or hold in contempt; i.e. you can't criticize components of the gay lifestyle, but Christians are fair game; you can't spit on people of another race but you can spit on men and women in uniform, etc. (The targets shift and change with the seasons--I cite these as examples only.)

When Condoleeza Rice is criticized or ridiculed for having certain obviously feminine traits, it could smack of sexism, or it could be true. To me that has nothing to do with PC other than if she was a Democrat, the PC police would be all over it.

For me it is whether a standard of fairness, accuracy, and consistency is used in our judgments. If I think gays should not be at the head of the line, ahead of heterosexual couples, to adopt a child, I have very strong reasons for thinking that and it has absolutely nothing to do with my feelings about gay people. Honest people can acknowledge and understand that though the opinion is decidedly un-PC. The PC police will be derisive and accuse me of homophobia and/or gay bashing. (Again this is an example only and not an invitation to debate the issue on this thread--I have debated it extensively on another thread.)

Now to me, all this is clear and definable. If you don't see it, I'm not sure I can explain it any better. (I don't know even if Lash and JW agree with me here.) I'll just go back to my metaphor of the international date line. Smile

0 Replies

dlowan, I've been banned twice from a2k for getting too involved with politics and PC. I've learned to "lighten up" a bit, and don't take anything that serious any more. I've been un-PC in many of my posts, but who gives a shet. Just play the game, and all will be fine.

0 Replies

I think even the subject of PC can be discussed reasonably and without violating any terms of TOS. And while knowing that you are still you, I like the kinder, gentler, more reasonable image, C.I. Smile

0 Replies

I'd like to know what part(s) of Lash's post Nimh considered rude.

I'm also curious how one can get "banned" from being PC on a public message board.

I agree with Foxy's perceptions but not enough to defend myself when attacked by the PC police. If I'm seen as a homophobe because I want to decide when and where to teach alternative lifestyles to my children, then that will always say more to me about the accuser.

0 Replies

I should clarify that last paragraph. I agree with everything Foxy wrote, but I'm not concerned enough about what others think of me (the PC police to be precise) to make an issue of it. I may comment from time to time when it's applied to others (public political figures, etc.), but for the most part I think anyone who's overly concerned about always seeming "politically correct" is rather silly.

It's been a long day LOL.

0 Replies

Rice - getting away from "Punish France, ignore Germany..."?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know