Category Archives: cnn
This post really should have been up yesterday, but I was spending the day without a computer, unfortunately.
Wednesday night I was at work, minding my own business when a friend posted THIS on her facebook timeline.
I had to do a double take and go hunting through twitchy to see if it was real, since it was no longer on Piers’ twitter feed. No doubt deleted when he realized that he looked like a massive tool and not even his CNN time slot could disguise that fact after a tweet like that went public.
Of course Piers has consistently underestimated the power of the new media and his tweet had already been screen captured by John Nolte, over at Breitbart, and saved for posterity. Yet another reminder that, especially if you are a left-wing moron, once you put something on the internet it’s there for good. (You would think after the Anthony Weiner scandal that liberals might be watching what they post a little more, no such luck.)
Anyway, Morgan took personal offense at having his douchebaggery saved for future generations apparently.
And this exchange took place.
And Nolte updated his original post on Breitbart to include this note.
Piers Morgan responded to this article on Twitter, personally accusing me of smearing him and twisting his “obvious sarcasm.” I responded by asking how straight-forward reporting and quoting what he said constitutes twisting or smearing, and will update this post if there’s an answer.
For some reason Piers has yet to address how it is “smearing” to directly quote something someone said. My guess is the answer would be something along the lines of “but Jooooohn it’s not FAIR!” whined in a voice that could make even ME hate a British accent.
I almost feel sorry for Piers, since Nolte loves to expose him for the d-bag he is, through Morgan’s own words. Then again, he sort of deserves it for making light of a tragedy, whether he meant it in a sarcastic manner or not.
Here’s a good rule of thumb, if you don’t mean it, and it’s going to make you look like an asshole if people cannot obviously discern that you are being sarcastic, then don’t press send.
There should be an app for twitter that will read your messages back to you before you send them. If that existed, Piers might have hesitated. Maybe not — maybe he is an asshole with a chip on his shoulder and an agenda to promote, no matter who has to die to promote it.
He’s certainly been on a tear about gun control on twitter lately, judging from the tweets that twitchy is archiving.
Twitchy seems to think that he was obviously being sarcastic.
Morgan was being sarcastic, of course. But his ghoulish sense of humor and his tasteless timing failed to amuse.
I don’t think there was anything obvious about it, no matter what he said in follow-up tweets.
Morgan was incredibly offended at Nolte, piling on accusations and outright lies. One in which he stated, essentially, that Breitbart would be ashamed of Nolte’s posting a photo of his tweet for the world to see (check in the dictionary next to “Hah! Not likely” for my reaction that one) and that he “admired” Breitbart.
That’s a tall tale from someone who said (and I quote, which Morgan hates apparently):
Morgan: “Andrew let me go to you, as I said before the break, you are notoriously evil about almost everybody so what do you think of the new politics where everyone just whacks everybody else.”
Breaitbart: “Well I don’t think you know me Piers Morgan. I think we maybe spent eight seconds together.”
Morgan: “It was a long eight seconds.”
Oh well, it’s not like Morgan doesn’t have a penchant for ignoring the facts, or his own past words, when it suits him.
Saudi King Abdullah has given the kingdom’s women the right to vote for first time in nationwide local elections, due in 2015. The king said in an annual speech on Sunday, Sept. 25, 2011 before his advisory assembly, or Shura Council, that Saudi women will be able to run and cast ballots in the 2015 municipal elections.
You know, it’s always nice to see a country take it’s first steps out of the dark ages.
Though I sort of have to wonder at the order the Saudis are taking these steps in. After all, in Saudi Arabia women are still not allowed to have their own bank accounts, live normal life without the guardianship of a male, or drive a car.
Saudi women’s rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider called the announcement “great news.”
“Women’s voices will be heard finally,” she said. “Now it’s time to remove other barriers like not allowing women to drive cars and not being able to function and live a normal life without a male guardian.”
In fact, in the case of the driving issue. A Saudi woman, Shaima Ghassaniya, has been sentenced to 10 lashes for driving.
Strangely, there is nothing in official Saudi law that stipulates that women can not drive. It is only a religious law, Sharia, that makes it illegal. One must wonder then, why a woman would be punished by the government for breaking a religious law?
Oh, right. Saudi Arabia is as good as a theocracy, even if not in name.
The Associated Press writes
In Saudi Arabia, no woman can travel, work, marry, get divorced, gain admittance to a public hospital or live independently without permission from a “mahram,” or male guardian. Men can beat women who don‘t obey them and fathers or brothers have the right to prevent their female relatives from getting married if they don’t approve of her suitor.
“Right now, women are harassed and they get dragged to courts and nothing has changed in this respect,” said Aboul Khair, who himself has been referred to court after challenging the social restrictions women face as well as other issues. His trial has yet to start.
When I read things like this, despite the new right given to Saudi women, I have to scoff at people who claim that Islam is full of tolerance and equality. The religious law of Islam is what creates this inequality in Saudi Arabia, yeah…lots of equality to be found here.
Edit on 10/02/11 @ 12:46am:
While I can’t say I’m King Abdullah’s number 1 cheerleader, I have to say he’s been making some of the right moves lately. I mean, if it’s pissing off the Islamic religious leaders in Saudi Arabia I have to feel they must be right on some counts.
On top of allowing women to vote in 2015 he also pardoned the woman mentioned above, Shaima Ghassaniya, from the punishment of 10 lashes that she was to receive for breaking an Islamic religious edict that prevents women in Saudi Arabia from driving.
At least that’s what reports have indicated.
Affirmative Action Bullshit and You CAN actually still write objectively while holding personal opinions on a topic
I have a feeling that my Beginning Journalism class is going to be the topic of many rants on this blog, this will only be the first.
Yesterday one of the deans came in to finish giving a lecture on “What is News”. The things that make a story newsworthy, important elements of journalism, etc. etc. if you have ever studied journalism you know the drill. If you haven’t studied journalism, but you have a shred of common sense you can understand the concept. It’s a Freshman level class, I’m the oldest person in it….partly because I’m a sophomore and partly because I’m old even for a sophomore. Ugh.
Anyway, one of the things that we talked about was the differences between the people who are commonly the editors in charge of major newspapers and news networks, as opposed to the rest of society. Now I’m not quoting the dean verbatim, I completely admit that, I was not taking detailed enough notes at this point in the lecture to do this. I will tell you the gist of what he said in his lecture and go from there.
The first point I want to address is one that he made when he said that Journalism would be a very tough field for us if we held any strong political beliefs in either direction. Now I will fully admit that my bias (and my knowledge of the majority of Journalism outlets) heard that as “you will have a lot of trouble in this field if you have any strong conservative political beliefs.” You can believe what you will about media and journalism bias that skews the field ever to the left, but I believe it is there even if you don’t.
The dean made this point because my school of Journalism teaches “objective journalism” in which you report the facts of the story, what really happened, where and to whom and how and why…if you can discern the why objectively. This is done in such a way as to remove personal bias from the equation. I like that sort of News reporting…it’s sadly not available on most major news outlets anymore *coughCNNcough* though the News shows on Fox (not the opinion shows, there is a distinction) still manage it quite well.
Now I’ve never pretended that this blog wasn’t biased. You read a few posts and you will realized pretty quickly that I’m a conservative first and foremost and a gay women somewhere far below that on the list.
I don’t write objectively on this blog. Now I do try to make sure I check and double check my facts because I strive for accuracy in my writing, but I will call Liberals idiots, I will call Islam evil, I will call pretty much everything as I see it…usually through the lens of my bias. Now do I think that my bias is the correct and rational way to think? Yes, most definitely. Why else would I think that way?
So I do have some very strongly held political views. Does that impair my ability to write objectively? No.
If you are a good journalist you will know how to separate your biases from the facts and still be able to write objectively. So I can write an objective article about Obama while somewhere, locked in a closet in my brain, my conservative self is rocking back and forth muttering “this President is a moron, this President is a moron” over and over. It can be done.
If you are reading this and shaking your head, saying it can’t be done. That you couldn’t possibly write about something objectively if you felt strongly about it. If that’s the case then you have one of two problems, you are either a very bad writer or you are very weak minded…possibly both, hopefully only the first one…you can be trained out of that one.
The second point he made was one that, upon looking back at it, completely contradicts the previous statement about not holding strong personal biases on “big issues”. He said that there was a need to “diversify” the pool of journalists and editors working at major news outlets (paper and media) because without more females, or homosexuals or people of minority background, the news will not be “understandable and clear” to those who read it.
I thought the whole point of journalism was to not write using your bias. If you are writing something one way, only because you are a women, or black, or gay, then isn’t that writing going to be biased in that direction?
Oh wait. I forgot.
This is the liberal media. The only direction something is allowed to be biased in is toward the “minority”.
Another point, harkening back to post I made about how I didn’t realize I had a separate history from the rest of the world just because I was gay. History is history and news is news people. If it’s important to one group it should be important to every other person living in that area as well.
Stories about gay rights do not just affect gay people. I don’t need a gay journalist to write those articles, because, theoretically, the journalist writing it should be so objective that I shouldn’t be able to tell if they are gay, straight, asexual, or poly-sexual. Unless it’s an editorial, I don’t give a crap about their personal opinion on gay rights. I want to know the facts, minus their opinion on conservative or liberal politics or the morality, or lack thereof, of gay marriage. Besides, gay rights are not any issue that only affect gay men and women. It is a civil rights issue and it does affect the nation in general. We should all be keeping ourselves informed about the topic.
Do you think that women’s suffrage only affected women? No, it had widespread affect on men, women, children, corporations, and the government. That’s why it doesn’t have to be written about by a woman, for women. It’s important, it’s news, it’s for everyone.
There is no need to “diversify” the journalism workforce, there is a need to hire good journalists, objective journalists, no matter their race, gender, or sexual orientation. “Diversifying” the workforce is just Affirmative Action all over again and I bet you can guess how I felt about that. I want to know that I got my job because I’m good at what I do, not because I’m gay and female and the news outlet needed to fill a quota of “minorities”. I want people to get jobs because they deserve them, not because they “need” the job because they are an “oppressed minority”.
And anyone with a conscience and a scrap of dignity should feel the same.