Fox News calls Michelle Obama "Obama's Baby Mama"

[spaceboy761]

The only thing that makes this funny is the fact that the newscaster saying "terrorist fist jab" COULD NOT BE ANY WHITER.

[spaceboy761]

Originally Posted by featherlou

And for the record, I'm not a responsible journalist. I don't even play one on the internet. I'm just someone who likes to discuss interesting current events (ideally with as few kneejerk assumptions and reactions as possible).

Here's a new challenge for you: Why don't you try to make it through one of these threads without taking a backhanded swipe at someone?

[bluffmanxx]

Originally Posted by featherlou

I actually think this is real news; it tips the hand of what neo-cons are thinking. In my opinion, what they're thinking is "AHHHHHH!!! WE'RE SCARED!!!!111!!!! Black man and woman in the White House! Must not happen!" Resorting to the petty shit that they are doing now seems kind of desperate to me.

yes, one air head FOX news person making a stupid comment is a window into the soul of the republican brain trust.

sad that you seem to think conservative = racist as well.

[spaceboy761]

One being a conservative does not imply that one is a racist, but in fairness to all morons, one being a racist ALMOST ALWAYS implies that one is a conservative. Nice little guilt by association goin' on there.

[featherlou]

Originally Posted by spaceboy761

Here's a new challenge for you: Why don't you try to make it through one of these threads without taking a backhanded swipe at someone?

Make it through the thread without people thinking I'm swiping at them? I accept your challenge!

[spaceboy761]

Judging from your brand new sig line, I think that you think that's it's your views that we find offensive. It's not your views; it's the conscending language in which you choose to state them.

Look at your first post in this thread. You choose to use the word 'kneejerk'... not 'emotional', 'gutteral', 'immediate', or some the other dozens of words to choose there, but the one with the connation of being typically mindless and uninformed. You could have totally gotten your point across without that extra slap that that one little change creates (why you were dragging the crap from another thread into this one to begin with, I have no idea). Instead, you choose the word that does the best job of implying that you know more that someone else.

As for the 9/11 stuff in the other thread, you have to realize that you are posting on what MAY be an emotional topic for some of us. That's kind of a spot to make sure of not slipping up on language that can be taken the wrong way. Some initial tact there might be good, and apologizing after the fact for created misunderstandings doesn't really patch it up.

[calgaryjimbo]

Remember the good ol' days when news sources at least pretended to be impartial? Standards of conduct within the media were much more rigorous even just a few years ago and conduct like this would not only have killed the media source's credibility, but they would have also lost a ton of business as a result. These days, it's not only business as usual, but a circus act like this, playing to the lowest common denominator, which actually improve ratings.

It's one thing when the parties running in an election shamelessly sling mud at each other in ads; it's something entirely other when the media itself is doing the mud slinging. As I said, it is the responsibility of the news media to at least pretend to be impartial, even if they're carefully working a subtle bit of slant into everything. This flagrant leap over the line should be, at best, embarrassing and, at worst, should cost them a few thousand responsible viewers and a couple precious ratings points, IMO. If it has already cost one employee her job, well, at least that's something -- that means there's at least some embarrassment showing through. And the ratings? Only time will tell if the viewership is responsible enough to walk away your thick enough to stick around to see what other outrageous stunts they'll pull.

[spaceboy761]

Thank Rupert Murdoch.

[bluffmanxx]

Originally Posted by spaceboy761

Judging from your brand new sig line, I think that you think that's it's your views that we find offensive. It's not your views; it's the conscending language in which you choose to state them.

Look at your first post in this thread. You choose to use the word 'kneejerk'... not 'emotional', 'gutteral', 'immediate', or some the other dozens of words to choose there, but the one with the connation of being typically mindless and uninformed. You could have totally gotten your point across without that extra slap that that one little change creates (why you were dragging the crap from another thread into this one to begin with, I have no idea). Instead, you choose the word that does the best job of implying that you know more that someone else.

As for the 9/11 stuff in the other thread, you have to realize that you are posting on what MAY be an emotional topic for some of us. That's kind of a spot to make sure of not slipping up on language that can be taken the wrong way. Some initial tact there might be good, and apologizing after the fact for created misunderstandings doesn't really patch it up.

i agree...and quite well said.

[bluffmanxx]

Originally Posted by spaceboy761

Thank Rupert Murdoch.

well, mr. murdoch certainly took the ball and ran with it....but i don't think he gets all the blame. "yellow" journalism started long ago...and has simply run it's course, needing more and more shock value to attract an audience.