Media Outrage?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

Dan Rather responds to the backlash:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-ra..._b_492890.html

I've always respected Dan Rather and will continue to do so.


If Rush had said what Dan said, it would have a distinct connotation-- based solely on the Rush's past episodes of oral diarrhea. A connotation that would simply be insulting.

Rush, like many others, have earned their reputations, within the last 20 years.



Unfortunately, because of the reputation that FOXNEWS has, if Dan Rather had made that statement on FOXNEWS, it may be a little more difficult to be just give him the benefit of doubt.

However, like most well-known Americans, Dan Rather's past precedes him. The same is true for news outlets and, in many circumstances, their commentators.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I've always respected Dan Rather and will continue to do so.


If Rush had said what Dan said, it would have a distinct connotation-- based solely on the Rush's past episodes of oral diarrhea. A connotation that would simply be insulting.

Rush, like many others, have earned their reputations, within the last 20 years.



Unfortunately, because of the reputation that FOXNEWS has, if Dan Rather had made that statement on FOXNEWS, it may be a little more difficult to be just give him the benefit of doubt.

However, like most well-known Americans, Dan Rather's past precedes him. The same is true for news outlets and, in many circumstances, their commentators.

Sure, Dan Rather's past does precede him... but I think you're looking at him with rose colored glasses and from a very partisan angle.

Dan Rather was fired from his position as anchor of the CBS Evening News because of journalistic fraud. He perpetuated the myth of the "Fake But 'Real' Memos" that were fabricated by a Democrat activist and demanded that they be accepted as 'real' even long after they were proven to be fakes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian...ts_controversy

The uber-liberal Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs blog was the one who posted irrefutable proof that the memos were fake. Rather's lawsuit against CBS was unceremoniously tossed out by the courts for being as bogus as the "Fake But Accurate" memos. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/12282982...suit-Dismissal

Rather was then relegated to the dungeons of television news.

Rather has a long history of making racist and anti-American comments: "They got the Buckwheats..." was his description of the media's coverage of the Chandra Levy case.

In 1988 he featured 6 Vietnam vets who described their "atrocities" in Vietnam - a later investigation showed that all 6 former service members and Dan Rather himself had all lied about their experiences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor

The phrase "Rather Biased" was coined by a Washington Post and New York Times columnist to describe the legion of "reports" filed by Rather that show his poor sense of objectivity. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan13.html

Rather's rather bizarre account of his alleged "mugging" in New York was the basis for the R.E.M. song "Kenneth What Was the Frequency?"

Even while serving as CBS's lead news anchor Dan Rather also participated in partisan fund raising activities and actively campaigned for Democrat candidates. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...34557-2001Apr3

One of his most famous "newscasts" was actually his non-appearance after he walked off the set in a temper tantrum and caused CBS to to broadcast a blank screen for six minutes until the producers recovered. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/13/ny...pagewanted=all

Dan Rather is perhaps the prime example of what has been wrong with "mainstream journalism" for the past 40 years. His generation's infatuation with the Democrat Party and Keynesian economics is wholly responsible for the demise of American manufacturing, the $12 trillion (and counting) debt, the bankrupt Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid mess and the continued institutionalized racism that the Democrat Party uses for it's voting scams.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010...umbling-acorn/

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story...storyid=163905

http://www.rottenacorn.com/

http://michellemalkin.com/category/acorn-watch/

[oletime]

But its ok for tiger to tell racist stereotype jokes in a GQ interview.The old double standard again.

[BeenThinkin]

Originally Posted by oletime

But its ok for tiger to tell racist stereotype jokes in a GQ interview.The old double standard again.

I have a problem with there being something so wrong with this when we have "The United Negro College Fund" .... "Congressional Black Caucus" .... "NAACP" .... "The Organization of Black Airline Pilots Inc." etc, etc, etc. Isn't that a little one sided!

Okay, let's put the joke on those of you on this forum that are ministers or preachers..... "Do you know why preachers eat so much chicken?" .... "Ever since that rooster told off on Peter for denying the Lord we have been trying to eat them all up!"

Now I guess all of you are offended at Been Thinkin'

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

I have a problem with there being something so wrong with this when we have "The United Negro College Fund" .... "Congressional Black Caucus" .... "NAACP" .... "The Organization of Black Airline Pilots Inc." etc, etc, etc. Isn't that a little one sided!

Okay, let's put the joke on those of you on this forum that are ministers or preachers..... "Do you know why preachers eat so much chicken?" .... "Ever since that rooster told off on Peter for denying the Lord we have been trying to eat them all up!"

Now I guess all of you are offended at Been Thinkin'

This is a "fingernails on the chalkboard" argument for me. There is only one reason these groups were ever formed. They needed them. As a marginalized demographic of society, that has long been rejected from the mainstream, these groups are naturally going to develop a system of commonality support. Of course they would!! And they should!

And in case one feels like there's no longer a need for these demographical commonality support systems, just consider that as recently as early this decade, major studies showed that, when applying for a job, African-Americans were EIGHT TIMES LESS LIKELY to be called for an interview than caucasians, when the resumes were identical.

We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand and pretend as though Martin Luther King's dream has become a reality.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by notofworks

This is a "fingernails on the chalkboard" argument for me. There is only one reason these groups were ever formed. They needed them. As a marginalized demographic of society, that has long been rejected from the mainstream, these groups are naturally going to develop a system of commonality support. Of course they would!! And they should!

And in case one feels like there's no longer a need for these demographical commonality support systems, just consider that as recently as early this decade, major studies showed that, when applying for a job, African-Americans were EIGHT TIMES LESS LIKELY to be called for an interview than caucasians, when the resumes were identical.
We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand and pretend as though Martin Luther King's dream has become a reality.

HUH?

By the resumes how did they know they were white or black? Something doesn't ring true to that statement.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

HUH?

By the resumes how did they know they were white or black? Something doesn't ring true to that statement.

It was a study done by, I believe, the University of Chicago early this decade. They sent out 10,000 resumes to Fortune 500 companies. 5,000 of the applications had traditional names (James, Robert, etc.) and 5,000 had colorful, creative names common in the black community (Shaquille, Laquesha, etc.)

Identical resumes were attached and the traditional sounding names were 8 times more likely to be called for an interview. I was familiarized with this study through a local Affirmative Action group that I participated in for a while.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by notofworks

It was a study done by, I believe, the University of Chicago early this decade. They sent out 10,000 resumes to Fortune 500 companies. 5,000 of the applications had traditional names (James, Robert, etc.) and 5,000 had colorful, creative names common in the black community (Shaquille, Laquesha, etc.)

Identical resumes were attached and the traditional sounding names were 8 times more likely to be called for an interview. I was familiarized with this study through a local Affirmative Action group that I participated in for a while.

I have heard of this study. No doubt in my mind of its truth.


Same is true when conducting business over the phone. Usually, one can tell the race and the general waistline of the person they are speaking with.

However, the study with the names is legitimate.


http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas...acialbias.html

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by notofworks

The color of your skin and the racial insults that have never been thrown your way may contribute to the fact you didn't see it as offensive.

And Rather's "getting off scott free" has nothing to do with what Sam said. Nothing.

Oh yes it does! Where have YOU shown the same holy outrage toward Dan Blather that you often do toward Sam or anyone else who makes fun of the anointed Pelosi?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

That post does nothing for your image Sam, and it certainly fails to convey any real information to bolster the legitimate criticisms of the President's policies. I'm Rather disappointed with it.

It's the kind of thing that Democrats get away with saying about Black Republicans...

... for example ...

http://www.alexanderjason.com/alteration-condi.htm

Compare the following two pictures:

and ...

Dr. Condoleezza Rice was vilified for "betraying her race" while Michelle Obama wears the identical hair style is heralded as a "fashion maven."

And Ted Rall's cartoon of Condi Rice wasn't just some far out extremist jab - he was being published in the New York Times and Washington Post at the time.

See Colin Powell's experiences: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/20/powell-arnold/

See Clarence Thomas' experiences: http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010...ck-called.html