I think I'm dumber after reading this. This is one of the most rambling, petty, and unsubstantial pieces I've read in a while. I'm still trying to figure out what the F her point was. If I understand correctly, she hates the Clintons, is pissed at some professor from god knows when, and doesn't understand why homosexuals are being so damned impatient. My question: why the F do we care what you have to say? I literally cannot express my confusion with this piece.
On his radio program, Michael Savage discussed a New York Post article that reported allegations that a New York City attorney was shot to death by a rival for the affections of a woman "who moonlights as a dominatrix." Savage said: "I don't understand that part of it. I truly don't understand it because any heterosexual woman today over the age of 25 who grew up in America is basically a dominatrix. You ask any heterosexual guy. Within a short period of time -- what do you think it's going to last? Ehhh -- 90 days and after that you're living with a dominatrix anyway, so what's the difference?"
Politico's Ben Smith contrasted President-elect Barack Obama and President George W. Bush's church attendance in the weeks after their elections, but Smith failed to note numerous reports of Bush's infrequent church attendance over the past eight years, as well as Bush's reported lack of membership in a Washington, D.C., congregation. Smith cited another Politico article that also ignored reports about Bush's church attendance.
O'Reilly sent his producer to ambush the writer outside his NYC home because the Fox News crew claimed Hertzberg took comments Newt Gingrich made about gays and used them out of context. The comments were first highlighted by MMA, and here's what Hertzberg's wrote.
The key to O'Reilly's otherwise soggy non-story may be the fact that the host claimed on-air that Hertzberg had refused to appear on the show to discuss the matter. "That's an outright lie," Hertzberg told the Politico's Michael Calderone. When Calderone contacted Fox News to find out when exactly O'Reilly had invited Hertzberg to appear on the show, the Fox flack did not respond.
Or let me put it this way: Does anybody really think think that if Obama had reached out to a former, high-profile male primary opponent for a senior cabinet position that the press would be all atwitter with incessant and clichéd talk of "drama," which, let's face it, isn't a very far leap to, Hillary's a drama queen.
And is this the new double standard that the Beltway media operate under: Female politicians with star power can now be effortlessly tagged with creating too much "drama"?
Since initial reporting that President-elect Barack Obama was considering naming Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, many in the media have raised the specter of personal and political "drama" -- which they claim follows Hillary and Bill Clinton wherever they go -- negatively affecting the Obama administration. The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page acknowledged that the media are hoping for "drama" resulting from a Clinton appointment; Page responded to the question of how Obama is "going to keep the drama at bay" by saying: "Well, do we want that? We're journalists."
Newsbusters is the online destination for conservative anxious for more (hourly) proof that the press has a liberal bias. On Monday, the theme was the press was too nice during the announcement of Hillary Clinton as SoS. ("No Raining on Obama's Parade, As Nets Fail to Remember Attacks on Hillary") And in general it's been that the press has been too nice to the Obama post-election. ("Walters Put Bush on Defense in 2001, But Tosses Softballs to Obama.")
You get the idea. Newsbusters posts a headline about a supposed press calamity and then explains what horrible newsroom crime against the GOP (or humanity) has been committed by the America's ocean of biased reporters.
But the item headlined "CBS Offers Tribute to Harvey Milk: 'A Rebel With A Cause'" caught our attention because Newsbusters never got around to complaining about anything in the CBS report. There was nothing factually wrong, at least not accoridng to Newsbusters. And there were no allegations of bias. Newsbusters didn't claim any relevent information had been left out of the CBS report.
Was the the only reason Newsbusters posted the item because Newsbusters was irked that CBS devoted time to a movie about a (liberal) gay guy. And if so, does that really qualify as media criticism?
P.S. We wouldn't want to be in the Newsbusters office the day this year's Academy Awards nominations are announced.
Responding to a Media Matters item, radio host Jim Quinn defended his suggestion that a military response to the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, is warranted regardless of whether "a lot of peaceful Muslims" are harmed or killed. Quinn responded, in part: "[I]f I'm in a room with a thousand people, and 999 of them love me, but one has a gun and wants to kill me, how relevant are the 999? They have no relevance whatever. I'm sorry, but peaceful Muslims will only be relevant insofar as they rise up against those who are not peaceful."
Radio host Bill Cunningham compared the Cincinnati Zoo to Eugene "Bull" Connor, the Birmingham Public Safety commissioner infamous for using dogs and fire hoses against civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s. Cunningham made the remark while criticizing the zoo's decision to pull out of a promotional partnership with the Creation Museum, which seeks to "affirm the truth of the biblical record of the real origin and history of the world and mankind" and reportedly contains a display featuring "a triceratops with a saddle on its back."
Following Obama's unveiling of new administration players today:
Chris Matthews: "Clearly [the team] has the picture we're looking for. The many faces of Benetton or whatever you want to call it. But clearly representative of America more than previous administrations..."
Joe Scarborough: "We were talking on the set here and we decided they had to split up the white guys up there to make it look more like America."
On The War Room, Jim Quinn said: "We either wipe this scourge from the face of the Earth -- 'Well, you just can't say that, because there's a lot of peaceful Muslims out there.' Well, there was a lot of Germans that weren't Nazis either, but we still bombed Dresden. We either wipe this scourge from the face of the Earth, or we will be doomed to live under it."
In an article headlined "Obama skips church, heads to gym," Politico reported, "On the three Sundays since his election, Obama has instead used his free time to get in workouts at a Chicago gym," and also asserted, "Both President-elect George W. Bush and President-elect Bill Clinton managed to attend church in the weeks after they were elected." However, Politico ignored numerous reports that Bush attended church infrequently over the past eight years and did not belong to a Washington congregation. Politico's report was echoed by other media, including Fox News and the syndicated radio show The War Room with Quinn & Rose.
CNN's TJ Holmes (via Americablog):
eHarmony is expanding. Actually…they're being forced to expand.
You may have heard that the popular online dating site was sued by a gay man in New Jersey. He claimed the site discriminated because they wouldn't provide him with a same sex match.
can you now sue a steakhouse if they don't have chicken on the menu?
Now, here's a better question: Why would CNN pay someone to suggest that refusing to sell your product to a gay man is the same thing as not selling chicken to anyone?
Writing at The Daily Beast, Daphne Merkin noted:
But here's something to give pause: The special election issue of The New Yorker has five male writers commenting on its implications; there is only one woman featured in the issue (although she has two pieces, as if in compensation). Similarly, the November issues of Harper's and The Atlantic are top-heavy with male writers, notwithstanding the fact that The Atlantic cover touts a story headlined "Should Women Rule the World?" which turns out to be a rather cutesy review of a book by DeeDee Myers with that title, not a serious consideration of the question at all.