Kurtz criticizes Gretchen Carlson for interviewing Jeter without disclosing that her husband is Jeter's agent
December 06, 2009 11:32 am ET
From the December 6 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
















Another what? Jeter? He's a nice guy and we all liked him. And he was fun. Maybe that comes along every 20 minutes for you, but we all miss him. I do. And yeah, I enjoyed flirting a tad, as I do with many here. But I had a special place for Jeter. A con with a heart is hard to come by. Okay, the dude was a bit of a hard head sometimes, ha!
Maybe someday he'll come back. I hope so. ;-)
BTW, I agree with you completely. It was a stupid joke, referring strictly to the flirting part. I like Jeter too!
Um, how funny to use that phrase. Come on Howard, the women at Fox News always have the pom poms out. It part of the dress code.
Disclosure is for thee
But not for me
Snarks hypocrite Howie
~
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Whoops. Shouldn't have said that. Now I'll be accused of attacking them!
------------story alert--------
Back in the BBS days, there was a flame war going on between two 'liberals' and two 'conservatives' over who was the 'bigot'. I posted a message "To All" that simply had a definition of the word bigot. I was quickly flamed by the 'conservatives' for 'having called them bigots'. (see To All above) The 'liberals' stayed quiet, as the flames went on, and I saved the posts that flamed me, as well as the original. After about one to two weeks, I posted a long message with the flames, and showed how I had not done any such personal attack, simply posted the definition as a To All message. The 'conservatives' quickly shut up, except for one lame message that could be paraphrased as 'but you called me a bigot'.
This led to my 'rules of correctness' #14) always take everything personally.
Based on what I've been through the past few years, #14 seems a good rule to go by.
The age of reason is dead. ;-)
Based on what I've been through the past few years, #14 seems a good rule to go by.
The age of reason is dead. ;-)
Can you match her academic credentials? I'll take a wild guess and say , not a chance. Correct me if I am wrong.
BTW, Ms. Carlson's academic credentials are less than stellar and have NOTHING to do with journalism. She has a "self-designed" degree in organizational behavior from Stanford. She "studied abroad" at Oxford University. No offense, but our office manager's child is currently "studying abroad" for a semester. She's a barely average student.
I wouldn't be talking about "cutting edge journalism" if I were you, fairliberal. You get the majority of your "news" from a network which has stated publicly that the majority of its daily programming is OPINION, not news. You might want to turn off the tube and start reading and listening to what is REALLY going on around you instead of hanging on your crush's every word.
I "cans" not even begin to make anything coherent out of that.
people like that are so uneducated in a knowledgeable sense... im sure they have degrees and whatnot, but that doesnt mean you are smart. you worked hard to get a degree, and then all those years that you didnt do anything after college, you probably forgot it all. at that time, you just wanted the diploma and temporary recognition.
Kurtz's journalistic cred beat the snot out of Ms. Carlson's.
Oh, and I'd be careful about throwing the term "fool" around, if I were you.
its not that simple. and he doesnt just get paid, he gets PAID... from what i hear hes supposed to make $134 million by the end of his contract. thats nothing to sneeze at.