Archive for the Media Category

Slate Does Andrew Breitbart

Posted in Media with tags , , , , on March 16, 2010 by lumpy

Big Breitbart: Andrew Breitbart is messing with you, by Christopher Beam

It’s a nice, big, four page look at the man who started the Huffington Post (for a liberal friend), then three conservative sites: Big Government (which broke the ACORN scandals), Big Journalism, and Big Hollywood, as well as Breitbart TV.

Go on!

Is “Shut Up” Really a Good Argument?

Posted in Issues, Media, Obama with tags , , , , , on May 28, 2009 by lumpy

On the question of whether Sotomayor’s statement was racist, one defense I’m seeing is “Shut up.”

Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesperson, responded initially that, “I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way they in which they’ve decided to describe any aspects of this impending confirmation.” He does not address her statement directly in any way.

Jill Lawrence at Politics Daily echoes this in an oped piece titled Wise Conservatives Might Want to Stop Calling Sotomayor a Racist:

Do Republicans really want to seem like they’re ganging up on Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina nominee to the Supreme Court, by calling her a racist? If they don’t, somebody had better get the word out, because that seems to be the talking point of the week.

The rest of her oped quotes several conservatives calling Sotomayor’s statement racist, and then giving three paragraphs from the original speech to provide context. She does not, however, address whether the statement is racist or not, and, like Gibbs, seems to be offering the argument that Republicans should just shut up.

As Andrew Klavan notes, this seems to be a common reaction from the left.

Because Sotomayor’s statement should be seen in context, here are the paragraphs that Lawrence quoted, taken from the NYT full text of that speech:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

Again, I have no problem with the idea that one’s experiences affect one’s judgment, but to think that one person’s judgment is better than another based on race and gender is racism and sexism. I would not want a white man on the court that believed his experiences as a white man made his judgment better than a Hispanic woman’s, and I don’t think a white man who made a similar statement would be appointed in this day and age.

Oh, go on.

Tea Party Commentaries

Posted in Media, Revolution with tags , , , on April 20, 2009 by lumpy

There’s lots of them out there.

Mark Steyn’s caught my attention for this:

Talk-show host Michael Graham spoke to one attendee at the 2009 Boston Tea Party who remarked of the press embargo: “If Obama had been the king of England, the Globe wouldn’t have covered the American Revolution.”

His comments are, as you can see, aimed at the MSM, and good on him.

Sisu has some commentary on what could be next for the Tea Party, including suggestions in the Washington Examiner that Tea Partiers:

First, don’t abandon the social networking and bottom-up direction that enabled a genuine grassroots phenomenon to coalesce in just a few weeks. …

Second, all politics is still local. …

Third, stop worrying about the mainstream media. Their day is done, yours is coming.

She goes on to quote some Tea Partiers talking about the big motivators: fear of collectivism, fear that the Constitution itself, and with it our way of life, is in danger.

(She also has some good coverage of the Boston Tea Party.)

The big question, the one everyone’s asking, is What next?

I have some ideas I may post in the near future, but for now I have a prediction.  The Tea Parties will become powerful to the extent that they address the common concerns of the vast majority of Americans.  Those concerns include, but are not limited to, corruption, secrecy, lack of accountability, and financial insecurity.

If the movement can put aside very important but very divisive issues like abortion and homosexual rights in order to focus on areas of common interest, then this movement may improve America for everyone (except the crooks and statists).  Once the four common issues I mentioned are resolved, once we have a better, cleaner, more responsible government, then we can get back to the partisan fights.

Go on, then!

Tea Party Pic Question

Posted in Evilness, Media, Revolution with tags , , , , , on April 15, 2009 by lumpy

I understand why the PJTV coverage of the individual Tea Parties has a Flag this photo as inappropriate link, but why don’t they have a Flag this photo as HOT link as well?

Update: Ace of Spades has one in need of the HOT flag (try this link instead). Nice hat.

Update 2: Instapundit never fails to offer high quality pics flagged for hotness.

Go on!

PJTV Citizen Reporter Signup for Tax Day Tea Party

Posted in Media, Revolution with tags , , , , on March 28, 2009 by lumpy

Getting ready for a tea party, I think I might go as media.

This actually brings up an interesting question.  I sincerely sympathize with this movement, and if I don’t go as media I’ll go to participate.  Given that I think my sympathies are probably normal for PJTV citizen reporters, I have to ask how much can reporting of these events be trusted?  Is what goes up on the PJTV site reporting or cheerleading?

We already have biased media; do we need more of it?  Maybe we do.  I think PJTV is covering things from a highly neglected viewpoint and maybe we really do need this bias to balance what comes from the MSM.  However, idealist that I am, I still hope somewhere out there we have real journalists who still believe in providing objective news reporting, and if I am going to be a reporter, that is what I will strive to do.  And if we are going to train citizen journalists, I hope that is what we are going to train them to do as well

It would be useful for PJTV to run a series on how to conduct citizen journalism.  Maybe I should write and suggest that.

Now, go on!

today we make fun of jack cafferty

Posted in Media with tags , , , on March 25, 2009 by lumpy

Utterly randomly found CNN on the tube this afternoon and, brain flogged by hours of reading in foreign languages and theological discussion, I actually watched for a few minutes. Jack Cafferty was on, threatening Congresscritters who might vote against Obama’s attempt to bankrupt America by saying something like the people still love Obama, but Congress’ numbers are way down, so think about that before you oppose his attempt to destroy the American economy.

Oddly, just yesterday I was reading a post by Mr. Cafferty titled “Is the American Dream Dead?” that included the words:

In the meantime, as the federal government continues to print money that isn’t worth the paper it’s written on and as our national debt soars past $11 trillion, a United Nations panel is set to recommend that the world ditch the U.S. dollar as its reserve currency in favor of a shared basket of currencies.

One of the enduring strengths of the dollar has been that it has always been the currency of choice in times of crisis. But that’s not the case anymore. Our ballooning deficits have driven down the value of the dollar so much that the Chinese government recently asked for guarantees from Washington that the Treasury bills they own are safe.

All of this isn’t lost on the average American. Last week there were protests and demonstrations by taxpayers in cities all around the country who are beginning to object in increasing numbers to runaway government spending, taxes, bailouts and our growing national debt. These protests were called tea parties. Has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it?

I heartily approved of his take then; what changed? Why is even more debt not only acceptable today, but worth talking tough to Congress to get them to accept? I dunno, maybe ‘cuz he’s thinking about how unpopular the media is these days and wants to be seen praising the popular kid in the class so everyone will like him / his news organization? Just a guess.

But then, by ‘TV personality,’ don’t we mean ‘someone we shouldn’t take seriously’?

Go on!