Currently viewing the tag: “sound”
“It’s the bombs that the government has been dropping around the world that are now blowing up inside the U.S. borders. We’ve got something stronger than bombs, we have solidarity. That dream of revolutionary change is stronger than bombs.”
Sounds like a job for the shooting star graphic …
The takeway from this is Vivian Schiller’s remarks that she’ll be back –
”I’m not done. I certainly plan to stay in journalism. I feel too passionate about it, and so yes, I will be back in some position at some point in the not too distant future.”
– but the remark, or question rather, that floored me was when Schiller was point-blank asked if her troubles resulted because she was a woman.
“There’s been six months of tough things you’ve had to deal with … did you find any time during that that being the woman executive made a difference maybe had a harder kind of pressure on you that a man in that wouldn’t have as much criticism or as much pressure on them?”
Exhibit 93 in perpetuating sexist stereotypes. Feminists say they don’t want to be victims but then perpetuate the victim role by believing it’s their inability to stand and pee which invites scorn rather than job performance. The question was idiotic and while goofy things have tumbled from Schiller’s mouth in the past, I’ll extend her the credit of not accepting the sexist Get Out of Jail Free card.
“I would not go so far as to say that there was more pressure on me, more criticism … because I was a woman.”
The latest installment of New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller’s Sunday Magazine column, “Among the Guerrillas — What role do the mainstream media play in an environment beset by Assanges and O’Keefes?” likened conservative guerrilla film-maker James O’Keefe, who brought down ACORN and the executive suite at National Public Radio with his hoaxes, to Julian Assange, the anti-American anarchist who spilled secret diplomatic cables with the intent of harming U.S. interests.
Intriguingly, Keller went further than he usually does to meet his critics, confessing that his paper could be rightfully accused of a liberal outlook in a cultural sense, though he managed to make this particular brand of urban cultural liberalism sound appealing: “[Former Public Editor Daniel] Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan….Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered.”
Keller’s journalistic sympathy lies with Assange, one formerly evinced by the Times’s participation in the last and most potent batch of diplomatic leaks from Assange’s WikiLeaks project. (The Times was not nearly as approving of O’Keefe’s hoaxes, which were aimed at liberals.)
Has anyone actually seen James O’Keefe and Julian Assange together? Are we quite sure that the right-wing prankster who brought down the leadership of National Public Radio and the anarchic leaker aren’t split personalities of the same guy — sent by fate to mess with the heads of mainstream journalists?
Sure, one shoots from the left, the other from the right. One deals in genuine (albeit purloined) secrets; the other in “Candid Camera” stunts, most recently posing as a potential donor and entrapping a foolish NPR executive into disclosing his scorn for Republicans and the Tea Party. Assange aims to enlist the media; O’Keefe aims to discredit us. But each, in his own guerrilla way, has sown his share of public doubt about whether the press can be trusted as an impartial bearer of news.
Keller does admit to some liberal lean on the part of his paper, although he chalks it up to the cultural factor of being a Manhattan-based newspaper:
Back in 2004, Daniel Okrent, the first ombudsman at The Times, wrote a column under the headline, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” The sly first sentence of his essay was: “Of course it is.” Nobody seems to remember what came after. Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan. We publish news of gay unions on the wedding pages. We have a science section that does not feel obliged to give equal time to creationists when it writes about evolution. Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered. Respect is a prerequisite for understanding. But he did not mean that we subscribe to any political doctrine or are foot soldiers in any cause. (Anyone who thinks we go easy on liberals should ask Eliot Spitzer or David Paterson or Charles Rangel or….)
The latest installment of New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller’s Sunday Magazine column, “Among the Guerrillas — What role do the mainstream media play in an environment beset by Assanges and O’Keefes?” likened conservative guerrilla film-maker James O’Keefe, who brought down ACORN and the executive suite at National Public Radio with his hoaxes, to Julian Assange, the anti-American anarchist who spilled secret diplomatic cables with the intent of harming U.S. interests.
Intriguingly, Keller went further than he usually does to meet his critics, confessing that his paper could be rightfully accused of a liberal outlook in a cultural sense, though he managed to make this particular brand of urban cultural liberalism sound appealing: “[Former Public Editor Daniel] Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan….Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered.”
Keller’s journalistic sympathy lies with Assange, one formerly evinced by the Times’s participation in the last and most potent batch of diplomatic leaks from Assange’s WikiLeaks project. (The Times was not nearly as approving of O’Keefe’s hoaxes, which were aimed at liberals.)
Has anyone actually seen James O’Keefe and Julian Assange together? Are we quite sure that the right-wing prankster who brought down the leadership of National Public Radio and the anarchic leaker aren’t split personalities of the same guy — sent by fate to mess with the heads of mainstream journalists?
Sure, one shoots from the left, the other from the right. One deals in genuine (albeit purloined) secrets; the other in “Candid Camera” stunts, most recently posing as a potential donor and entrapping a foolish NPR executive into disclosing his scorn for Republicans and the Tea Party. Assange aims to enlist the media; O’Keefe aims to discredit us. But each, in his own guerrilla way, has sown his share of public doubt about whether the press can be trusted as an impartial bearer of news.
Keller does admit to some liberal lean on the part of his paper, although he chalks it up to the cultural factor of being a Manhattan-based newspaper:
Back in 2004, Daniel Okrent, the first ombudsman at The Times, wrote a column under the headline, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” The sly first sentence of his essay was: “Of course it is.” Nobody seems to remember what came after. Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan. We publish news of gay unions on the wedding pages. We have a science section that does not feel obliged to give equal time to creationists when it writes about evolution. Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered. Respect is a prerequisite for understanding. But he did not mean that we subscribe to any political doctrine or are foot soldiers in any cause. (Anyone who thinks we go easy on liberals should ask Eliot Spitzer or David Paterson or Charles Rangel or….)
The latest installment of New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller’s Sunday Magazine column, “Among the Guerrillas — What role do the mainstream media play in an environment beset by Assanges and O’Keefes?” likened conservative guerrilla film-maker James O’Keefe, who brought down ACORN and the executive suite at National Public Radio with his hoaxes, to Julian Assange, the anti-American anarchist who spilled secret diplomatic cables with the intent of harming U.S. interests.
Intriguingly, Keller went further than he usually does to meet his critics, confessing that his paper could be rightfully accused of a liberal outlook in a cultural sense, though he managed to make this particular brand of urban cultural liberalism sound appealing: “[Former Public Editor Daniel] Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan….Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered.”
Keller’s journalistic sympathy lies with Assange, one formerly evinced by the Times’s participation in the last and most potent batch of diplomatic leaks from Assange’s WikiLeaks project. (The Times was not nearly as approving of O’Keefe’s hoaxes, which were aimed at liberals.)
Has anyone actually seen James O’Keefe and Julian Assange together? Are we quite sure that the right-wing prankster who brought down the leadership of National Public Radio and the anarchic leaker aren’t split personalities of the same guy — sent by fate to mess with the heads of mainstream journalists?
Sure, one shoots from the left, the other from the right. One deals in genuine (albeit purloined) secrets; the other in “Candid Camera” stunts, most recently posing as a potential donor and entrapping a foolish NPR executive into disclosing his scorn for Republicans and the Tea Party. Assange aims to enlist the media; O’Keefe aims to discredit us. But each, in his own guerrilla way, has sown his share of public doubt about whether the press can be trusted as an impartial bearer of news.
Keller does admit to some liberal lean on the part of his paper, although he chalks it up to the cultural factor of being a Manhattan-based newspaper:
Back in 2004, Daniel Okrent, the first ombudsman at The Times, wrote a column under the headline, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” The sly first sentence of his essay was: “Of course it is.” Nobody seems to remember what came after. Okrent went on to explain that The Times’s outlook, steeped in the mores of a big, rambunctious city, tends to be culturally liberal: open-minded, skeptical of dogma, secular, cosmopolitan. We publish news of gay unions on the wedding pages. We have a science section that does not feel obliged to give equal time to creationists when it writes about evolution. Okrent rightly scolded us for sometimes seeming to look down our urban noses at the churchgoing, the gun-owning and the unlettered. Respect is a prerequisite for understanding. But he did not mean that we subscribe to any political doctrine or are foot soldiers in any cause. (Anyone who thinks we go easy on liberals should ask Eliot Spitzer or David Paterson or Charles Rangel or….)
The idea of taking money from an old man for executing his an Indiana Jones-esque vendetta against Fox News, capitalism, America, et al., seems creepy to me. Anyone else?
Watching Cenk Uygur deliver his commentary is like watching a plumber talk about dames and broads in my kitchen.
” Conservative media hoser and poseur Andrew Breitbart suggested in GQ Magazine this month … ”
” … what am I? President of the World? That’s the DUMBEST theory I’ve ever heard!”
“Comeoncomeuhcomeuhmmhehuh!”
Watching Cenk Uygur deliver his commentary is like watching a plumber talk about dames and broads in my kitchen.
” Conservative media hoser and poseur Andrew Breitbart suggested in GQ Magazine this month … ”
” … what am I? President of the World? That’s the DUMBEST theory I’ve ever heard!”
“Comeoncomeuhcomeuhmmhehuh!”
Bernie Goldberg predicts what will happen to CBS anchor Katie Couri when her contract is up.
“Save this tape and I’d like you to play it to show what an oracle I really am. She’s gone … I say this without fear of being wrong.”
CBC.ca |
NFL Lockout: Doesn't Sound Like Any Negotiation Will Happen Before April 6
SB Nation What we know right now is that the NFL has locked out the players and the players have responded by filing an injunction to block the lockout. That hearing will happen on April 6 but there have been some questions whether the two sides will return to … What they're saying: NFL lockout Day 10 League claims players are setting up “heads I win, tails you lose” argument DeMaurice Smith: NFLPA ready to talk before court hearing |
Communists lay waste to the notion that the ideology that has been on such obnoxious display in Madison and elsewhere could possibly be reconciled with the American commitment to individual liberty:
You’ve got to love the capitalist transaction at the end.
Unbeknownst to these freaks, a century has slipped past since their Marxism-based depiction of reality had any relevance whatsoever. The classes at war in modern America aren’t the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; they are the overpaid and largely useless parasites who work for Big Government and the tax slaves who support them.
On a tip from Crazy?
This is actual content on MSNBC. Lawrence O’Donnell doing his best Shocked Olbermann impersonation about the racial makeup of Michele Bachmann’s district, because race is the only thing that matters to progressives such as O’Donnell, apparently.
“What makes those voters so ignorant? Well, for starters, they are whiter than the average district.”
Lawrence O’Donnell is such a breath of fresh air in punditry; whereas most individuals have an inkling of what they’re speaking of when they open their mouths, O’Donnell doesn’t. He fearlessly allows whatever is floating around the fog of his mind to tumble from his mouth with a Shatner-esque delivery. You may think that his pauses are for dramatic effect, nay, it’s O’Donnell’s mind working overtime in an effort to string together a proper sentence before the words escape his lips. Sometimes he’s even successful at it.
If O’Donnell is so worried about voting districts, then perhaps he should ask why certain states are trying desperately to segregate redistrict all the black people into one district by themselves, but that would require an effort beyond that of sitting doe-eyed behind a desk and opining.
“And if the Republicans aren’t careful, they’re going to let their fear of bad PR kill the tea party revolution. And if they’re not careful what’s going to happen here is a third party is going to happen because the tea party crowd, grassroots, who made the Republican leadership possible, make no mistake, it’s the tea party turned out and voted that made the Republican leaders win, enabled their victory, made their leadership possible, if they’re not satisfied with the direction they see it will be third party time and nobody’s gonna be able to talk them out of it and then it will fracture our movement.”
Are Republicans believing the progressive media about their chances if they legislate conservatively?
