Yes, the ideas of this blog are so persuasive that everyone, of every political type, agrees iwth this blog sooner or later. See the previous article, where I showed that Rush Limbaugh agrees with me about Fox Newws--the idea that Fox News is addicted to cable TV sensationalism rather than "journalism" being a contention of this blog for YEARS. Now the NAACP has agreed with this blog that CNN is a racist organization.
Hacker Boy (hacking into this despicable blog with no comment on my connection to News Corp or Murdoch): "AAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGVHHHHHHHHH!!! Skip, you just never quit. The NAACP and you do NOT agree."
Skip: "Did not the NAACP call the CNN racist for ists new prime time schedule (deleting the prostitution ring governor, Eliot Spitzer--who I always thought was a perfect fit for CNN).?"
Hacker Boy: "Yes, you could say--although it is a bit of an overstatement--that the NAACP called CNN a racist network for imposing a "glass ceiling" on its most coveted time slos, for which African-Americans need not apply. Indeed, the NAACP basically said there was racism in ALL of the networks for excludng African-Americans from the most coveted positions. However, the NAACP idd NOT call CNN racist for the same reason you did. In fact, the NAACP would be a racist organization under your standard. Your position, Skip, is that it is racism to define people by the group or groups to which they belong, and not as INDIVIDUALS. The NAACP clearly wants CNN to CONSCIOUSLY put an African-American as a host in its prime time lineup. Now the NAACP might put it differently: that the fact that African-Americans can't break into these time slots means they are being discriminated AGAINST. Bottom line, however, is that the NAACP wants African-American hosts to be hired partly BECAUSE they are African-American, while you say the choice should be color blind. Skip, you are being dishonest when you say you and the NAACP agree. In fact, you have very different approaches, and the onlly way you could be more different than the NAACP is to advocate that CNN choose anchors BECAUSE THEY ARE WHITE."
Skip: "Wll, Hacker Boy, you have finally got it pretty close to right. Yes, I don't think it is any more "right" to give someone preference because he is black than to give someone preference because he is white. But enough of this dialogue. Back to the article.
The point of this article is that it is funny/ironic that CNN is being criticized for violating CNN's own standards. This blog has strongly criticized CNN in the past for being racist, under the only true definition of racism there is. Racism HAS to be defined as treating people as members of some racial group, rather than as individuals. This is a totally untenalbe position, because you cannot even DEFINE who is a member of any certain racial group and who is not. Thus, the idea that we should have a certain number of African-Americans in any certain positon is RACIST. CNN haS steadily advocated giving people rights and benefits based on their RACE. That is RACISM. See my previous articles. But look is what ihas happened.!!!! CNN is being criticized for failing to follow the CNN position . CNN has advocated giving special consderation to African-Americans because they are blakc---up to and including candidate Obama. Now CNN has FAILED to give special consideratoon to African-Americans wanting to "crack" its prime time lineup of shows. Indeed, the NAACP would say that CNN has not given EQUAL consideration to African-Americans. In a way, Hacker Boy is wrong. The NAACP and I agree that CNN is shwowing itself to be composed of the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two les or four. The way the NAACP and I differ is that the NAACP believes African-Americans SHOULD be treated as members of a racial group, rather than as individuals: that African-Americans should be given special consideration. To me, and I am right, that is racist and wrong. But it IS the position that CNN has advocated, and CNN has violated its own stated moral and legal positon, in favor of mine. That is what I find FUNNY.
And yes, the NAACP is right. I don't see a lot of prime time African-American anchors on MSNBC either, even though that leftist network even more strongly favors special treatment for African-Americans.
I do have a question: Is CNN giving MORE consideration to homosexuals than to African-Americans (see where this policy of "special rights" can lead)? I have previusly labeled CNN "The Gay Network", in addition to al of the other nicknames CNN has earned (like The Liar Network). I did so because of the apparent OBSESSION by CNN with homosexual issues, even while CNN people (hypocrites) like Dishonest Jack Cafferty have been telling us that Republicans should not even be talking about social issues whiile jobs and the economy are the only issues people care about. Note to Diishonest Jack and CNN: Maybe it is because you give so much coverage to issues that people don't care abut that you have the ratings of a TEST PATTERN. Now I did NOT call CNN The Gay Network becaue it is full of homosexuals. I have no idea, generally, when a person is homosexual and when he or she is not. But I expressed puzzlement as to why CNN had this obsession with homosexual "issues"--mentioning, especailly, Anderson Cooper. The person (intelligent, an Obama voter, AND a supporter of the idea that I am hoelessly old fashioned about my view of homosexual activism) told me: "Diidn't you know that Anderson Cooper is gay?" Actually, I did not know, and still do not know. It would explain his obsession with gay issues, but I have no evidence he is gay. Fopr all I know, he has announced it, or the person is wrong. I don't pay enough attention to Cooper to have any idea. And I don't carte (except to the extent it contributes to this ridiculous overkill on CNN about homosexual "rights"). You should see whrere this is going. Did CNN DISRESPECT one favored group (African-Americans) in favorf of another favored group (albeit for much more questionable reasons): namely GAYS. I have no idea, and this is the kind of cable TV specualation that I despise. However, I have told you over and over that I do NOT turn the other cheek--not being a Christian--and I see no reason to be fair to CNN and the despicable Cooper.
That is the other problem here. I am 100% right that people should be treated as individuals, and not as members of whatever groups to which they belong (within reason, as I can't defend anyone who belons to the group of "mainstream media journalists"). But is it really true that CNN could not find any African-American bettter than Anderson Cooper and Piers Morgan? Even I have to admit that is hard to believe. Despite Hacker Boy, it may be that the NAACP and I really do pretty much agree here--unlikely as that might seem.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment