Race and the Media

[steveox]

Now NPR employee made this comment

Now why wasnt she fired? Remember Juan Williams made this Comment about Muslims

Now NPR fired him for it. Now i want Mr Speaker (John Boehner) to Demand NPR to fire her. Or Congress will not fund NPR. Remember Congress has the power to do this and Republicans are in control. And This is what Tom Brokaw said about an Arizona bar.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tom-brokaw-on-guns-in-arizona-i-would-be-nervous-going-into-a-bar/

How come NBC hasnt fired him? Oh Yeah but MSNBC fired IMUS for this Joke

And CBS didnt do a thing when David Letterman says this joke

But now Rev Al Sharpton wants Rush Limbaugh banned from the airwaves when he said this

He complained to the FCC Commisoner about his comment.

How come its always the Left wing media people dont get the boot when they make comments about it,,But when Right wingers make comments they get fired from it? Now If i were Juan Williams id Sue NPR for Violation of the 1st admendment and IMUS should SUE NBC for Violation of the 1st admendment. Sean Hannity is right,,He said if any of us or Rush Limbaugh made these comments NAACP,The ACLU Rev Al Sharpton people will do anything to get you off the air,,They even boycott advertisments and sponcers who sponcer that show and get you fired. Now i want laws pass by congress to hold the left in line. Like i like a law if any member of the media gets racial the F.B.I can bust down your door and place you under arrest. That will settle them down cause believe you me the F.B.I agents are not a bunch of nice guys. This is how they arrest you

They scare the living daylights outta you

 

[GenSeneca]

From my Blog...

What’s wrong with bans on indecency?

April 28, 2009 by Don Watkins

The Supreme Court has now upheld the FCC’s ability to regulate fleeting expletives. The Court sidestepped the constitutional question of whether such restrictions are at odds with the First Amendment. Instead, it stuck to procedural questions and reversed the Court of Appeals’ finding that the FCC’s fleeting expletive policy was “arbitrary and capricious.”

I’ve argued elsewhere that “indecency” regulations are inherently “arbitrary and capricious” (albeit not, perhaps, in the technical legal sense). One question I often get, however, is: Who cares? Why get so worked up about a few restrictions on vulgar language?

It’s a fair enough question. Who wants to hear four-letter words every time they turn on the TV, after all? But it’s not that opponents of indecency restrictions desperately crave crudity. It’s that we see the principle such restrictions endorse–and how threatening that principle is to the speech we do care about.

Consider how the Court justifies restrictions on indecent speech. According to the Court, free speech is not an absolute. It must be balanced against other “interests,” such as the state’s “interest” in the “well-being of its youth.” (No, that’s not a typo: its youth.) These interests can justify “the regulation of otherwise protected expression.” What about the speech curbed by indecency regulations? It lies “at the periphery of First Amendment concerns,” and since “Congress has made the determination that indecent material is harmful to children,” then the FCC can go ahead and fine broadcasters for it.

Now, ask yourself: what speech could possibly be safe in light of that kind of logic? What’s to stop Washington from determining that, say, the teaching of evolution is harmful to children, or that the state has an “interest” in silencing critics of Obama’s economic plan?

The principle endorsed by “indecency” regulations is that the state gets to decide what Americans can and can’t say. You cannot oppose that policy by haggling over what speech Washington decides is off limits this week–you have to challenge the notion that the government can make any speech off limits. You have to stand for a different principle: that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.”

 

[PLC1]

The speaker in clip 1 does have a point: Had the shooter been Latino, then there would have been generalizations about all Latinos. Had he been a tea partier, there would have been generalizations about all tea partiers. Had he been a rabid right or left winger... well, you get the idea.

The problem is generalizations. If I'm a member of a particular group, and a nutter who also happens to be a member of the same group goes off and shoots someone, then it is seen as a reflection on me as well.

But it shouldn't be.


The shooter was a mentally unbalanced individual who committed mass murder. Unless someone can get inside his head and understand his alternate reality, we'll never know just why. It happens.

 

[Rick]

The main thing being missed here is that she referred to a white person as a "gringo" - a racist term for whites. Why will she get away with it? Because the lib establishment has a double standard - one for white males and the other for everyone else. For the "everyone else", excruciating care must be used when referring to such persons, lest any nuance of group insult, real or imagined, manifest itself. In the former case - it's fire away - disgorge any insult, any stereotype, and racist language that comes to mind.

 

[PLC1]

The main thing being missed here is that she referred to a white person as a "gringo" - a racist term for whites. Why will she get away with it? Because the lib establishment has a double standard - one for white males and the other for everyone else. For the "everyone else", excruciating care must be used when referring to such persons, lest any nuance of group insult, real or imagined, manifest itself. In the former case - it's fire away - disgorge any insult, any stereotype, and racist language that comes to mind.

I think you're right, but don't get used to it.

Personally, I could care less if someone calls me a "gringo," but there does seem to be a double standard.

 

[Rick]

I think you're right, but don't get used to it.

Personally, I could care less if someone calls me a "gringo," but there does seem to be a double standard.

I don't really care per se either, but what I DO care about is the double standard ... violate the Great Pee See Commandment that no minorities as a group should ever be referred to negatively for any reason (truth is no defense), and some white lib, with all the self-righteousness of a puritan preacher will start screeching "racism!" - the next minute he could be giggling good-naturedly at some racist anti-white male depiction, joke, reference, etc.

 

[nobull]

Oh, to be a liberal! Then I could say any politically incorrect thing I wanted, and I would be applauded for it. this is what you get when you don't argue anything on the merits.

In the liberal world, a black person can call a woman a "spinster" because blacks are disenfranchised victims, who, as we all know, are entitled to say any outrageous thing they want, because, when you're a disenfranchised victim, nothing you say can be too outrageous.

But, if you're not a liberal, then god help you if you say anything negative about anyone - except yourself.

Stick a fork in this alternate universe. It's done.

doug

 

[PLC1]

Oh, to be a liberal!

You could reinvent yourself.

 

[LONGCUT]

I believe in calling a ****** a ****** !!! GET OVER IT !!!!

 

[nobull]

You could reinvent yourself.

Good one....