MR

Where's Media Matters on the latest Don Imus controversy? Just curious since they came out guns blazing the last time and I can't even find a mention on their site about this last controversial comment.

conversationpc wrote:Where's Media Matters on the latest Don Imus controversy? Just curious since they came out guns blazing the last time and I can't even find a mention on their site about this last controversial comment.

Not surprising, as they are nothing but a tool of the radical left, but what did Imus say this time?

Rip Rokken wrote:what did Imus say this time?

Some athlete dude got arrested etc, etc... Imus goes "What color was he"... the dude says "African-American"... Imus says "There you have it."

Rhiannon wrote:

Rip Rokken wrote:what did Imus say this time?

Some athlete dude got arrested etc, etc... Imus goes "What color was he"... the dude says "African-American"... Imus says "There you have it."

FO SHIZZZZZLE!!!

Holy Mother of Dog.

Rhiannon wrote:Holy Mother of Dog.

Does that make her a biiiiiaaaaaatch?

It can be taken either way.

A. He was arrested because he's black. (Which is what Imus said he meant)

or

B. He's black so that's why he's in trouble with the law. (This was what the baiters are accusing him of meaning).

The Reverunt Sharpton is giving it a day to decide whether to make a stink about it.

Wonder if Sharpton's ever heard Chris Rock's comedy routines?

StoneCold wrote:It can be taken either way.

A. He was arrested because he's black. (Which is what Imus said he meant)

or

B. He's black so that's why he's in trouble with the law. (This was what the baiters are accusing him of meaning).

The Reverunt Sharpton is giving it a day to decide whether to make a stink about it.

Wonder if Sharpton's ever heard Chris Rock's comedy routines?

StoneCold wrote:It can be taken either way.

A. He was arrested because he's black. (Which is what Imus said he meant)

or

B. He's black so that's why he's in trouble with the law. (This was what the baiters are accusing him of meaning).

The Reverunt Sharpton is giving it a day to decide whether to make a stink about it.

Wonder if Sharpton's ever heard Chris Rock's comedy routines?

I've never been a race baiter but I IMMEDIATELY thought choice B above and I think probably 80% of the audience thought the same thing.

Well, my take is this:

The world has become a bunch of sensitive babies.....who cares if he meant choice 2?

Can we please stop holding the hands of these grown-up minorities? Stick and Stones, man....sticks and stones...

Waaaaahhhhh, someone called me a name. Someone said something about my gender/race/dick size.....

political Correctness is ruining this country.....belee dat!

StocktontoMalone wrote:Well, my take is this:

The world has become a bunch of sensitive babies.....who cares if he meant choice 2?

Can we please stop holding the hands of these grown-up minorities? Stick and Stones, man....sticks and stones...

Waaaaahhhhh, someone called me a name. Someone said something about my gender/race/dick size.....

political Correctness is ruining this country.....belee dat!

That's not what this is about for me. I'm wondering what the slant on Media Matters is. Why did they push the previous episode with Imus so hard but they have nothing to say this time?

conversationpc wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:Well, my take is this:

The world has become a bunch of sensitive babies.....who cares if he meant choice 2?

Can we please stop holding the hands of these grown-up minorities? Stick and Stones, man....sticks and stones...

Waaaaahhhhh, someone called me a name. Someone said something about my gender/race/dick size.....

political Correctness is ruining this country.....belee dat!

That's not what this is about for me. I'm wondering what the slant on Media Matters is. Why did they push the previous episode with Imus so hard but they have nothing to say this time?

Easy....they already ruined the guy with the first two 'faux pas's's's's'(however you say it)......they really don't need to do anything.

conversationpc wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:Well, my take is this:

The world has become a bunch of sensitive babies.....who cares if he meant choice 2?

Can we please stop holding the hands of these grown-up minorities? Stick and Stones, man....sticks and stones...

Waaaaahhhhh, someone called me a name. Someone said something about my gender/race/dick size.....

political Correctness is ruining this country.....belee dat!

That's not what this is about for me. I'm wondering what the slant on Media Matters is. Why did they push the previous episode with Imus so hard but they have nothing to say this time?

I'm sure they're on it. This time there's the option to consider. Which way did he mean it, and how do we spin it?

I hate to be an Imus defender...but he was talking about how blacks are unfairly targeted by police, soley because they are black. He was discussing this with his BLACK co-host...who defended him...In THIS case he said nothing wrong. The whole conversation has to be taken in CONTEXT, or it gets skewed as you see happening now.

RossValoryRocks wrote:I hate to be an Imus defender...but he was talking about how blacks are unfairly targeted by police, soley because they are black. He was discussing this with his BLACK co-host...who defended him...In THIS case he said nothing wrong. The whole conversation has to be taken in CONTEXT, or it gets skewed as you see happening now.

Yes, but was the skewing: Leptokurtic, Mesokurtic, or Platykurtic? That is the question.....lol

RossValoryRocks wrote:I hate to be an Imus defender...but he was talking about how blacks are unfairly targeted by police, soley because they are black. He was discussing this with his BLACK co-host...who defended him...In THIS case he said nothing wrong. The whole conversation has to be taken in CONTEXT, or it gets skewed as you see happening now.

Is that what he talked about BEFORE the clip that has been played on radio/TV? I haven't been able to find a clip any longer than that segment.

StocktontoMalone wrote:

RossValoryRocks wrote:I hate to be an Imus defender...but he was talking about how blacks are unfairly targeted by police, soley because they are black. He was discussing this with his BLACK co-host...who defended him...In THIS case he said nothing wrong. The whole conversation has to be taken in CONTEXT, or it gets skewed as you see happening now.

Yes, but was the skewing: Leptokurtic, Mesokurtic, or Platykurtic? That is the question.....lol

Platykurtic of course...since the skew is to the negative...

conversationpc wrote:

RossValoryRocks wrote:I hate to be an Imus defender...but he was talking about how blacks are unfairly targeted by police, soley because they are black. He was discussing this with his BLACK co-host...who defended him...In THIS case he said nothing wrong. The whole conversation has to be taken in CONTEXT, or it gets skewed as you see happening now.

Is that what he talked about BEFORE the clip that has been played on radio/TV? I haven't been able to find a clip any longer than that segment.

That was what he was speaking about before hand...then when he was told about Pacman being arrested he used the arrest to highlight his point, hence the "There you go!"

RossValoryRocks wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

RossValoryRocks wrote:I hate to be an Imus defender...but he was talking about how blacks are unfairly targeted by police, soley because they are black. He was discussing this with his BLACK co-host...who defended him...In THIS case he said nothing wrong. The whole conversation has to be taken in CONTEXT, or it gets skewed as you see happening now.

Is that what he talked about BEFORE the clip that has been played on radio/TV? I haven't been able to find a clip any longer than that segment.

That was what he was speaking about before hand...then when he was told about Pacman being arrested he used the arrest to highlight his point, hence the "There you go!"

OK...I'll take your word for until I hear the entire context.

The question still remains...Where is Media Matters on this. If this was Beck, Limbaugh, or O'Reilly, they'd be all over them, regardless of the context.

conversationpc wrote:

StocktontoMalone wrote:Well, my take is this:

The world has become a bunch of sensitive babies.....who cares if he meant choice 2?

Can we please stop holding the hands of these grown-up minorities? Stick and Stones, man....sticks and stones...

Waaaaahhhhh, someone called me a name. Someone said something about my gender/race/dick size.....

political Correctness is ruining this country.....belee dat!

That's not what this is about for me. I'm wondering what the slant on Media Matters is. Why did they push the previous episode with Imus so hard but they have nothing to say this time?

MM's gonna let Imus slide this time. Sharpton would be smart to leave it alone as well. It's not an open/shut case and could backfire.

I love it how Oprah had a show featuring Chris Rock in spite of his content ("Them two N*ggas Got Shot!) then turns around bashing Imus' previous comment.

conversationpc wrote:

StoneCold wrote:It can be taken either way.

A. He was arrested because he's black. (Which is what Imus said he meant)

or

B. He's black so that's why he's in trouble with the law. (This was what the baiters are accusing him of meaning).

The Reverunt Sharpton is giving it a day to decide whether to make a stink about it.

Wonder if Sharpton's ever heard Chris Rock's comedy routines?

I've never been a race baiter but I IMMEDIATELY thought choice B above and I think probably 80% of the audience thought the same thing.

That's actually exactly the way I took it on first hearing it -- could mean either A or B -- but of course, there are just some things we aren't allowed to say no matter what the intent.

conversationpc wrote:Where's Media Matters on the latest Don Imus controversy? Just curious since they came out guns blazing the last time and I can't even find a mention on their site about this last controversial comment.

O Reilly gave one possible reason to this on the Factor last night. The Obama campaign cant have any arguments/controversey about race going on this summer(unless he feels fit to raise one himself like he did last Friday) coming from anyone. Even though Imus is not an Obama supporter, it would raise enought background noise about the subject of race.

Thats the only thing that makes sense, Media Matters marching in lockstep with Obama central![/img]

1) Black people need to worry about how they treat each other...not how white people treat them.
2) Fuck Don Imus
3) Fuck Pacman Jones
4) Imus is fucked either way here. He's either saying police unlawfully target black people or that Pacman Jones was just doing what all black people do...break the law and get arrested. Personally, I think the latter is much more accurate.

Rip Rokken wrote:Not surprising, as they are nothing but a tool of the radical left, but what did Imus say this time?

And MediaMatters would differ from Brent Bozell's Media Research Center/Newsbusters just how?
God forbid the left should have a media watchdog site of their own.
I thought you guys believed in competition?

Those prone to labeling the site "radical", are the very hair-trigger radio squawking heads who can’t keep from continually landing in it’s sights.

Gin and Tonic Sky wrote: O Reilly gave one possible reason to this on the Factor last night. The Obama campaign cant have any arguments/controversey about race going on this summer(unless he feels fit to raise one himself like he did last Friday) coming from anyone. Even though Imus is not an Obama supporter, it would raise enought background noise about the subject of race.

Thats the only thing that makes sense, Media Matters marching in lockstep with Obama central![/img]

Uh-huh.
A five second trip to the website is all it took to find this newstory displayed right on the MM homepage.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806250002?f=h_latest

The_Noble_Cause wrote:And MediaMatters would differ from Brent Bozell's Media Research Center/Newsbusters just how?

Newsbusters and Media Research for the most part, monitor so called "mainstream"media -- you know, the media that is not supposed to be biased or partisan.

Media Matters watches conservative media not for bias, but in the hopes of catching someone saying something outrageous (in or out of context, doesn't matter to them) so that they can create a scandal and hopefully get them taken off the air.

Barb wrote:Media Matters watches conservative media not for bias, but in the hopes of catching someone saying something outrageous (in or out of context, doesn't matter to them) so that they can create a scandal and hopefully get them taken off the air.

That's not true.
Media Matters monitors everything - mainstream and right wing alike.
I'm on the website right now - along with the usual rogues gallery of liars (Limbaugh, Hannity etc), both the Associated Press and MSNBC are cited for inaccuracies.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

Gin and Tonic Sky wrote: O Reilly gave one possible reason to this on the Factor last night. The Obama campaign cant have any arguments/controversey about race going on this summer(unless he feels fit to raise one himself like he did last Friday) coming from anyone. Even though Imus is not an Obama supporter, it would raise enought background noise about the subject of race.

Thats the only thing that makes sense, Media Matters marching in lockstep with Obama central![/img]

Uh-huh.
A five second trip to the website is all it took to find this newstory displayed right on the MM homepage.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806250002?f=h_latest

Yeah, looks like they finally felt the pressure and put out a story YESTERDAY.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

Barb wrote:Media Matters watches conservative media not for bias, but in the hopes of catching someone saying something outrageous (in or out of context, doesn't matter to them) so that they can create a scandal and hopefully get them taken off the air.

That's not true.
Media Matters monitors everything - mainstream and right wing alike.
I'm on the website right now - along with the usual rogues gallery of liars (Limbaugh, Hannity etc), both the Associated Press and MSNBC are cited for inaccuracies.

yes, because MSNBC dared allow Trent Lott to speak out loud, LOL.

Barb wrote:(in or out of context, doesn't matter to them) so that they can create a scandal and hopefully get them taken off the air.

Every soundbyte or video clip is in-context.
Perhaps, generously so - sometimes spanning close to five minutes.
I hear right wing liars like Savage and Beck play the out-of-context card all the time.
Usually they just read the anonymous comments left by website users and pretend they are an official part of the website.