Jump to content

The Media/Journalism Thread


Faulkner

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I finally cancelled my subscription. I'll have to do without except I did keep my subscription to the crosswords. Amidst all of this with that paper I thought there was still some decent journalism going on and I still do. But not because of the leadership, despite it. The fact Bennett after everything is still seen favorably after his atrocious management of the opinion section, is frankly inexcusable. Sulzberger thinking he's still leadership material tells me this paper isn't going to change or get better. I am all for reading a diversity of opinions in the opinion section, but the editorial staff makes the decision on the content they publish. They get hundreds of submissions a week and they go out of their way to invite this garbage from Cotton. The only good thing this did is probably ended any aspirations he has. But putting the actual content aside, the op-ed was poorly written. Who edited the piece?

 

Anyone who thinks Bari Weiss has anything of value to contribute has their head in their you know what. Her own history of blocking, reporting, and attempting to get people fired whose views do not align with hers is the utmost hypocrisy of this entire cancel culture garbage. The fact she can go on social media and blatantly lie about the response to the editorial should get her canned. But it won't. Stephens is a worm and tried to get a professor fired for calling him a bedbug on social media - hardly any kind of slur, at least none I am aware of. He's fragile and a poor writer. 

 

They need a diversity of opinions I concur but choosing people who lie and believe in conspiracies and push fascism ain't it. I frankly still can't believe they published something from a guy who promoted using military violence on American citizens. As if this is an opinion worthy of appearing there. That tells me all I need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

 

Agree.  I think what appalled me (and still appalls me) is that Bennet and/or his staff sought out Tom Cotton to write that disgusting editorial, rather than the other way around.  Learning about that tidbit changed my view on how editorial pages are run entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

IDK about all that; you probably make an excellent point.  I just think you shouldn't go out of your way as an editorial page editor to solicit opinions that you KNOW are inflammatory and dangerous.  It's one thing if Cotton had submitted the piece and Bennet had chosen to print it.  But, to ask for something you have to know has the potential to harm more than help?  It's like the journalism equivalent of asking Megan McTavish to pen a story about a lesbian getting pregnant as a result of rape.  (Oh, wait.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

She's the epitome of failing upwards. Last week she was whining about her neighborhood in New York being a "war zone" (or something like that). A neighbor pointed out that it was not, and she hasn't even been there in months. This then led to her whining because she said people were trying to find out where she and her ugly bootlicking husband are living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • The last I remember seeing Ben, he was divorcing Amanda. He came to tell Evie that he still loved her, but was leaving town so that Amanda wouldn't blame Evie for his divorcing her. I'm not exactly sure when, but Evie doesn't leave town until sometime after Nola and Quint's engagement ball. I'm not sure if she leaves before or after Justin leaves in Sept(?) of '83. I grew to like Helena when she became friends with Vanessa, once she's edging her way out of Quint's life.
    • Please register in order to view this content

    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • It sure was!  With respect, how does that make sense?  These men are young, I don't see that. 
    • I hope this played better than it sounds, because I'm imagining two separate scenes (the attack by Arnie, and later Charles getting shot). In my mind, it should have been a fluid single sequence. I wonder if or how often "bastard" was uttered in this scene. Fare thee well, Christopher Reeve. I've said it before, but pop culture's gain was daytime's definite loss. Imagine seeing HIM day after day, year after year, decade after decade, conceivably until they stopped producing soaps in NYC.   Well, that answers my "bastard" question. Good lord, the roads of Rosehill are packed with high-strung drivers and/or pedestrians. More sequences that I hope played better than they sound.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I think Ben had already left while under Marland and only returned briefly to reconcile with Eve. The whole thing confuses me as I thought for a long time that Eve left the show to go be with him and that was when they reconciled, but it seems like he returned, they got back together, then he left and maybe they were still together until she left to join him? I have no idea.  It does seem like the interim writers were using some characters like Justin and Helena who were quickly dumped under Kobe/Long, which is a shame. Helena is one of those characters who likely always had a shelf life but Rose Alaio was such a vibrant screen presence, if Kobe/Long had just been patient, she likely would have fit in well in the Reva era.
    • Also, the lawsuit story was not the right story to bring Naomi and Bill into a court battle since those types of lawsuits are usually resolved via settlements.
    • I know that Sara did eventually become Carrie's therapist, but I was curious if the show had her make comments regarding Carrie's stunts of making it seem as though Justin was cheating on Jackie.  Given that Justin cheated on Sara with both Jackie and Brandy, I wondered if it was wise of her to counsel Carrie given the conflict of interest involved. @DRW50I think once Adam/Sara end up married.. Marland didn't see any reason to explore Sara's personal life after the actor playing Adam was released.  I know that Sara lasts until at least Christmas 1982 on the show.. but I don't think she ended up staying on for very long into 1983. The period between Marland quitting and Pam Long starting was the perfect time to clean house on characters that had outgrown their usefulness  (i.e. Ben, Evie, Sara, Jennifer, Morgan).. and tying up stories started by Marland that were too complex (Mona Enright, Mark/Jennifer/Amanda triangle).
    • Unpopular opinion:  The focus on the soap opera tropes over the mysteries and crimes was partly what did the show in.  Also, featuring characters not involved in the legal, police, and criminal elements also hurt the show and took away what made it unique. Featuring characters like Jody, Raven, Sky, etc hurt the show long term.  The show ABCified starting in 1976/1977 and then went through a youthification period starting in 1981.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy