Reply #30: LOL [View All]

[marions ghost]

as much fun as that would be, I think there are more civil ways to deal with serious transgressions. When you have as much clout in the mainstream as CNN does, there is a certain level of responsibility. (At least I THINK they hold themselves a cut above Rush and Co). Whether CNN is "responding to viewers" is anybody's guess. I doubt it...just more CYA. The apology will never reach most people and so is meaningless, except to those who did take the time to protest appropriately. Meanwhile the slur is out there and appears to have a long shelf-life. It's very damaging to give legitimacy to this kind of statement. And that's what a mere slap on the wrist does (compare that with Dan Rather's grovellng apologies and rapid exit).

We liberals are not getting anywhere being thankful for crumbs in this media-oriented game. That's the mode of people who have not been treated fairly for so long they've forgotten what it was like not to be abused. There's nothing extreme in my suggestion, as you imply. People have lost their jobs for less. It's completely irresponsible and malicious in this country to associate ANYONE with Al Qaeda on national TV, much less someone who is so much in the news. It is career-damaging slander.

This is a productive discussion --it ties into things I've been thinking about lately, as the NeoCon's Hindenburg has hit some snags. How much is it necessary to "forgive" the trangressions of people who will do you in in a heartbeat--people who know NO boundaries? People who look for every weakness to exploit? We have let them walk all over us and it hasn't been very effective. I think we have to start setting some boundaries. Don't you?