Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The excuses John King is making for covering Sarah Palin's foolishness on CNN are just

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
mfcorey1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 06:12 PM
Original message
The excuses John King is making for covering Sarah Palin's foolishness on CNN are just
pathetic. He really sounds like the lame stream media. He refuses to admit that Sarah is there for SArah. Journalistic embarrassment. CNN ignored thousands at rallies in Wisconsin but here they are kissing the rear of a woman who is making a fool out of all of the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Angry Dragon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. They just love their media whores..............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. I believe all the unnecessary media coverage is in response to reverse psychology
propounded by Palin. (Please excuse the alliteration.)

Palin repeats the meme of the "lamestream media" which is code for "I dare ya . . . "

The media bites the bait with either the motivation of "one-upping" Palin with catching her saying or doing something really stupid or overcompensating by showing they can portray her "fairly" (meaning by her standards).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. There's an additional reason and it's ridiculously superficial.
She photographs well. She's physically pretty according to many definitions, and the camera rather likes her. So she WILL get coverage because she looks good. She will get coverage and she'll be given credibility and be cast in a more basically favorable light that a less-attractive woman will not get. An ugly woman will not garner anywhere near what she gets. Most viewers are visually-oriented. They like looking at pretty things, and pretty people. Consider how many times by now that you've heard the nauseating comments about mitt romney such that he "looks presidential." It's all looks. Superficial, empty, mindless, mile-wide/millimeter-deep. It's why she can get away with stuff, and why cameras and reporters follow her around like sharks after chum.

It's a shame, but I think it's true. People like to hire pretty people more than they hire homely people. Bosses like to promote pretty people much more than ugly people. The easier a candidate, or a model, or a product, or an anything is on the eyes, the easier it goes over in the minds and hearts of observers. I mean, look at the women who get hired on Pox Noise. They all look like inflatable sex-toys, especially the blonde ones, with the exception of greta van susteren, and she's only there as a token.

Disgraceful, but true, I'm afraid. I will NEVER be shaken from my opinion that the MAIN reason john mcsame picked palin as a running mate was because he got a good look at her and deep-down something told him "y'know, I wouldn't mind looking at that for the next four-to-eight years..." Watching his behavior and body language when he introduced her that first day immediately after the Dem convention convinced me beyond any doubt. He stood there, one step to the side and two steps back, repeatedly glancing down at her ass while fiddling with his wedding ring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. And I totally agree with you.
I always suspected that the hatred against Hillary was simply because she didn't fit the "hot" woman criteria that would have been her passport to the WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Holy Cow are you ever correct.
Remember when Hillary was First Lady and haters criticized her hair, her style of dress, her figure, EVERYTHING. That was certainly a big part. Also - that she had the nerve to speak up and speak out, and take on issues that weren't the traditional "women's" issues - like beautifying America the way Lady Bird Johnson did, or children's issues, or something more benign. She had a BRAIN. She was always more about what was INSIDE her head rather than what was wrapped around the outside. She was, pardon the expression, an "uppity woman." And she wasn't some beauty pageant bimbo alum, on top of it, with a lot of makeup and big balloon lips, which made her whole package that much harder to accept. Never mind that there are more women voters out there who look like Hillary more than there are women voters who are pageant graduates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AmBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Media corporate overlords are the BIGGER reason........
...that she gets attention. They prefer her policies over the progressive policies that would actually benefit the people of this country. After all, it is Koch-money that funded her beloved Tea Party and every time they give her free air time the lamestream media" are voting for who THEY want in 2012.

p.s. I think the who "lamestream media" thing is just a ruse because they obviously love her and she adores them!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. AND - let's not forget - most of them are middle-aged and older MALES.
They're gonna go for the purty gal every time. And sarah knows it and milks the shit out of it. She wouldn't get a fraction of the attention she does if she weren't by many definitions a "looker."

Anyone remember Geraldine Ferraro? Shirley Chisholm? They were hardly beauty pageant-types. It seems to me that it's only with the Hillary campaign a few years ago that a woman candidate's BRAINS counted for anywhere near as much as her looks did. And Hillary's BRAINS are just so formidable that they smack you straight in the face, knock you down, flip you over, and damn near give you an enema.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. And Candy Crowley's spin on the Weiner-gate and obvious defense of Breithart...
made me shut the TV. Can you believe these people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HipChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. So there are less than 150 waiting for her there...most of which is media...LMAO!
Edited on Mon May-30-11 06:27 PM by HipChick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
6. When was John King not lame? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shireen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. it's disgusting
i made myself watch to see how long he'd go on with this fawning coverage. Finally could not take it anymore and switched channels!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
10. I quite cnn a long time ago
when so called dr gupta, or how ever his name is spelled, did a hit piece on MM's Sicko.
You know what I feel like I'm better informed on any subject since that day too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I remember that. Gupka got a shit kicking on his blog/site
and deserved it.

he seems to be a tiny bit more humble now, but I'd never trust him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. There were people here on DU defending Gupta..
Quite a few if I remember correctly.

They simply would not admit that MM _owned_ Gupta in that little televised confrontation they had.

I had a post up in my Journal about it at the time..

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Fumesucker/42

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A Simple Game Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
12. Pay no attention, he just wants to get close enough so he can
pull another Katie Couric gotcha on Sarah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
13. Palin had better not complain about "lame-stream media" again
She's being fawned over by TWO major networks now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
17. Who? Never heard of her. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ladjf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-11 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
18. CNN has become an irrelevant operation. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC