As you well know by now CNN host Rick Sanchez, a Cuban-American has been axed for comments he made this past Thursday on the satellite radio show "Stand Up! with Pete Dominick." He called Comedy Central pundit I guess you could call him Jon Stewart a bigot who has "a white liberal establishment point-of-view" and said the media in general is filled with "elite Northeast liberals" but here's the kicker. He pointed out that Jews like Stewart don't face the same discrimination as Mexicans and implied that CNN and the msm are being run by Jews and elitists who look down on Hispanics. OK so deconstructing and soapie can help me out here:
Jon Stewart is a bigot - anybody's opinion
who has a white liberal establishment point-of-view - obvious
msm filled with elite Northeast liberals - the sky is blue and the earth is round
Jews don't face the same discrimination as Mexicans - would seem to be true although for some reason you can't say this
CNN and the msm are run by Jews - you'd really have to do a complete ethnic breakdown of news producers and directors and presidents of news divisions here. Anyone wanna do this? Saty?
and elitists who look down on Hispanics - entirely subjective but hey it's the man's opinion and last I checked
About the only place you can talk freely these days is in your living room but be careful of your cable guy, he might report you. Some elements of truth, overall it wasn't great, kind of icky but I've heard worse. For me it's a Free Speech thing and basically Rants are covered. What do you think?
The Libs don't really want free speech, they only say that they do, but they are the first ones to want to boycott Glenn beck.
ReplyDeleteThis is NOT a free speech issue.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution provided that GOVERNMENT may not interfere with freedom of speech. That's number one.
Number two: Sanchez did say what he wanted to say. No one stopped him. His PRIVATE employer, CNN, made a decision to remove him from his job because they didn't like what he said and didn't want their company associated with those remarks. Perfectly legit.
I imagine if any of us were working for a private corp. and we said publicly something the CEO and the BOD found demeaning or detrimental to the company's image, we'd be leg go as well.
Sanchez had the right to say what he said. CNN, as a PRIVATE CORPORATION, had the right to fire him for saying it.
That's capitalism, friends.
The government had nothing to do with this. Nada.
Shaw Kenawe
Nor, may I add, liberals.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot blame the government nor liberals for what happened in a capitalistic company.
CNN fired its employee because CNN didn't like what it said, and didn't want what Sanchez said to represent their point of view.
Why so many conservatives don't understand this is a mystery.
Perhaps they don't know how the First Amendment works?
Shaw Kenawe
Wow, for once I agree with Shaw.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with any of you. I'm not simply talking about the letter of the law, that technically CNN had the right to do what they did. I'm talking about the spirit of free speech which we really are not very big on in this country. Here's a radical proposal: this general category of someone in the spotlight says something controversial well what would happen if we just allowed it from now on? would the sky fall?
ReplyDeleteThe thing is with free speech that one needs to take responsibility for the speech they give though Z-man. He said it, as was his right, and it was CNN's right to can him for it.
ReplyDeleteFree speech need not be responsible to be free. If only responsible things are allowed then free speech means nothing. Its only true test comes in cases like these. Again what would happen if from here on out we would allow this stuff? There is also the Boomerang Effect, how do you know someday someone may attempt to censor YOU Beth?
ReplyDeleteThis whole business of do the Jews run the media? Is it true or not? I've no friggin' idea but I don't lose sleep over it. As I've said if the topic weren't so incendiary the simple answer would be as I said a complete demographic profile, an in depth ethnic and religious breakdown of the entire news business. As it stands now it could be true, maybe it's not true and I really don't care but why is the topic so damn touchy? I never got this one, as long as the news is good why should we care who's in charge? if a bunch of brothers are in charge cool just give us the news.
ReplyDeleteI see Shaw's point and agree with it but yeah...seems everyone is a panzy ass these days. Perfect example at the law office I work at. We used to have a TV in lobby. It'd alternate each day between FOX and CNN. Aparently that wasn't good enough. There was even a sign stating as much but wouldn't you know...some client or some other such thing occured and now the TV isn't even there anymore.
ReplyDeletePanzy ass bullshit if you ask me. If I were the CEO/President I'd tell whomever if they were offended by one station or the other tough shit. Wait in the elevator bay then or schedule your appointments to coincide with the news organization that comports with your liking.
Instead they folded.
Free speech need not be responsible to be free.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, to be a free society, people have to be held responsible for the actions.
I'd be careful with that one Beth as I can just imagine a tyrranical regime stating as much as soon as someone challenges them.
ReplyDelete"Instead they folded." I hear ya Soap. But the cardinal rule- the customer is always right.
ReplyDelete(a dang good reason to stay out of marketing, sales, or any other position that requires
dealing with customers!!
Soapie, you have a problem with personal responsibility?
ReplyDeleteNot in the least and I think you full well know that. And, while I agree that people should indeed held responsible for their actions, there is a far different thing between actions and merely words.
ReplyDeleteFree speech need not be responsible or correct to be perfectly legal. What good is free speech really if the speech we're gonna protect is only safe speech? means nothing.
ReplyDeleteExactly. There's no purpose to protect speech that everyone is in agreement upon.
ReplyDeleteIt should go like this. Rick Sanchez is allowed to say what he says without repercussions and someone else can say you're a dick. What's wrong with that? What are we afraid of?
ReplyDeleteBeth I've always felt you are responsible as a blogger but that can be in the eye of the beholder too. Let's say some liberal blogger friend feels you said something that was personally irresponsible and tried to censor you, that's one of the biggest reasons why I hew to the principle that in the vast majority of cases free speech should prevail. It's just too risky and so I kinda go with Free Speech most of the time except when somebody deletes his or herself I have no control over that.
ReplyDeletethe spirit of free speech which we really are not very big on in this country
ReplyDeleteThere's actually quite a bit of 'freedom' that we're not very big on in this country.
'Freedoms' are platitudes and catchy propaganda slogans that we use as a nation to pat ourselves on our collective backs about to justify our (erroneous) opinion that we're somehow morally superior to the rest of the planet.
We 'liberate' other countries, because the way 'we' do it is always better than the way 'they' do it. They're 'repressed'. We bring 'freedom'.
Meanwhile, intolerance has been woven into the very fabric of this nation from its inception. Various groups have always been less 'free' than others at the same time we tout 'freedom for all'.
It's all relative.
It makes a nice feel-good slogan.
And it gives us the moral justification to go on tyrannizing whomever we can exploit the easiest and for the most gain.
I really don't disagree with you here for a change. In fact it's quite good.
ReplyDeleteUhoh... someone put the good stuff in your coffeepot at work again.
ReplyDelete:P
It's a blue moon moment.
ReplyDeleteAh yes the java at work. A high price to pay for a low-wage job.
ReplyDelete