Hack L.A. Times Reporter Smears Thompson
It's rather pathetic how Tina Duant of the Los Angeles Times attempted to label Fred Thompson a racist for playing the role of a white supremacist in a handful of episodes of a crappy television series 19 years ago. The concept of "acting" seems to slip her mind.
The Times has been losing readership and credibility for years for junk articles like this. I'm glad their doing their best to help that trend continue.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:48 AM
Comments
1
Disparage someone because of a role they played, in L.-freakin'-A. of all places? A new low maybe?
Posted by: DoorHold at May 05, 2007 10:23 AM (fEnee)
2
WaPo reported today that is has lost 16% in revenue. Can we wonder why these things are happening?
Poor and biased reporting can not be the cause. Nope, not here in our press. (Goes away shaking his head with tongue firmly planted in cheek.)
Poor and biased reporting can not be the cause. Nope, not here in our press. (Goes away shaking his head with tongue firmly planted in cheek.)
Posted by: CoRev at May 05, 2007 11:51 AM (0U8Ob)
3
Daunt is absolutely not saying what is being portrayed here. She asks a valid question for the dawning YouTube age:
"How does a performer eyeing a presidential run deal with a video history that can be downloaded, taken out of context, chopped into embarrassing pieces and then distributed endlessly though cyberspace?"
When she specifies that the videos will be "taken out of context" and "chopped into embarrassing pieces," she's underscoring the fact that these video clips do not and will not necessarily represent reality.
On-demand video clips are something new that has been thrown into the mix. Look at the Hilary/1984 video that got so much notoriety recently. The quote from Kaplan emphasizes this:
"The difference YouTube makes is that the networks, and the paid media campaigns, are no longer the gatekeepers of what clips get distributed."
Daunt is simply reporting on two things: a) a cultural phenomenon that will have an as-yet unknown effect on the coming electon, and b) chatter that has apparently already sprung up on the Internets.
She's not "disparaging" Thompson; rather, she's greasing the skids for him--the opposite of the way that the article is being portrayed here.
"How does a performer eyeing a presidential run deal with a video history that can be downloaded, taken out of context, chopped into embarrassing pieces and then distributed endlessly though cyberspace?"
When she specifies that the videos will be "taken out of context" and "chopped into embarrassing pieces," she's underscoring the fact that these video clips do not and will not necessarily represent reality.
On-demand video clips are something new that has been thrown into the mix. Look at the Hilary/1984 video that got so much notoriety recently. The quote from Kaplan emphasizes this:
"The difference YouTube makes is that the networks, and the paid media campaigns, are no longer the gatekeepers of what clips get distributed."
Daunt is simply reporting on two things: a) a cultural phenomenon that will have an as-yet unknown effect on the coming electon, and b) chatter that has apparently already sprung up on the Internets.
She's not "disparaging" Thompson; rather, she's greasing the skids for him--the opposite of the way that the article is being portrayed here.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 05, 2007 01:05 PM (2gpUk)
4
Yeah, I'm with Doc on this one. Nowhere in that article does she call Thompson a racist. She's just saying that with YouTube, a bunch of people are going to start doing exactly that.
I know you're trying to prove this whole "liberal media bias," but your going way out on a limb with this one.
I know you're trying to prove this whole "liberal media bias," but your going way out on a limb with this one.
Posted by: dmarek at May 05, 2007 01:33 PM (v9k7i)
Posted by: Doc Washboard at May 05, 2007 01:55 PM (2gpUk)
6
In the end I also gotta agree with Doc. She does wrap it up in the end sending the message that Doc was talking about, I think what raised the red flags is that, for the first half of the article, it seemed that she was just trying to arm the smear campaign she was "warning" against. She didn't really take the logical next step of noting the absurdity of smearing Thompson with his acting career.
Posted by: K-Det at May 06, 2007 08:58 AM (4N6AE)
7
I would have agreed with you Doc if it weren't for the fact that she only wrote in detail about Fred Thompson's role, highlighting the chars most racist comments. The comments themselves do not add to the story so why were they included? Playing the race card in LA? Pandering to base emotions in order to sell papers or instigate controversy? I don't know her motives but the addition of those comments served no positive role.
Given the large potion of hispanic readers how many do you suppose realized she was refering to a role Thompson played and not quoting Thompson directly?
Given the large potion of hispanic readers how many do you suppose realized she was refering to a role Thompson played and not quoting Thompson directly?
Posted by: Barry at May 06, 2007 01:27 PM (C4uCu)
Posted by: SouthernRoots at May 06, 2007 04:30 PM (EsOdX)
9
Doc's right about the substance of the article, however, the important concept that SouthernRoots beat me to was the impact of a headline.
Fred Thompson and Racist are right next to each other in the headline. Six months from now the only thing that folks will remember is "Isn't Fred Thompson a racist?"
Fred Thompson and Racist are right next to each other in the headline. Six months from now the only thing that folks will remember is "Isn't Fred Thompson a racist?"
Posted by: brando at May 07, 2007 12:20 AM (rDQC9)
10
I do think the canard of a liberal media is a knee-jerk reaction that, at least with the Post and the Times (remember Judith Miller?), is a convenient way to refute anything you don't agree with, no matter what the true substance of the story. I'm not saying bias doesn't exist, it's just not the same media it was in the 70's.
As for a character being confused with character, I have a friend, Larry Peterson, who portrayed a racist in the movie CSA. When his employer, Time-Warner, got complaints from some loud-mouthed a-holes who confused acting with Larry's real-life views, Time Warner fired him. That was after Larry gave more than 20 years to the company.
Yes, America's corporations, standing up for their employees' rights.
Now, if you want to go up against unfettered corporate power in the US, I'm on board with that.
As for a character being confused with character, I have a friend, Larry Peterson, who portrayed a racist in the movie CSA. When his employer, Time-Warner, got complaints from some loud-mouthed a-holes who confused acting with Larry's real-life views, Time Warner fired him. That was after Larry gave more than 20 years to the company.
Yes, America's corporations, standing up for their employees' rights.
Now, if you want to go up against unfettered corporate power in the US, I'm on board with that.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 07, 2007 09:32 AM (kxecL)
11
brando,
Remember when Bush said he was "the commander guy?" Well, that quote was taken out of context and what he was really saying was that he was the guy who listened to commanders. I know that because it's being reported in a lot of places.
Remember when Harry Reid said "the war is lost?" Well, that quote was taken out of context and what he was really saying was that if we continued to follow the president's policies, the war is lost. I've only seen that in one place.
So, to your point, six months from now people will only remember Harry Reid said the war was lost. That's the work of our liberal media.
Oh, and how much did John Edwards' haircut cost? Yeah, we all know, don't we.
Remember when Bush said he was "the commander guy?" Well, that quote was taken out of context and what he was really saying was that he was the guy who listened to commanders. I know that because it's being reported in a lot of places.
Remember when Harry Reid said "the war is lost?" Well, that quote was taken out of context and what he was really saying was that if we continued to follow the president's policies, the war is lost. I've only seen that in one place.
So, to your point, six months from now people will only remember Harry Reid said the war was lost. That's the work of our liberal media.
Oh, and how much did John Edwards' haircut cost? Yeah, we all know, don't we.
Posted by: David Terrenoire at May 07, 2007 09:38 AM (kxecL)
12
I'm glad THEY'RE doing THEIR best.
"their" shows possession.
"they're" is a contraction of "they are"
I know you guys don't need all that book-learnin to know right from wrong, but come on.
"their" shows possession.
"they're" is a contraction of "they are"
I know you guys don't need all that book-learnin to know right from wrong, but come on.
Posted by: gurgleblast at May 08, 2007 02:11 PM (GQjjj)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0083 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0057 seconds, 20 records returned.
Page size 10 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.