When the US-based Fox News line comes through
The front page story on News.com.au right now is a US cartoon apparently mocking a former US vice-presidential candidate who now works for Murdoch’s Fox News. That’s bizarre enough, but what makes it extra bizarre is this clearly wrong assertion in her interest:
Mrs Palin, a Fox News contributor, recently slammed White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and radio talk host Rush Limbaugh for using the word “retard”.
No, she didn’t “slam” Rush Limbaugh – actually, she tried to draw a flimsy distinction between the two, as to why it was loathsome for Emanuel to use the word, but okay for Limbaugh to use it. “Rush Limbaugh was using satire”, she said, pathetically.
And I say “clearly” wrong, in that the hypocrisy has been widely commented-on in the US (although not by Fox News). But it won’t be so “clearly” wrong to Australian readers unless they’ve been watching recent US political news very closely – although some will have seen this incident, now that The Colbert Report is on ABC2. Maybe News Ltd’s assumption that Australians are entirely ignorant about US politics save what it chooses to tell us, is no longer quite so reliable.
So, to recap: News.com.au is beating up a story about a perceived slight to one of its employees, and relying on Australians’ lack of familiarity with the details of US politics to outright lie to us in her favour. Good work.
What is it with the Right and championing people who are manifestly unfit for public office? Reagan, Joh-Bjelke, Bush Jr., Palin … the list goes on.
Not retarded?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html?em=&pagewanted=all
Worth pointing out, by the way, that Family Guy works for Murdoch too.
And Rupert has never seemed to particularly mind the repeated savaging of right-wingers, while the show’s made money for him. So just remember, righties…your boss loves the show!
Ross Sharp – the point is that the use of the R word is not acceptable.
Is it just me, or do the many of the crowds at the Tea Party rallies look pretty much exactly the same as the crowds at any Monckton/Plimer event..
i.e. elderly and white !!!!!
What is it with the right and stereotypes
Happily published by Piers Akerman:
Smithy replied to Eternal Damnation
Thu 10 Dec 09 (08:45pm)
Great stuff E.D., please get more dirt on the Kid, like air cons, Scores, AWB, Burke, life on back seat of a ute, Utegate, Heiner ….OMG the list is endless. The Boy Blunder has left a trail any news worthy journo would kill for, yet the majority (Piers excepted along with a rare few other journo’s) have turned a blind eye. Like Farr the thin skinned retard. His dribble is a discrace. What they don’t seem to realise is that they will be found out and they will be exposed as traitors to our society and their profession for their silence. Piers is a legend. He will be the last journo standing with any integrity.
Happily published by Andrew Bolt:
Not many from before 1990 here is there?
Ender, you monumental retard, the figures only go back 80 odd years. What you can see from the figures is that there are two distinct cycles in the termperature data. It’s completely consistent with the theory that the Earth’s temperature is cyclical.
murph of London via Kangaroo Point (Reply)
Wed 15 Aug 07 (07:36pm)
Happily published by Tim Blair:
weeeee replied to smike
Sat 16 Jan 10 (02:15pm)
DAnny Glover is a retard.
(all class, that last one……)
You now how if there’s a rally of environmentalists or anti-development protesters or anti-nuclear protesters, the news crews will deliberately get footage of the people with the most extreme appearance (for instance, people with dreadlocks) in order to portray a certain image, and reinforce stereotypes? Or if there’s a union rally the cameraman will find the biggest, burliest looking bunch of blokes so that they have a “union” shot on the nightly news?
Yeah, ring a bell?
Well, same thing, except in reverse.
The fact that lefties don’t recognise when the exact same thing is being done to non-lefties is a sure sign of the brain damage that all that pot must be doing.
okay, sorry about that last sentence, I admit I threw that in as a bit of a wind-up. But the rest of it, I was making a substantive point.
What’s on display here is not Limbaugh’s use of satire but Palin (and News Ltd’s) use of hypocrisy.
Munro @ 7
Well maybe about the elderly….but I’m right about the white bit…
http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/tea-party-signs.jpg
“The fact that lefties don’t recognise when the exact same thing is being done to non-lefties is a sure sign of the brain damage that all that pot must be doing.”
Isn’t that just a stereotype in itself?
yes, and I already retracted it.
And thats even considering Fox have in the past tried to pass off unrelated (larger) crowds as tea baggers.
Not always the case: marriage equality, aboriginal reconciliation and people protesting the treatment of asylum seekers are three instances which come to mind where protesters were varied and diverse.
Ross Sharp – the point is that the use of the R word is not acceptable.
Am I the only one who thinks this is nonsense. It’s offensive slang, sure, but how is it any different to calling someone deranged, mentally ill or even a profound idiot. It’s like calling someone a dwarf, or a mong or even using ‘gay’ as a slur against a straight person.
When did being offensive become unacceptable?
So you think it’s ok to offend people?
Exactly, and most people would consider those unacceptable.
So you think it’s ok to offend people?
Yup. It’s a big bad world out there Grog.
Well O.T. but some of us will recognise this fellow.
Cheers.
Marek Bage: your link is stuffed.
That doesn’t mean we have to make it worse.
HeyMondo.
I cringed when Ross wrote “the R word”.
Does that mean we can’t go to Big W and ask for ‘flame-retardant pyjamas’ with causing offence?
Cheers.
Can I still use ‘spaz’?
Bunch of nuff-nuffs!
An interesting line from Ross Sharp’s link:
“Everyone [at the Tea Party meeting] already viewed health reform as a ruse to control their medical choices and drive them into the grip of insurance conglomerates.”
Is the author saying that this mob of Teabaggers believes universal healthcare is a sop to the insurance industry? If so, I can understand why they’d be angry about it, but the level of ignorance that requires – to the point of believing the goal of Obamacare is the opposite of every other universal healthcare system in the world – is staggering.
Last paragraph not meant to be in italics. Can Crikey mod its comment software to just use HTML, instead of treating square brackets as text modifiers?
That doesn’t mean we have to make it worse.
Some might consider your attempts to wrap everyone up in cotton wool so that their sensibilities aren’t offended to be the ‘worsening’ that you object to so strenously Grog. Freedom of speech comes with a price.
Does that mean we can’t go to Big W and ask for ‘flame-retardant pyjamas’ with causing offence?
Better safe than sorry Marek!!
What does freedom of speech have to do with whether it’s acceptable to call someone a retard?
Is the author saying that this mob of Teabaggers believes universal healthcare is a sop to the insurance industry? If so, I can understand why they’d be angry about it, but the level of ignorance that requires – to the point of believing the goal of Obamacare is the opposite of every other universal healthcare system in the world – is staggering.
Sancho – out of interest – do you know much about the healthcare bill that Obama ultimately produced? For example do you know that it does not achieve universal healthcare by creating a public health system available to all citizens, but does so instead by forcing millions of those who are currently uninsured to actually buy private health insurance?
Are you aware of any other universal healthcare system in the world that is similarly structured?
I’m no great fan of the tea-baggers but, perhaps they’re not as ignorant of reality in this case as you appear to think.
Mondo@15It’s offensive slang, sure, but how is it any different to calling someone deranged, mentally ill or even a profound idiot.
Deranged, mentally ill, profound idiocy = “ODS -Obama Derangement Syndrome”.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-14/praying-for-obamas-death/?cid=hp:mostpopular1
Psychotic. Unhinged. Fruit-loopy. Moron central. Dumber than a box of hair.
By any other name, it’s ……..
Sorry. Forgot to close the italic tages. How retarded of me.
tages = Tags. (Goes to corner and drools quietly, plays with own snot).
What does freedom of speech have to do with whether it’s acceptable to call someone a retard?
Assume, for a second, that society as a whole decided it is ‘unacceptable’ to use that word beacuse of its potential to offend. What would the appropriate sanction be for it’s use? How would this sacntion be enforced and by whom?
mondo: nobody that I can see is seeking to deny anybody use of the word retard as an offensive jibe, merely pointing out that it is acceptable to condemn those who do. It is just like ‘Abo’ – there is no sanction for its use and people continue to use it. But those who do are roundly criticised for doing so.
mondo: nobody that I can see is seeking to deny anybody use of the word retard as an offensive jibe, merely pointing out that it is acceptable to condemn those who do.
Utter bullshit confessions. The criticism above was not that it is acceptable to condemn those who use the word, but that use of the word itself is not acceptable:
Ross Sharp – the point is that the use of the R word is not acceptable.
Stop using sophistry to make your argument.
While retard is rightfully a slur, is it really necessary to change layman terminology every few years for fear of insulting the poor, weak-hearted Australian public? After all, does it really change the negative connotation of the word? Or are the “politically correct” just wandering in circles by merely altering the letters and syllables while doublespeaking disorders?
The latter seems more obvious. The medical community still uses terms like mental retardation and spastic, because they literally describe the disorder and well-known. For those uninformed, retard arose as a sort of euphemism of the then-offensive words idiot, imbecile, and moron.
For the record confessions – I have no problem with people exercising their right to condemn those who use the word retard as to take the alternative view (i.e. that people should not be allowed to do so) would be an equivalent restriction on people’s right to speak freely.
Fine, I will accept I’ve mangled the wording. But your attempt to make this a freedom of speech issue is simply hysterical. It is not acceptable to use Abo to refer to Aboriginals just as it is not acceptable to use retard to describe people you disagree with. But people still use those words, their use is not prohibited.
Except you’ve had a go at Grog for condemning Ross Sharp’s use of the word, and me for calling your freedom of speech argument bullshit.
Now who’s using sophistry?
There is a difference between being acceptable and denying use of. You can use it if you want, but know that when you do you are being offensive and denegrating a group of people who lack the ability to fight back.
It is not acceptable to use Abo to refer to Aboriginals
Nonsense again – the term may not be acceptable to you, sure, but that doesn’t make the word itself unacceptable. Aboriginals, for example, use the word often.
You need to stop confusing your interpretation of the world with the actual world.
you’ve had a go at Grog for condemning Ross Sharp’s use of the word
Wrong again confessions – I had a go at his characterisation of the word as ‘unnaceptable’. There is a fundamental and important difference between describing something as ‘unacceptable’ (an authoritarian statement) and merely criticising someone for something they’ve said.
By the way, sophistry is not the same as semantics. You are being a sophist (your argument is fallacious), whereas I am being semantic (my argument relies on the specific meaning of words).
Neither must be particularly entertaining to those who are reading this.
You can use it if you want, but know that when you do you are being offensive and denegrating a group of people who lack the ability to fight back.
Fair enough Grog.
On the tea baggers diversion/subject, I think there are two things to remember.
Firstly, Obama (though the rebellion of Senator Lieberman) was unable to push through a “socialised healthcare” option that other countries have. He wanted to, as did quite a few other Democrats, but they were forbidden it. So a compulsory insurance, with a government-supported base-line insurance policy, was the only way to go. Anyone paying a Medicare levy (most of us) is doing exactly the same thing!
Secondly, the tea baggers are not solely a reaction to Obama’s healthcare policies. They are a movement that really kicked off with the bailouts and have latched onto the healthcare reform as rallying point (with the guidance of a certain media company). Some I’ve talked to really DO believe that Obama wants death panels and to tax fat people. Most of the ones I’ve talked to are seeing that the enormous deficits their government rack up year-after-year are going to cause trouble, and simply fit that into their framework of Republicans=good, Democrats=bad world view… You know, like people that find it hard to believe Labor can manage the economy and so believe any financial issues must be their fault over here.
Yep, this is my point just I don’t have your written skill.
Agreed. And it’s moot anyway because Grog has already neatly explained the difference between deny and being acceptable.
Thanks for the clarification, Tolputt. It seems very odd that such an enormous difference between Obamacare and the functioning health systems of Europe and Australia would have escaped wider publication.
Interestingly, if you Google [Obama private insurance], this is what you get on the first page:
Does ObamaCare outlaw private insurance? (it concludes “yes”)
Obamacare: You Will Lose Your Current Insurance. Period. End of Story.
ObamaCare Bans Private Insurance.
…the real goal of the Obamacare is to rid the nation of private insurance options
Whatever the reality of the Frankenbill as it is now, the Right-wing blogosphere seems pretty convinced that Obamacare is set to destroy the health insurance industry – which it would have to, as they all know it’s really a communist assault on capitalism.
Forking HTML tags! Again, last paragraph not bold.
Why can’t we use square brackets without mangling our posts?
It’s a tragedy Obama and the Democrats didn’t stick to their guns, instead if letting the Republicans derail them into this pissweak – perhaps worse than nothing – version.
PS From Ross Sharp’s link – “Darin Stevens”? Really? Sh1t. If he gets his wife involved…
Jeremy, that is nothing short of paranoid delusion.
To recap: you’re saying that News Ltd. has been instructed to fabricate a story so that it can advance the interests of an American ex-politician in Australia, to protect her from the ridicule that their parent company subjected her to. And they did all of this because she is an employee of that parent company that ridiculed her in the first place.
I’m not sure what’s more telling – the fact that you’re mind sees nothing wrong with this or that the heroes of truth that frequent this site haven’t dug deep enough yet to pull you up on it.
No, I’m saying that News Ltd is lying to Australians on the subject – even you cannot deny that it is – for whatever purposes suit it. I suspect it’s reinforcing the “conservatives under attack by horrible lefties” line – which is linked with the “Palin’s an honest conservative gal who’s being picked on” line they push here and in the US.
No, what news.com is saying is that conservatives are under attack from other conservatives. Furthermore, it was Palin who was the attacker. Let me remind you of the quote you used:
“Mrs Palin, a Fox News contributor, recently slammed White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and radio talk host Rush Limbaugh for using the word “retard”.”
But if your claim of “horrible lefties” is in reference to Family Guy, it’s a flagship News Corp business.
So, lets recap again: A right-wing company used one of its left-wing products to savage a right-wing employee. This all happened in her country. But then that right-wing company instructed a minor component of its Australian subsidiary to concoct a lie and bury it in a minor news article so as to convince Australians that a left-wing TV show, which they own, is out to get her.
And they decided to do all of this because they want to look after their employee. The one that they ridiculed in the first place.
Jeremy, you’ve publicly posted an article that claims that the author of the news.com article is a corrupt liar. Back it up with something other than complete madness or retract it. You’ve threatened other websites with legal action in the past for similar claims against yourself. Have the decency to live by the values you demand from others.
Upy: when did Palin “slam” Rush Limbaugh for using the word retard?
That’s so spectacularly dumb, “Upya”, I don’t know where to begin.
It IS a lie that Palin “slammed” Limbaugh – she made excuses for him.
Did you watch the videos?
The rest of your comment is nothing more than deranged ranting and misrepresentations of what I actually said. I don’t think they did it to “look after” Palin. I think they did it to reinforce their editorial line regarding her.
NEXT: Upya threatens to sue me for calling his/her pseudonym “dumb”.
One Trackback