More problems for Joy Reid. She once promoted a whacked out 9/11 conspiracy video produced in part by Alex Jones. Link <https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/joy-reid-promoted-infamous-911-conspiracy-documentary?utm_term=.kd2ARdlNB5#.sdojZWvR5N>
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 9:22 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > Right - so it looks like we are saying the same things here: > > 1. Most programs on cable news channels offer opinion and analysis, of > varying quality, and not objective newscasts. > 2. The homophobic comments attributed to Reid from a decade ago were not > uncommon among center-left Democrats at the time, but sound Trumpian today, > especially to younger progressives. > > My point is that the comments were not so much a problem for Reid because > of factors related to #1 above, but because of #2. > > > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 7:04 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 4:44 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> I don’t disagree with what you say here for the most part. There are >>> meaningful differences in credibility and substance of the news analysis >>> offered by people like Hannity and Reid, on the one hand, and Maddow on the >>> other, but even the best of these are not news providers, and I get my news >>> from other sources. >>> >> >> I believe the intent behind the opinions offered by FoxNews personalities >> vastly differs from the intent behind the opinions of MSNBC personalities, >> and I would find myself agreeing with MSNBC personalities much more than >> FoxNews, but if you were to look at rundowns or outlines of their >> respective shows, structurally they are nearly identical. And structurally, >> they are not formatted as news-centered programs. If they were, there would >> be room for debate, but there would be no disagreement about what >> constitutes a fact. >> >> >>> But that has nothing to do with Reid’s problems this week, or her >>> performance this morning. The argument was not that the alleged homophobic >>> statements were inappropriate for a journalist, rather that they were >>> inappropriate for any on air personality, and more specifically, >>> inappropriate for a Liberal ( or Progressive). Conservatives cared about >>> this so they could make a hypocrisy critique. Reid was not fighting for her >>> journalistic credentials, she was fighting for her Liberal credentials. >>> >> >> That’s an intersecting take on the situation. I’ve seen data (I know >> 538.com compiled numbers back when I could still stomach visiting the >> site) that African Americans in general were slower to accept/recognize the >> LGBT community than Americans from other racial backgrounds. When Reid’s >> blog post scandal started gaining traction a few weeks ago (last month?), I >> suppose that (rightly or wrongly) is partly what I attributed it to. It >> still made her uncomfortable back then. >> >> I’ve done battle online with homophobes before (I still have a >> Grammy-nominated stalker/troll who insists I was part of a global >> conspiracy against her financed by a combination of “professional >> homosexuals” and Google). Reid’s blog posts are inappropriate by today’s >> standard, and I’d have found them rude ten years ago, but they lack the >> venom of the homophobes I’ve encountered. She paints a picture of gays >> being not normal, which I’m sure is hurtful to gays, but she falls short of >> saying they were evil or should be kicked out or anything like that. Her >> posts seem to be in keeping with the Drudge or Perez Hilton level of >> “infotainment” gossip of that era. The “humor” (those are sarcastic air >> quotes) she seems to be attempting to mine has more to do with the >> hypocrisy of outspoken anti-gay celebrities and politicians who were >> allegedly gay. >> >> Other posts make mention of her opposition to gay marriage and her >> contention that most people find it gross to see two men kissing. This is >> akin to showing old video of then First Lady Hillary Clinton saying the >> same thing. The Democratic Party giving gay people mainstream recognition >> (i.e. equating gay civil rights with the civil rights of ethnic minorities) >> really only started as the Clintons were leaving the White House. I suspect >> many if not most progressives in 2008 would not have blinked at what Reid >> wrote, or thought twice about them. That’s not me defending or excusing >> them, but gay equality is still a radical concept for many even now, a >> decade after these blog posts were written. If Reid’s liberal credentials >> are the issue based on her words a decade ago, then so are Mrs. Clinton’s. >> >> >>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 3:20 PM Kevin M. <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I suspect the show was also a pantomime of journalism. Joy Reid was one >>>> of the liberals I blocked on social media this year. I agreed with her more >>>> than I disagreed with her, but she wasn’t contributing substance to news, >>>> just her opinions. And her opinions contributed to the negativity on social >>>> media and offered nothing constructive. >>>> >>>> Look, obviously every human being has his or her own opinions and >>>> biases, but the problem is that we now live in an era where supposed >>>> newscasts are slanted towards the opinions and biases of the hosts. It >>>> isn’t “Here’s what’s happening today...” it is, “Here’s what I think about >>>> what’s happening today...” It would be like a national newspaper only >>>> printing an op-ed section. >>>> >>>> I’m not saying journalists can’t hold strong opinions, but journalists >>>> today base their respective careers not on reporting the news, but on their >>>> perspective on the news. People don’t watch Maddow or Hannity to be >>>> informed; they watch to hear the host’s snarky take on the events of the >>>> day. And personally I have no problem with that, but I have a problem with >>>> calling that journalism or a newscast. And I have a problem with those >>>> types of shows televised on what purports to be a news network. If FoxNews >>>> was called FoxOpinion I would literally not care about what the hosts say >>>> or believe. If MSNBC didn’t claim to report the news, then Rachel and Joy >>>> could bloviate until the cows came home. But the news networks and their >>>> journalist hosts make their programming about the hosts, and that just >>>> opens them up to the sorts of scandals like this one about prior opinions >>>> not fitting their current narrative. >>>> >>>> So we have Joy Reid having to apologize for opinions she never should >>>> have made public if she was a true journalist. And we have Hannity exposed >>>> as a client of Cohen having to backpeddle from his opinions about Cohen >>>> that he never should have uttered if he was a true journalist. I know there >>>> are people on this list who dislike when the claim is made that MSNBC and >>>> FoxNews are two sides of the same coin, but in terms of the sort of content >>>> they produce and the emphasis on opinion over fact, it is heads and tails. >>>> >>>> There is a way to cover breaking news in a nonpartisan way without it >>>> being boring. There is a way to cover breaking news using experts and >>>> firsthand witnesses as opposed to pundits and talking points spokespeople. >>>> There is a way to debate ideas and opinions within the framework of >>>> reporting the news. And there is a time and place for news anchors and >>>> reporters to express their own opinions. But it takes more effort and more >>>> money and requires a different skillset that those holding the jobs now do >>>> not possess. >>>> >>>> Joy Reid should not be on MSNBC, not because she posted stupid opinions >>>> on her blog a decade ago, and not because her opinions have changed now, >>>> but because the focus of Joy Reid’s show is Joy Reid, and that should not >>>> be the focus of any news broadcast on a news network. The fact we know >>>> Reid’s opinions have evolved in ten years proves she is a decent human >>>> being, but it also proves she is a piss-poor journalist. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:41 PM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I watched her show this morning, and it made me uncomfortable. It was >>>>> a pantomime of honesty. She said her expert could not prove she was >>>>> hacked, >>>>> but the truth is she initially claimed her expert had proven she was >>>>> hacked, and other experts poked holes in that conclusion (she did not >>>>> acknowledge or address this). She invited a bunch of LGBT advocates on the >>>>> panel to challenge and grill her, but none did, and were clearly all >>>>> chosen >>>>> because they were on her side (it is not hard to find LGBT advocates who >>>>> have not been on her side, so that was not random). Nobody even pushed a >>>>> little bit on the wired “I can’t believe I wrote that “ position she >>>>> landed >>>>> on. >>>>> >>>>> even fucking Howie Kurtz, who we were just discussing recently, had >>>>> the dood sense to have an independent host take over his show when the >>>>> subject was his own poor handling of an LGBT related issue. Reid would >>>>> have >>>>> been much better served to get someone from the community who writes for >>>>> The Daily Beast (where Reid writes too, and which has been pretty >>>>> suspicious of her story) and get a medium- well scorching. The pity is it >>>>> would have been relatively easy for her to just say something like: >>>>> >>>>> “I don’t remember writing these horrible things, but I can’t say I >>>>> didn’t, and that’s the problem. Whether I wrote them or not they are >>>>> consistent with the my beliefs and attitudes at the time. A decade ago I >>>>> was a liberal artist who grew up in a conservative African -American >>>>> church >>>>> and family, and I was homophobic. I have changed a lot in those ten years, >>>>> and have seen that my vies about LGBT people then were as reprehensible as >>>>> those of the worst racists towards Black people. I was too slow to learn, >>>>> and I continue to need to learn more, but I am committed to doing whatever >>>>> I can every day for the rest of my life to fight for justice for all.” >>>>> >>>>> If she said something like that the issue melts away for all but the >>>>> Fox News crowd. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.thedailybeast.com/joy-reid-apologizes-for- >>>>> homophobic-posts-she-doesnt-remember-writing?ref=scroll >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 9:31 AM Steve Timko <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> MSNBC's Joy Reid apologizes for 'hurtful' comments >>>>>> >>>>>> By MARK KENNEDY >>>>>> AP Entertainment Writer >>>>>> NEW YORK (AP) - MSNBC's Joy Reid, under fire for homophobic language >>>>>> in old blog posts, has apologized for any past comments that belittled or >>>>>> mocked the LGBTQ community and says she hasn't been able to verify her >>>>>> claim that her account was hacked. >>>>>> Reid opened her weekend show "AM Joy" on Saturday by acknowledging >>>>>> has said "dumb" and "hurtful" things in the past. "The person I am now is >>>>>> not the person I was then," she said. >>>>>> She's unable to explain blog posts from a decade ago that mocked gay >>>>>> people and individuals who were allegedly gay. >>>>>> Reid has denied posting them altogether but says a security expert >>>>>> who looked into whether she had been a hacking victim found no proof. She >>>>>> says he "had no idea where they came from." >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:25 PM, Steve Timko <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Joy Reid said she was hacked. Outrage from the LGBT community. >>>>>>> LINK >>>>>>> <https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/25/joy-reid-anti-gay-posts-550213> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Kevin M. (RPCV) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> -- >>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "TVorNotTV" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- >> Kevin M. (RPCV) >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "TVorNotTV" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
