Discussion for article #227421
Mika to the senator: “Dammit, Kirsten, will you not satisfy our voyeuristic lust?”
5 Likes
Kirsten has a good point that this is about the issue, not about individuals. Mika just wants names so she and Joe can do a “he said/she said” analysis, which seems to be the only way journalists/pundits can approach any issue these days. Names don’t do anything but detract from the issue.
5 Likes
get into the minutia of each instance and identity of each person responsible and then you can get into the trivialization of each event, the marginalization of each offense, the ‘oh that was out of context’ - and the ‘oh, that was not really that bad’ … and then it swing around to be a step by step discrediting of the individual who is attempting to make a valid point.
when the point is that - things did, and still do, go on that were hideously offensive
1 Like
Showing once again that this pair rarely has a clue. It’s not about the WHO. It’s about the WHAT. So much of media is a vast waste land.
1 Like
Sen. Gillibrand had a great response. And, yes. Mika is wasting her Williams education by asking such stupid questions.
I think Mike is sometimes a little too cautious about the “liberal bias” nonsense that has so many journalists intimidated these days. So when she gets a liberal on the show and thinks she is being a little too coy about something - like not spilling the beans on which troglodyte ignoramus of a Senator has the hots for Sen. Gillibrand and wants her to stay “chubby” - Mika feels compelled to push for the information as if the identity of Senator Doofus is the real crux of the story. Misplaced outrage. Fill in the blanks, in any case - it could probably be any one of about two-thirds of the current Senate.
I meant “Mika” in the first sentence of my post.