Washington Post Writer Compares Internet Journalism To Terrorism

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ELVIS
    Banned
    • Dec 2003
    • 44120

    Washington Post Writer Compares Internet Journalism To Terrorism

    Steve Watson

    A Washington Post columnist who appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday described tea partiers as potentially violent and decried internet journalism as “sort of like terrorism” When asked about her views on the Tea Party by host Bob Schieffer, Kathleen Parker, a Pulitzer Prize winning commentator, declared it to be dangerous:

    “…this heated rhetoric and some of these words…that are pretty loaded, ‘reload,’ ‘targeting’…there’s a danger there.” Parker said.

    After describing the movement as dangerous Parker then said she wasn’t saying that it was dangerous:

    “I’m not saying the tea party people are violent or racist or any of that….I’m not saying that the tea partiers are bad people or dangerous, I just think we have to be very vigilant….and be extremely careful, because I do think there is a lot of anger and it could become something else.”

    Schieffer then injected the talking point of the internet as a source of such “danger”:

    “Some of this really nasty rhetoric that shows up on the Internet….the only vehicle to deliver news that has no editor….And that is the added factor to the volatility of this stuff and where it goes.”
    To which Parker replied “It’s, sort of, like terrorism. You know, we don’t know where to aim our bombs, so we can’t go after a country because there are – you know, there’s no one place to focus on it. And it’s the same thing with – with the Internet. You can’t really – you don’t know who to go after.”

    Classic. A mainstream media fixture warning grassroots activists not to use “loaded” rhetoric before describing the alternative media as “sort of like terrorism”.

    Parker, who also often appears as the token “conservative” pundit on The Chris Matthews Show, then further warned of hate speech emanating through internet journalism:

    “People who are not well-grounded and who may have these more violent tendencies suddenly find a place where they can convene and find validation and even find company. And I don’t know where that all leads, but it’s – it’s, kind of, scary.” she said.

    <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/z_HqexWT8AE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/z_HqexWT8AE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


  • BITEYOASS
    ROTH ARMY ELITE
    • Jan 2004
    • 6529

    #2
    I guess the old media (Newspapers/Television) is throwing a bitch fit about the future. They're like the old man yelling "Get off my lawn!".

    Comment

    • hambon4lif
      Crazy Ass Mofo
      • Jun 2004
      • 2810

      #3
      Originally posted by ELVIS
      A Washington Post columnist who appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday described tea partiers as potentially violent and decried internet journalism as “sort of like terrorism” When asked about her views on the Tea Party by host Bob Schieffer, Kathleen Parker, a Pulitzer Prize winning commentator, declared it to be dangerous:

      “…this heated rhetoric and some of these words…that are pretty loaded, ‘reload,’ ‘targeting’…there’s a danger there.” Parker said.

      After describing the movement as dangerous Parker then said she wasn’t saying that it was dangerous:

      “I’m not saying the tea party people are violent or racist or any of that….I’m not saying that the tea partiers are bad people or dangerous, I just think we have to be very vigilant….and be extremely careful, because I do think there is a lot of anger and it could become something else."
      If that's not what she's trying to say, then what the fuck is her point?

      As far as I'm concerned, these double-talking bitches create just as much, if not more, confusion than the "dangerous" people she's referring to....

      It's like saying "your mother sucks cock for money, but I'm not saying she's a whore or anything..."

      I find it hard to believe this broad actually won a Pulitzer. They must've been giving them away at the time.
      We need more people who aren't afraid to tell it like it is...and we need them to replace the people who can't stop talking from both sides of their fucking neck!!

      Comment

      • kwame k
        TOASTMASTER GENERAL
        • Feb 2008
        • 11302

        #4
        Exactly, she comes out and states very clearly that these type of people are dangerous and when cornered about her statement she starts back peddling.........

        She earns no more respect than Farewell or Robertson saying that 9/11 or an earthquake happened because God hates fags or heathens......when people call them out on it they say things like, "I was tired and didn't know what I was saying, so please don't stop sending money".
        Originally posted by vandeleur
        E- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first place

        Comment

        • hambon4lif
          Crazy Ass Mofo
          • Jun 2004
          • 2810

          #5
          It's this whole "politically correct" bullshit that grates on my nerves. I knew PC was a disease that cripples Free Speech, but now it's at the point where nobody can say what they really feel....or they feel they have to retract and/or apologize for whatever they do say.
          Regardless of what you may think of Alan Grayson, if you were to ask him what he thinks of Sarah Palin, he'll straight up tell you that he thinks she's a "crazy-assed snowbilly". He's not going to retract that statement or say he's sorry. I respect that.

          Everybody wants change, but as long as they keep talking in circles, we're not going to move forward in either direction, good or bad.

          Comment

          • kwame k
            TOASTMASTER GENERAL
            • Feb 2008
            • 11302

            #6
            Another point is........where's your integrity and standing behind your beliefs/statements?

            If you say and do one thing following the path of least resistance but someone calls you out on it.......you retract your statement or try to obfuscate what you already said, what does that say about your convictions? I strongly believe this......unless of course no one else believes this or you find what I say objectionable than I will believe the exact opposite.

            So much for journalist integrity......Edward R Murrow is rolling in his grave!
            Originally posted by vandeleur
            E- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first place

            Comment

            • Satan
              ROTH ARMY ELITE
              • Jan 2004
              • 6663

              #7
              Well, since Kathleen Parker, Bob Scheiffer (whose brother was a BCE ambassador) and other media whores are incapable of doing their damn jobs, someone has to do it for them. Even PBS and NPR have become corporatized now, in fact PBS will probably be useless as a news source when Bill Moyers retires.

              MSNBC has maybe two or three hours a day of decent programming, and that will probably be gone if Comca$t is allowed to take them over. CNN is going out of their way trying to be FAUX and ABC is as bad or worse. Newspapers are fucked, and news magazines? Well, if it's not The Nation, Mother Jones, or Rolling Stone (which isn't even a news magazine, for fucks sake) don't bother.

              Fortunately, I'm in Hell, so I get some other channels here. BBC, CBC, even Al Jazeera.
              Eternally Under the Authority of Satan

              Originally posted by Sockfucker
              I've been in several mental institutions but not in Bakersfield.

              Comment

              Working...