Make the Summer of 2010 count!
Once thought of as a journalistically proper publication, Newsweek stooped to a new low this week by featuring a 4-month-old Runner’s World photo of Sarah Palin along with a nonsensical headline on its cover.
“How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sarah?” the headline alongside a gym-shorts wearing Palin reads. The sub-head, also with a negative spin, says, “She’s bad news for the GOP — and for everybody else, too.”
I have a question for Newsweek editors, “Who said Palin was a problem?” Maybe in your minds, but not in the thinking of a huge chunk of the population. “Bad news?” You’ve got to be out of your mind. She is the best news for conservative thought in a long time.
Journalistically speaking, where is your sense of balance, Newsweek?
You may be able to pass this kind of weak crap on your National Enquirer fan base, but not here… not to the Tea Party crowd, which you so easily dismiss. I see now why publications like yours are tagged by media analyst Bernie Goldberg as part of the “lamestream media.” You couldn’t prove your Kool-Aid drinking ways anymore than you did with this cover.
Palin’s response came in the form of this note on Facebook:
The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this “news” magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness – a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention – even if out of context.
– Sarah Palin
Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham told Yahoo! News that the photo choice was simply the “most interesting image available”:
“We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do. We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard.”
Illustrate the theme of the cover? What are you doing? Decorating a bedroom? You are certainly not being journalists.
How do you solve a problem like Newsweek?
Read something else.
Don’t Get It!
Most news agencies avoid the possibility that the Fort Hood massacre was a terrorist act, says media analyst Bernie Goldberg
While prayers go out to the families and survivors of those killed or injured during the worst mass shooting on an American military base, I can’t help but notice that the the majority of the rampant speculation as to what the motive might have been for Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is flat out spin.
The investigation of the rampage which included more than 100 shots that left 13 dead and more than two dozen wounded, including the alleged shooter, Army psychiatrist Hasan, should not be about making sure we are politically correct.
There is a wealth of information that now shows that Hasan premeditated this attack … all the while spewing U.S. policy hate and Muslim jihadist verbiage.
“We shouldn’t jump to conclusions,” said President Barack Obama yesterday. Well, we shouldn’t jump to naive theories either.
Hasan may have acted alone, but he did have a team of enablers co-signing his rants. Now, the question remains … Can America continue to absorb those that hate the very host that harbors them?
Christian businessman James Paris says he never read so much hate on his Twitter feed in more than a year of participation on the micro-blogging site.
After pointing tweeps (Twitter users) via link to his sarcastic blog post, Why The NFL Was 100% Right In Banning Rush Limbaugh, the tweets (comments) back to him came fast and mean.
“It’s the first time since I have been on Twitter that I started receiving very hateful messages like ‘You are a racist … You are not a Christian … You are the devil,'” Paris said.
Then came something Paris wasn’t expecting: a one-week ban from Twitter.
“There was more than a 150 re-tweets of my article by various people who had come to my blog directly. I can only assume this ban is related to my Rush Limbaugh piece because that was really the only thing that happened last week and that’s what Twitter is claiming as the time frame where I violated their terms of service,” Paris said.
“People that were against Limbaugh were coming to my article after the re-tweets were posted thinking that they were going to read an article that would somehow buttress their viewpoint that the NFL was correct in banning Rush Limbaugh. When they realize they’ve been had … I believe that generated complaints to Twitter. I’ve never had one complaint from Twitter. I’ve never heard from them one way or the other. I honestly don’t understand exactly what the reason is that they are banning me.”
Paris responded to the ban by writing his post, Banned From Twitter For Supporting Rush Limbaugh, in which he states:
Well, I guess I know how Rush Limbaugh feels. This week I posted a blog piece supporting Rush and I received thousands of visits to my blog. I also engaged in probably one hundred ‘debates’ with people on Twitter about the whole Rush Limbaugh/NFL controversy. Today, I received the below message that I have been suspended from Twitter for one week. Obviously, someone did not like what I was saying in support of Rush…
What seems to be most upsetting to Paris is the page notification that comes up when people try to get to his Twitter page, username, “Jameslparis”:
Sorry, the account you were headed to has been suspended due to strange activity. Mosey along now, nothing to see here.
“For me to spend a year-and-a-half building up a Twitter following and then to have my Twitter account shut off and then when people go to my Twitter page it says that I’ve been disconnected for ‘strange activity’ … as far as anyone else knows I could have been involved with child pornography or some type of scam,” Paris said. “It really impugns my reputation for them to leave it so vague. It’s their responsibility to tell me why I was banned in much more clear terms than what they did in that suspension letter.
“The actual suspension is posted up on my blog and it makes reference to the word ‘bunch.’ They don’t use a numerical figure. They say that I violated their policy of spamming by posting to a quote ‘bunch’ of accounts. I’m not even exactly sure what that means. I do know that I personally was engaged with at least 100 people on Twitter about the whole Rush Limbaugh thing,” he said.
Paris said he wasn’t selling anything. “I never received any kind of screen warning that said, ‘you are responding too much … stop.’ I could never imagine that I am somehow dragging down their network or something with my meager activity.
“It was certainly just part of what I felt was the purpose of Twitter, which is social networking … going back and forth on issues and discussions. I had no idea that there was a limit to any of that. Especially something that was on topic,” Paris said.
Paris said he has not received an explanation from Twitter despite sending a request for one to its public relations department by e-mail.
“I’m not a big believer in coincidence and I don’t think this is a coincidence,” Paris said. “And it was all in relation to the spike in activity that happened to coincide with the Rush Limbaugh article that I posted.”
No response to a media request for an interview or statement from Twitter was received at the time of publication of this article.
Image found at James Paris business site, ChristianMoney.com.
Related News Release: Businessman launches ‘Christian Chirp’ after Twitter suspension
Sarah Palin has been out of the limelight for more than 9 months now, but late-night host David Letterman can’t seem to satiate his appetite for using her as comedic fodder.
Having had to fill a large hole left in his “creative” repertoire when President George W. Bush left office, Letterman’s hate for all-things-conservative now blossoms with any news sound byte about Palin. He salivates when anything, just anything breaking about the former Alaska governor can be used as monologue material … tired monologue material. After all, Letterman has a whole host of Palin haters in his New York studio audience that co-sign his Palin bashing with big chuckles and applause.
Why not keep dipping into the well? Eight years of “George Bush is dumb” as the premise for a huge chunk of Letterman’s nightly humor became so old for some us that it could only be labeled as a liberal mantra. Besides, Palin is so easy. It’s so easy to bash a woman of such chutzpah, such simplicity, and such wisdom … that’s right, wisdom!
What’s wrong with Palin? Everything in the eyes of liberals … barely anything in the eyes of most with conservative thought.
So, go ahead Letterman and gang, keep “joking” on Palin. We are not offended, just amazed at your lack of understanding about what’s truly dumb and laughable: your liberal arrogance.
Letterman has a brief moment of clarity in introducing his Top Ten List: Questions To Ask Yourself Before Spending $63,500 On Dinner with Sarah Palin
The Scrooge Report is an Outreach New Media publication.