Archive | Television RSS feed for this section

Called Out: AP Drops “Illegal Immigrant” From Style Guide

3 Apr

Journalism used to be about telling an unbiased, factually correct story. The information was gathered and put into a form the general public could consume without distorting information. Sadly those days are gone and the Associated Press (AP) has capitulated in the demise of true journalism. Quite ironic.

In the latest blow, the AP has decided to bow down to political correctness and become intellectually incorrect by removing the use of the term “illegal immigrant”. Why do so? Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll states the style book is trying to rid itself of labels[1]. Huh? Human beings naturally group, classify and label everything around us.

Ms. Carroll wrote on her blog:

“The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term ‘illegal immigrant’ or the use of ‘illegal’ to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that ‘illegal’ should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.”

Now those learning or currently practicing “journalism” will be seen in a negative way if they use technically correct term “illegal immigrant” as a descriptive term. The AP has long lost its credibility of being an unbiased, true journalistic entity. This current move clearly illustrates, yet again, their move to show their bias. Giving a weak excuse which anyone without cataracts can see through.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Any Port in a Storm: Petition Regarding Piers Morgan Deportation Pointless

27 Dec

It still amazes me what is considered “news” these days. Long gone are the days when really important stories or issues were the main topics reported. Now we have faux and manufactured news like the Piers Morgan deportation White House petition [1] and counter petition, on a third party website[2]. This is what passes for news to people these days? Sadly yes.

How does the process work? The frequently asked questions page[3] outlines the following general process:

There are two critical thresholds for We the People. First, a minimum number of signatures is necessary for the petition to be publicly listed on We the People and searchable. Second, a minimum number of signatures is necessary in a given amount of time in order for the petition to be reviewed by the White House, distributed to the appropriate policy officials within the Administration and receive an official response. This response will be posted and linked to the petition on WhiteHouse.gov, as well as emailed to all of the petition signers. Petitions that do not cross this threshold in the given time frame will be removed from the site.

The first minimum requirement to be posted on the website is 150. The second minimum requirement to get a response from the White House is 25,000. While the numbers sound reasonable for a petition to get some type of response, in this digital age of easy access, they are far to easily attained, even within the current time frame set by the White House.

These White House petitions got a spotlight in the news just a short time ago this year after the re-election of Barack Obama. A petition to allow Texas to secede [4] was created which lead to other states getting similar type petitions. So far the Texas petition has racked up a total of 122,954 “signatures” but no response from the White House. It is the second most popular petition with the Piers Morgan deportation petition just behind it. The most popular, with 264,102 signatures, is a petition with the request to “Legally recognize Westboro Baptist Church as a hate group.”

The large number of “signatures” isn’t very impressive since it takes very little effort to create a couple of junk accounts which allow anyone to either create or respond to these petitions. For example, a person can go to gmail.com, outlook.com, yahoo.com etc… and create a disposable email account. Once the email account is setup, the person can go to the White House petition website and create an account there using the new disposable email address. The site asks for a first and last name but no one is stopping people from using fake names like Mike Hunt, Seamore Buts, IP Frealy, etc. Once the new petition account has been setup it’s time to go either “sign” a petition or create a new one. If a person chooses to sign a petition, the response shows up in the petition page details with the first name, last initial and “signature” number. If a zip code was provided (not required and could be real or made up), the city and state will be displayed as well.

This clearly shows the fallacy of internet based petitions. It’s too easy for anyone to create a fake “person” to either create or “sign” a petition. All this does is water down the real power behind a well done, physical petition. To create a petition there are certain requirements one is supposed to meet before being able to create an account. Again, looking at the frequently asked questions page they are:

Anyone 13 or older can create or sign an online petition seeking a federal government action on a range of issues. Then it’s up to the petition creator and signers to build support for the petition by gathering more signatures.

In other words, these petitions aren’t limited to the adult, voting population, which would make the most sense. Anyone who has just entered puberty can create any nonsensical petition in hopes enough “signatures” will be made to get a response from the White House or just make a few clicks and “sign” a petition to support it. They might even get their 15 minutes of fame if it goes viral and the media outlets think it will get them some ratings. This process cannot be taken seriously by anyone with a rational mind. And anyone who is foolish enough to report any petition on this website as news needs to be fired because they have no clue how to be a real journalist.

People in the United States have the right to freedom of speech, within the confines of the current laws. It is a right which is cherished and protected, almost to a fault. Petitions are one way in which the people use this right to express their grievances with the government. At one time it was viable way for the people to get the attention politicians and news organizations on specific issues. Today, the petition has lost much of its power due to the dilution of how easy it is to create and get “signatures” as well. The people now have different avenues to voice their concerns, though they may not have quite the punch the petition once did.

References –

  1. Piers Petition
  2. Counter Petition
  3. White House Petition FAQs
  4. Texas Petition

Keep Calm and Legislate: CALM Act Begins

13 Dec

It has taken a few years but the CALM () Act will begin to be enforcable today. The idea behind the law is to limit the louder volume of TV commercials from the TV show which they air around. As an avid TV viewer I can appreciate this bit of peace and calm. Parents with younger children who go to bed before they do will likely also welcome the news.

However, as I began to enjoy the idea of a more peaceful viewing experience thanks to this new law, my mind began to think back a few decades ago. I could have sworn this technology was tried on the open market before. After doing some searches on the web, I found out I wasn’t just making the idea up in my head.

The technology my mind was recalling was from 1992 and promoted by Magnavox. It was known at the time as SmartSound. Below is a link the commercial at the time illustrating the technology.

Magnavox SmartSound Commercial

I never owned a TV with this technology but if I had, and it worked as advertised, I don’t know if I would have ever thrown it out. The website eHow gives this brief summary of how SmartSound worked:

Smart Sound, introduced by Magnavox in 1992 on its television sets, is designed to reduce sudden extreme changes in volume, namely the sound of TV commercials relative to the sound of the TV shows they follow. Magnavox refers to Smart Sound as “automatic volume control” to describe the feature’s ability to monitor the sound level of TV shows and limit how much louder the subsequent commercials will play.

So why didn’t more companies pick up and run with this? That is a question we might never know. But what is interesting is it wasn’t then, it hasn’t resurfaced almost 20 years later as a feature in TV’s and now we have a federal law requiring TV stations to do the same thing the free market rejected. With the way media consuption is headed, to a more on demand, pay to view (either per viewing or subscription) it will be interesting to see how long this law will be needed after all.

Source –
Magnavox SmartSound – eHow

Words Mean Something: Sheila Jackson Lee Talks but Says a Lot of Nonsense

13 Dec

This woman  is an embarrassment to Houston, Texas and the country as a whole. Sheila Jackson Lee keeps getting re-elected by wide margins due to a rigged congressional district. She couldn’t sound like a bigger idiot if she tried. Seriously do a youtube search on her and witness first hand the brilliance of her speaking and thinking skills. Her latest gem is getting lots of feedback, mostly negative. If you haven’t seen it here it is. Viewing could lower one’s IQ by a few points.

What the heck is shipshod? She wants to “use that terminology”? What does that mean? Has anyone heard of a narnstarter? I sure haven’t. Of course there is the typical political garbage spin heard from the vast majority of politicians.

After viewing this atrocity I was quickly reminded of a comedy show I used to watch back in the 90’s. The name of the show was In Living Color and for a time it was hilarious. There was one skit which was brought back to my mind though. It was this one:

I don’t care what a person’s race, religion, nationality, etc… are. If someone is just trying to sound intelligent by using “big” words they are doing a disservice to themselves and those who they are speaking. Just stop speaking and do everyone a favor.

Let’s contrast her speech with one by Ted Poe:

The difference is crystal clear.

It’s a Racket: Caroline Wozniacki’s Impresson was NOT Racist.

11 Dec

I’m honestly sick and tired of almost every little thing done in jest to someone having the “racist” label applied or insinuated. Ms. Wozniacki’s impression of Serena Williams is the latest incident incorrectly drawing the “racist” label. Not funny? Sure. Can’t say I even chuckled or cracked a smile. Racist? Hardly.

The race-baiters have already started by saying it was “racist” because of Serena’s body shape as a black woman. Wait, what? Serena could have any color of skin and have her same shape. And guess what, I’m willing to bet Ms. Wozniacki would have still done the same “impression” of her. But because Serena is black her non-racially specific features cannot be part of a joke? Really?

Calling this racism is a slap in the face to those who have been through real racism. Let’s see what’s racist getting doused with water from a firehouse because of a person’s skin color or being poked fun at because someone’s non-racial physical attribute? That’s a tough call for some people apparently.

Anyone who is foolish enough to call this “impression” racism needs to be called out for what they are: a real racist. See if all a person can see in this case is racism, I would argue those people are the real racists and more than likely their past actions would back up the theory. Maybe those same people are unaware there are women of every shape and size in every race on planet earth. Being big or small knows no racial boundary. Neither does being stupid or ignorant.

Save the derogatory labels of racism for when they really apply. Other wise it dilutes the accusation and crime to a point where people shrug it off as another chicken little incident. Real racism is nothing to be taken lightly and the vast majority of people with common sense would agree it should be stopped.

Source –
Caroline Wozniacki spoofs Serena Williams — was it racist? – Digital Journal

Crazy Like a Foxx: Jamie Foxx SNL Appearance Highlighted by Racist Jokes

10 Dec

And the hits just keep on coming from Jamie Foxx. Fresh off his Obama is the savior[1] of mankind and better than Jesus tour, Foxx rolls into the once funny Saturday Night Live (SNL) as the host of the week. Going for a little shock and awe of his own Foxx let loose with some racially motivated jokes which are getting attention from all sides. While at first read, the jokes might not seem as ill intended (though still racially charged). But in light of Foxx’s Obama savior comments their intent is very questionable.

Here are some of the comments Foxx made on SNL[2]:

“Black is in,” the Oscar winner said, offering as proof that the NBA’s Nets moved to Brooklyn. “How black is that?” he asked.

He went on to talk about his upcoming role in Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained.”

“I play a slave. How black is that?” He asked.  “I have to wear chains. How whack is that?”

But not to worry, he said.

“I get free. I save my wife and I kill all the white people in the movie,” Foxx said. “How great is that?”

What’s sad is Foxx can be quite funny. I remember watching him on In Living Color and rolling at his skits. He’s acting can be quite good as in the move Ray. He definitely has talent on multiple levels. Yet for all the talent he has, Foxx reduces himself to making “jokes” about insulting Christians and racially charged humor. Come on Jamie you’re better than that. There is another part where Foxx is commenting on how before he sings women don’t find him attractive and after he sings a few lines of a made up song women are then really attracted to him is very funny. When he sings the lines he does so with a really great voice and one has to wonder what a dedicated musical career could have been for him.

The backlash would have been tremendous if a white, conservative personality had made a comment like “I kill all the black/brown/yellow/red people in the movie. How great is that?” The mainstream media would have pounced in it faster than Rosie O’Donnell at the dessert bar of an all you can eat buffet. The double standard of accountability shows up again.

I don’t care who they are, jokes like the ones Foxx made will only create division between people. I thought the goal was to move past that and embrace the idea all men and women were created  equal and “where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”[3]

References:

  1. Out Foxxed: Jamie Foxx Shows Complete Lack of Respect for Christians and Their Faith – Clearly Wrong
  2. Jamie Foxx on ‘SNL’ – ‘Great’ to Kill White People in New Movie – Brietbart
  3. I Have a Dream – Wikipedia

Will Costas Get on His Soap Box Again for NFL DUI Fatality?

9 Dec

By now many people have heard of the car accident of involving Jerry Brown Jr. and Josh Brent, which ended Brown’s life. It has been reported Brent was arrested on charges of intoxication manslaughter. His life will be over as a professional athlete if it is true he was drinking and driving.

However, after the last tragic event the NFL faced just over a week ago regarding Jovan Belcher and his muder and suicide using a fire arm, a question on many people’s mind is will Bob Costas lecture the public again? It wouldn’t seem too far of a stretch for Costas to come on again for another round of sportscaster parenting.

Look at all what he could wag his finger about:

  • Driving wrecklessly
  • Drinking alcohol or drinking alcohol in “excess”
  • Being out past midnight
  • And others I’m sure Costas could conjure up.

Maybe this time he would be smart and get more than a minute or two. Then he could get real in-depth and not have to give his audience too much credit. Yeah he said that was one of the reasons for the backlash last time.

Hopefully some real lessons can be learned from people with this. Don’t drink and drive, ever. If someone does they need to face some real punishment. Which brings up another lesson to be learned, the punishment for drinking and driving is too little. Especially when the innocent life of another person is taken.

So here’s some advice for Mr. Costas:

  • Don’t say a word
  • If you feel you must, don’t use a moron as a source to cite
  • Keep your remarks to ideas the vast majority could agree (like drinking and driving is bad)
  • But the best idea is to not say a word. See a pattern here Bob?