Farewell Rick Sanchez, it was just a matter of time

Goodbye Rick Sanchez. After years of making a complete ass out of yourself you went a little too far in your rant about all those people like Jon Stewart who run things and aren't an oppressed minority.

While it's certainly a shame that CNN dismissed Sanchez for what was one part imbecilic inaccuracy (Jon Stewart is a bigot) and one part unthinking Jew-baiting frustration (people like Jon Stewart run the media) the fact is that Sanchez does not belong on a news network...unless perhaps Johnny Knoxville has started a news network.

Rick Sanchez had a lot to say last week about Jon Stewart, the intellectual elites and his own father's history of doing manual labor for a living to make a better life for his family. That last part is extremely admirable, but what I think Sanchez's biggest offense through his time at CNN has been his extreme waste of potential. Sure, by his own admission he didn't grow up in a highly intellectual environment but he made it all the way to CNN, and even if it was a temporary gig to hold an audience between Campbell Brown's departure and the Spitzer/Parker tag team (think that costs extra?) he did have a nationwide 8pm time slot on CNN. But he squandered it.

Instead of using his ability to connect with his audience and educate himself and the people watching his show, he just kept up with the same buffoonery that made him the target of all sorts of people, from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, to President Obama during the White House Correspondents' Dinner. But really, the saddest part of all this, is that no matter how dumb or circus-animal-like Rick Sanchez appeared, he's not the worst person the air by far. Probably not even the worst person at CNN.

Funny, for a guy who covered social media and the information age's capacity for disseminating knowledge, it almost seems like he didn't realize anyone would hear his comments on Pete Dominick's radio show.

Lastly, here's an interesting column by someone who worked with Sanchez at CNN.

http://www.businessinsider.com/some-rick-sanchez-insights-from-a-former-cnn-producer-2010-10

Spelling mistakes that get me peeved

This has nothing to do with the putrid pundits that infest our airwaves (and cable lines) and much, much more to do with the crumbling state of America's education system.  America's institutions of learning, coupled with an "auto spell-checker" generation are threatening the very fabric of the English language.  I do not claim to have impeccable grammar or perfect spelling but I do expect at least that much from the news organizations that surround us.  

Recently, I have been unable to read an entire daily newspaper without coming across blatant errors ranging from the inability to differentiate between "affect" and "effect", to the misuse of phrases like the one I pointed out in my last post ("worse" and "worst").  If only newspapers still had editors who proof read submissions before sending them to print much of these problems would disappear.  

The fact that a google search for the term "worse case scenario" produces over 200,000 results is a testament to the fact that people do not think about what they write, nor do they re-read what they have written to make sure there aren't these mistakes.  Pause, and think for one moment about what "worse case scenario" literally means.

You got it yet?  Ok, take another 30 seconds and think it over...

Ok, time's up.  It means a "not as good" scenario, or a slightly more bad scenario.  That would be fine if that was what they meant to say, but clearly when flashing enormous graphics across the screen in an effort to terrify the public and stoke fears of Mexicans carrying deadly diseases, the message they were attempting to communicate was the very "baddest" of the bad scenarios....the "worst" possible outcome.

So where does this lack of ability to communicate effectively come from?  Part of it, I believe, comes from the laziness with which people enunciate these days.  If when you say the word "worst" you sort of drop the 't' at the end, soon you will begin to think you are saying "worse".  Now, I'm not saying that everyone should go around saying "ay-fect" and "ee-fect" but certainly the lack of proper enunciation contributes to the lack of proper spelling.  

The real problem is probably our complete and total reliance on the spell checker.  In that sense, Microsoft has become the grand authority on spelling and grammar.  After all, if you don't get a little green or red squiggly under what you write, it must be correct.  Too bad Gates and company were unable to figure out the user's intent in their writing.

As for a solution to this dilemma, I can not think of any actions that will properly affect the media industry to resume editing their work, nor can I think of something that can be done that will have the desired effect on the public and encourage them to enunciate clearly and correctly.  For now, I will continue to announce the most egregious errors here and on any forums available where the offending article is located.  I invite you all to do the same.

CNN's graphic's department needs a 3rd grade education

I'm hoping that I'll come across a picture of this at some point and be able to update this post, but CNN this morning had a segment on the economic ramifications of this Swine Flu business. Christine Romans was talking about the damage Swine Flu could do on the international economy and what the "worst case scenario" could be when a GIANT graphic flew across the television wall behind her that read "WORSE CASE SCENARIO". I think she noticed it because when she looked up from her desk at the monitor she paused a little while saying "worst case" and emphasized the 't' a little more than usual.

Well done CNN.

Cheney says...oh wait who cares?

In a recent interview with CNN former Vice President Dick "the dick" Cheney asserts that President Obama has made America more vulnerable to a terrorist attack because he's treating the war on terror as a law enforcement issue.  Whether or not the very minor changes President Obama has enacted are actually making us more vulnerable or not, let us ask the more important question.  What really makes us more likely to be hit by a terrorist attack?  Not torturing people with little to no actionable intelligence, or creating tons more terrorists by inciting anger in the muslim world?  

Throughout the Bush II administration terrorist recruiting has been handed a number of boons from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, to the revelation of torture of detainees.  These specific and enumerable acts have contributed far more to recruitment of potential terrorists than anything President Obama has done in his 60 in office.  Not only that, but Vice President Cheney's office also hampered the CIA (supposedly one of our frontlines against terrorists) by reveling Valerie Plame to the world as a CIA agent.

Now, the even more important question is why is CNN interview Cheney and giving him a mouthpiece to spew his unpleasantness?  After the damage the Bush administration did the country both financially and in regards to our image throughout the world, nothing Bush or Cheney have to say should be given any attention.  We've suffered through their moronic idealogy and actions for the past eight years and we should be spared any further injury that their words can cause.  

Not my Congress

For months now we've been inundated by the news networks with grim statistics for Congress and America's approval of their job performance.  Night after night anchors and pundits, usually in an attempt to make Bush's abysmal approval ratings look a little better, made mention that Congress' approval rating was even lower.  How could this be?  Doesn't Congress enjoy a near 90% re-election rate?  Well, it's the nature of the question.

Think about it in terms the current President can understand.  If I ask you, after watching a news report about a school shooting, teenage girls showing explicit photos of theselves on mySpace or kids caught vandalizing street signs, "are American children out of control?" chances are you'll answer yes.  If I then ask you if your children are out of control, you'll more likely to answer no.  Why?  Because the first question lets you express your opinions about other people's children and not your own.  You have no responsibility for them, you did not raise them.  Similarly when you ask about Congress as a whole, you didn't elect most Congressmen, just your own.  Sharing opinion polls on Congress, without showing a poll next to it asking those same respondents about their own representatives is pointless because it does not show any useful information.

As Campebell Brown showed tonight when asked if Congressmen should be re-elected this year over 50% answered no.  When asked if their own Congressman should be re-elected the answer was more than 50%...YES!  So showing some statistics that Congress' approval rating is down around 11% does not in any way suggest that much will change in Washington.  For this reason Campbell gets another big props from PutridPundits.

Thank you Campbell Brown

Apparently CNN Election Center's Campbell Brown is the only news anchor with the decency and the courage to denounce the ignorant claims that are still being made about Senator Obama's race and religion, namely, the allegations that the Illinois senator is a muslim and most recently, that he is an arab.  While McCain did correct his thinking impaired supporter and say that his opponent was not an Arab, he followed up by explaining that Obama was a "decent family man." 

While the news outlets were quick to show the exchange they were even quicker to point out how McCain denounced these comments.  What most of them failed to do was denounce the idea that being an Arab or a Muslim is itself a negative  trait.  This racism in the country and the media cannot stand if America is to live up to its founding principles.

So congratulations Campbell Brown.  Keep up the good work, at least one MSM anchor is.

Sorry Tina Fey

Let me just tell you right now that this has been a tough idea to put down in words. I'll start out by apologizing to Tina Fey for even mentioning her here with all the douche bags of cable news and the kinds of political spin. That being said, she was superb in her impression of the Alaskan Governor on the season opener of SNL. I agree with Chevy Chase and hope that Fey does "descimate" Palin.
Frankly, it was a skit we all saw coming since Jon Stewart introduced McCain's choice for VP as the co-creator of the hit show 30 Rock. That being said, I would think that on a day with as bad financial news as Yesterday, perhaps the news media should have been covering news stories instead of each showing the same clip of Tina Fey as Sarah Palin. It would have been bad enough for the clip to only air during those awful segments by Jeanne Moos, the ones that are repeated over and over throughout the night, but then CNN Election Center and AC360 each had a segment on it so not only was there the actual segment where he and Erica Hill bantered about the skit, but of course they had to promo it the requisite 2 or 3 times.
It's really too bad, because it was a very funny sketch but CNN is not supposed to be E!'s "The Soup" or some VH1 special called "I remember the SNL sketch." Give us some real news please and leave the playbacks of comedy shows to the comedy shows, or at the very least, limit it to once per evening.

Ed Rollins is a sack of shit

Yesterday CNN ran a "commentary" by Republican strategist Ed Rollins about Barack Obama's choice for VP. In his pathetic attack piece Rollins tries the current Republican ploy of dividing the democrats and angering Hillary's supporters. It is exactly this kind of shitty journalism that makes these pundits so putrid. Perhaps if Ed Rollins had something critical to say about McCain/Palin, or Paul Begala some interesting comment on Obama/Biden it might make some sense to have these wind bags on television, but since all they do is spout out some little "zinger" that Rove emailed to them it doesn't make any sense for us to listen to them. CNN, please stop paying them and get them off the air. Try giving the American real news for a change instead of the constant speculation that passes for news these days.

CNN 8-9pm 2008/07/03

Way to go Erica Hill for pitching a slowpitch softball to RNC hack/Iraq War Group member Cliff May. She asked him "is this a manufactured issue?" referring to the coordinated charges from the McCain camp and the RNC that Obama is flipflopping on a myriad range of issues. What did she think he was going to say? Suppose it was a manufactured issue, would she expect this RNC strategist and contributor to our needless, senseless war in Iraq to say "yes Erica, it is manufactured. I wish you hadn't asked me that question as I am obliged to tell you the truth."

So once again, congratulations Erica Hill, for setting journalism, women journalists, and pretty faces pretending to be a journalist back decades.

Greetings

Hello Blogospere,

I've thought for a while now about creating a blog and jotting down my daily anger from watching, almost religious the 3 cable news channels. I try to catch all the big shows, from the 6 o'clock curmudgeons like Lou and Britt to the shout happy Chris Matthews, and the always caring Anderson. I even watch the frenzied ravings of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly as well as the dementia suffering Larry King. Last but not least of course is the ever tough talking Keith Olbermann who survives due to the ever-presence of Bill O's insanity.


Through it all we get the asinine opinions of the political pundits whose canned speeches truly exemplify what "party hacks" are. They're the perfect target for anyone to love to hate because what they say is so full of nonsense and they are so often asked to comment on things they have no business talking about - just watch the next time FoxNews asks Karl Rove to discuss the problems facing Obama.

So, I hope you will enjoy the posts in the coming months as we ratchet up for the November election and get fed shit-filled bowl after bowl in the news channels' attempts to do as little journalism as possible.