Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 525 Editor's Choice: 1
-
REALNAME:
[Read the article: The Dan Gerstein sham]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh I see you're an antineopostmodernist. Where every comment is selfreferential inside joke about someone's comments about your inside jokes.
Years ago, I said about the now dead and buried Don Imus that his show was no more than Tim Russert talking to Don about what Robert Novak said about Brian Williams on David Brinkely's Sunday show. It's just circuitous gossip. And Glen's column is sort of like that; cataloging what other bloggers say about other bloggers on their blogs that summarize commentary of bloggers blogging about other media pundits who necessarily have their own blogs too.
I hope that didn't zoom over your head, because I don't want to be the one who PROVES you're a retard. I'd rather leave that one up in the air for now.
Your premise seems to be that meta level critiques of the media are somehow invalid. That Glenn should only comment on direct events and cannot respond to how others cover those events.
So, thanks for that, it establishes I am right: You don't get it. It's not an inside joke, unless understanding the vital importance of how the media functions is some kind of enlightened secret of the bloggerati. Some people make news. Some cover them. Some question how that second group covers the first. None of those roles is inherently invalid.
So either deal substantively with Glenn's complaint, or continue to look foolish making false equivalences to beltway gossip chatter. It really doesn't take a PhD in Journalism to tell the difference between what Glenn is doing and the type of thing you are complaining about.
-
Woody_Chipper:
[Read the article: The Dan Gerstein sham]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]According to the wikipedia, Jolson also appeared in the first talkie, "the jazz singer", which in fact tells this story. The acts were by no means mockeries, but the leading serious musical acts of their time. Jolson himself was born of Jewish descent in Lithuania. The road to becomming a jazz singer was no doubt difficult, but aparently did so by any means necessary.
Point taken, but do you agree that it was later used to mock blacks? Or at least, as a means to avoid having hollywood actually hire real black actors to play roles intended for blacks, which is itself offensive. I'm thinking of Jack Benny's "black" assistant and other "house negroes" portrayed on TV, as happy-go-lucky types intended to make whites feel better about the economic suppression of blacks by idealizing it: "see, they like being servants, they're sooo happy!"
If Jane was getting at the earlier meaning you refer to, than that would only make it even clearer she meant no offense. It wouldn't make a lick of sense, but definitely not racist.
-
Rauph:
[Read the article: The Dan Gerstein sham]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Once people accept that speech must be regulated, all that needs be done is move the goalposts for what constitutes offensive speech, something that the right is extremely good at. It's impressive, but quite predictable, to watch them define white christianity as a category needing protection.
No one is talking about some kind of law or other government action to restrict speech.
Imus being fired is not a threat to free speech. He said offensive things, the public reacted, his employed decided they were better off without him.
Also we should not condone Limbaugh or Coulter and others who said abhorrent things regularly without remorse. Politicians who want to remain respectable should not appear with these people.
Jane is far far far from that category. A single mistake, apologized for is not a track record of race baiting and racism.
Even more when you analyze the particular incident and realize Jane intended nothing of the sort, and only those that misunderstood or the faux outraged for political gain were offended.
-
Karen M:
[Read the article: The Dan Gerstein sham]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was, frankly, astonished-- that she could post something that politically tone-deaf. I understood the intent to attack Lieberman, but it had no effect on Lieberman-- except maybe to help him-- and actually hurt a lot of other people. Every person of color who blogged about that incident at the time was also hurt, though maybe not surprised, by it.
Please link to some of these people expressing their hurt, so I may understand exactly what about this was so offensive to them.
My inference so far is it is only offensive if you misunderstand it. A hamfisted attempt to accuse Lieberman of disingenuity in his support of blacks, but in no way an attack on blacks.
When you claim that "every" person of colour was offended, you have a very high bar to clear. Perhaps you mean "most" but even then we can debate endlessly about it. In the case of what you wrote, all I have to do is find a single non-white person writing about this who wasn't offended and I've disproven your claim.
When I sum up what you wrote all I see is your shock at Jane's poor judgement in how the image will be received. Fine, so it falls into the category Kerry's botched joke. We know Kerry isn't anti-troop, and we know Jane isn't racist. So let's drop the pretense that Jane should have grovelled sorrow for this, ok?
-
Woody_Chipper:
[Read the article: The Dan Gerstein sham]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I grew up to Bill Cosby and the Jeffersons. I have never seen Hollywood refer to blackface except in historical terms. Blackface was the serous jazz ( minstrel ) music of that era, regardless of the color of the actual performer.
Huh? Ted Danson got in trouble for trying to do a lighthearted blackface routine while he was dating Whoopi Goldberg.
Jack Benny reruns were still on TV when I was growing up in the 80s.
If the only meaning of the blackface thing is the jazz stuff, why the hell would anyone care? So a bunch of musicians faked being black to be accepted as jazz musicians. That would be like finding women wearing men's clothes offensive because women have historically faked being men to do jobs women weren't allowed to do. Clearly there was an element of derision and a putdown inherent in how hollywood used the blackface this century.