I’m not kidding. CNN is still out there looking for the missing Malaysia plane, and on May 1st, almost two months since the plane went missing, CNN is spending an unimaginable amount of time reporting on… nothing.
Stephen Colbert took on the network and does a fairly accurate depiction of what CNN does on a regular basis these days!
Watch!
Three years after taking over for Larry King, Mr. Morgan has seen the ratings for “Piers Morgan Live” hit some new lows, drawing a fraction of viewers compared with competitors at Fox News and MSNBC.
It’s been an unhappy collision between a British television personality who refuses to assimilate — the only football he cares about is round and his lectures on guns were rife with contempt — and a CNN audience that is intrinsically provincial. After all, the people who tune into a cable news network are, by their nature, deeply interested in America.
CNN’s president, Jeffrey Zucker, has other problems, but none bigger than Mr. Morgan and his plum 9 p.m. time slot. Mr. Morgan said last week that he and Mr. Zucker had been talking about the show’s failure to connect and had decided to pull the plug, probably in March.
Crossing an ocean for a replacement for Larry King, who had ratings problems of his own near the end, was probably not a great idea to begin with. For a cable news station like CNN, major stories are like oxygen. When something important or scary happens in America, many of us have an immediate reflex to turn on CNN. When I find Mr. Morgan telling me what it all means, I have a similar reflex to dismiss what he is saying. It is difficult for him to speak credibly on significant American events because, after all, he just got here.
I received a return call from Mr. Morgan and was prepared for an endless argument over my assumptions. Not so. His show, he conceded, was not performing as he had hoped and was nearing its end.
“It’s been a painful period and lately we have taken a bath in the ratings,” he said, adding that although there had been times when the show connected in terms of audience, slow news days were problematic.
If report did their basic jobs and report the facts, instead of being avenues where Republicans go to practice their talking points without being challenged, Americans would be in the much better position.
Here’s an example. On CNN, host Carol Costello asked a very basic question to Republican Congresswoman and talking-points extraordinaire, Marsha Blackburn.
Since hundreds of thousands of Americans began signing up for healthcare at the beginning of October, Republicans have manufactured a new talking point to scare off the new enrollees. They are now claiming that people would have to turn over personal information to be federal government, before getting Obamacare.
Blackburn went on CNN expecting a microphone and a camera to push the new lie, but instead, she was met with a reporter who wasn’t afraid to ask a question.
Watch the mumbles and fumbles and the stringing together of various incoherent sentences, as Marsha tried to weasel your way out of the situation.
Dr. Gupta writes: Over the last year, I have been working on a new documentary called “Weed.” The title “Weed” may sound cavalier, but the content is not.
I traveled around the world to interview medical leaders, experts, growers and patients. I spoke candidly to them, asking tough questions. What I found was stunning.
Long before I began this project, I had steadily reviewed the scientific literature on medical marijuana from the United States and thought it was fairly unimpressive. Reading these papers five years ago, it was hard to make a case for medicinal marijuana. I even wrote about this in a TIME magazine article, back in 2009, titled “Why I would Vote No on Pot.”
Well, I am here to apologize.
I apologize because I didn’t look hard enough, until now. I didn’t look far enough. I didn’t review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis.
Instead, I lumped them with the high-visibility malingerers, just looking to get high. I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have “no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse.”
They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works. Take the case of Charlotte Figi, who I met in Colorado. She started having seizures soon after birth. By age 3, she was having 300 a week, despite being on seven different medications. Medical marijuana has calmed her brain, limiting her seizures to 2 or 3 per month.
I have seen more patients like Charlotte first hand, spent time with them and come to the realization that it is irresponsible not to provide the best care we can as a medical community, care that could involve marijuana.
We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that.
I hope this article and upcoming documentary will help set the record straight.
It seems no one wants Piers Morgan. A few days ago we told you about a petition on the White House’s website that asks for Piers Morgan‘s deportation because of his anti-guns advocacy. That petition, now with 81,000 signatures is well pass the 25,000 threshold required for an official response from the White House.
And now that’s more: Another petition has popped up asking the Obama administration to keep Piers Morgan in the United States, because, according to the petition, “No one in the UK wants him back.” This petition so far has only 5,254 signatures, short of the 25,000 needed for an official White House Response.
Other interesting petitions on the government website includes two petitions to revoke Westboro Baptiste Church‘s 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Status, the first petition getting over 43000 signatures and another petition getting over 58000 signatures.
There’s also a petition to impeach all politicians who signed the Grover Norquist Pledge “in violation to their oath the the government of the U.S” This petition has a little over 8500 signatures.
Oh, these Republicans and gun lovers have found a new target, a new way to divert attention away from the real problem and point the rest of our attention to the shiny new object – British born, Piers Morgan. Morgan’s crime? Calling for more gun control laws to protect the lives of Americans.
On his CNN Show for December 21st, Morgan had NRA defender and executive director of Gun Owners of America Larry Pratt
on for a heated exchange following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school, one calling for more gun control and the other blaming everything and everyone else but guns for the carnage happening regularly in America. The heated debate between Pratt and Morgan escalated, causing Pratt to say, “It seems to me you are morally obtuse. You seem to prefer being a victim to being able to prevail over the criminal element. I don’t know why you want to be the criminal’s friend.”
Morgan fired back, “you’re an unbelievably stupid man aren’t you? You have absolutely no coherent argument. You don’t actually give a damn about the gun murder rate in America.”
Well, that exchange between Morgan and Pratt got someone very angry. They went to the White House’s website and started a petition to get Morgan deported. Petitions must receive a total of 25,000 signature to get a response from the White House, but Morgan’s deportation petition is gathering signatures at an unbelievable rate. When I began writing this post, there were 48,129 signatures. When the post was finished some five minutes later, there were 48,900 signatures on the petition.
UPDATE: The White House Responds To Deport Piers Morgan Petition
On Thursday, Patricia Carroll, the CNN camerawoman who had peanuts thrown at her and was called an “animal” at the Republican National Convention, commented on the incident for the first time. She wasn’t surprised by what happened.
“I hate that it happened, but I’m not surprised at all,” Carroll, 34, told Journal-isms. She later added, “This is Florida, and I’m from the Deep South…You come to places like this, you can count the black people on your hand. They see us doing things they don’t think I should do.”
Carroll was the camera operator who was mocked by two RNC attendees who threw nuts at her while saying, “This is how we feed the animals.” RNC security ejected them from the convention, with representatives condemning the incident. CNN later confirmed the occurrence in their own statement.
Of the convention, she noted there “are not that many black women there.” But, Carroll said, she doesn’t want the incident to be used for anyone’s political advantage — because “racism is a global issue.” It “could happen to me at the Democratic convention or standing on the street corner,” she said.
After reading all of the responses to Roland Martins suspension from CNN I have been compelled to voice my perspective on this matter. I do not know Mr. Martin personally nor am I a member of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) organization. However, I am concerned about the arguments made by those who are opposed to CNN’s decision to suspend Martin. In my opinion, Martin supporters fail to acknowledge that he is responsible for the public scrutiny of his actions that led to his suspension. Moreover, I do not think that CNN was unfair or unreasonable in their decision.
Of the many responses I have read on this matter there are two commonly held views that I am especially concerned with. The first one deals with the argument that the suspension was unfair because CNN has not treated others the same when for similar acts of poor judgment. This argument is plausible however I think it negates the issue at hand. The matter here is not about what others have done but Martin’s personal conduct which reflected not only his views but represented those he is affiliated, in this case CNN.
I understand that employers should act fairly. As such, if CNN has a standard for which they discriminately applied, then Martin should seek legal redress. However, whether CNN has punished others for misconduct is of no consequence in this matter. Martin’s decision to make express his personal views in a public forum subjected not only himself but his employer to unwarranted scrutiny.
I am sure that CNN does not seek to control the private affairs of their employees. However, like any reasonable parent that tells their child to always conduct themselves in ways that will not negatively reflect upon the entire household. This is not an unreasonable request. In fact, it is quite common for employers to place in their employment contracts that repercussions will follow for private acts that are not consistent with the principles of the organization.
For instance, I am an adjunct instructor for a college in Texas and in the faculty handbook we are advised of the fact that
“…the public will judge the profession and the institution by the statements that an adjunct makes both in public and private life, he or she should strive to be accurate, to exercise appropriate restraint, to show respect for the opinions of others, and to avoid creating the impression that he or she speaks or acts for the System when speaking or acting as a private person.”
As such, given Martin’s affiliation with CNN he knew or should have known that such remarks could not only be misconstrued but subsequently attached to the network simply by association. Moreover, because it is likely that the relationship between CNN and Martin is governed by a contract he, like myself, is probably required to exercise good judgment in his private life.
Therefore, those that argue CNN has a double standard should consider the old adage, “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Even if CNN failed to reprimand others for the same offense, it does not make their suspension of Martin unreasonable or unwarranted. Furthermore, as an intellectual and a media professional, Martin should have known jokes made publicly to persons outside of his personal circle are likely to be scrutinized and possibly misinterpreted.
In this case, members of GLAAD asserted their opposition and urged CNN to take disciplinary action. Given the mission of GLAAD it was foreseeable that Martin’s failure to exercise good judgment might affect his standing with the network. Based upon the facts at issue Martin should take full responsibility for his actions.
The next argument involves GLAAD’s characterization of Martin and subsequent influence that led CNN to suspend Martin. GLAAD deemed Martin as anti-gay because of the following tweets he made on February 5, 2012 during the Super Bowl:
In response to the tweets GLAAD encouraged members to express their opposition to Martin’s remarks and inform the public of their mission. GLAAD members and their supporters begin tweeting messages branding Martin as homophobic. In addition, they alleged that Martin’s tweets promoted the use of violence against gays. Then GLAAD issued this statement to Inside TV:
“This isn’t a mistake made on Twitter. It’s part of a pattern of anti-LGBT rhetoric that culminated in two tweets yesterday promoting violence towards gay people. The time has come when CNN and Time Warner have to decide whether they want to continue to use their platforms to elevate those who use such language.”
The actions taken by GLAAD and its members prompted supporters of Martin to lash out against the organization. In defense of Martin sympathizers argued that GLAAD’s was to extreme in demanding CNN to fire him. While they agreed that Martin was irresponsible for his tweets, they disagree that he was advocating violence against gays. Martin advocates argue that he may was merely joking. Moreover, they insist that while his words may have been offensive GLAAD’s was wrong for defaming his character.
Like Martin, GLAAD has a right to say whatever they believe to encourage others to support their cause. GLAAD is an organization that is purposed to fight for equality of its members. In doing so they seek to hold media outlets such as CNN accountable for the images and messages they produce or endorse that are derogatory towards Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender persons (LGBT). As such, the actions by GLAAD may be extreme to some light of the circumstances but they are consistent with the mission of the organization.
As an interest group GLAAD enjoys the freedom to organize and express their views. America is a pluralist society which supports the theory that all interests are free to compete for the influence of their views to be incorporated in government, media or any other entities that may affect their members. As such, for those that disagree with GLAAD they too were free to organize and represent their position to CNN. Instead Martin supporters waited until after the decision was made to launch their opposition.
The fact that CNN agreed with GLAAD and decided to take corrective action in my opinion was not wrong. As aforementioned, most companies both public and private expect those affiliated or employed to conduct themselves in manners that will not negatively reflect upon the institution. Here, CNN reviewed the situation and determined that the remarks made by Martin were “regrettable and offensive.”
The network deemed his speech to be demeaning and said that they are “inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated.” Whether Roland Martin is a nice family man is not the issue. When Martin decided to post his comments on twitter he also made a decision to subject himself to public scrutiny, misinterpretation and suspension from work.
As I previously stated, Mr. Martin knew or should have known the possible consequences of his actions. Thus, his decision to tweet is personal views in a public forum in effect said that he was willing to accept the following repercussions. Therefore, to the argument that CNN has a double standard this may be true. However, it does not make Martin any less responsible for the consequences of his poor judgment.
During the Superbowl on Sunday, Roland Martin, a regular political commentator on CNN, tweeted this:
The tweet caused an uproar in the gay and lesbian community, causing CNN to indefinitely suspend Mr. Roland. From CNN’s statement;
“Roland Martin’s tweets were regrettable and offensive. Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated. We have been giving careful consideration to this matter, and Roland will not be appearing on our air for the time being.”
Roland Martin of CNN and the Editor-In-Chief of Roland Martin Reports, published a letter on his blog from someone he called a “bigot.” Curiosity got the best of me, as I wanted to see why someone who worked for CNN would use such a word to describe anyone. A short time later, I realized why Roland used the word and I totally agree with his description.
The author of the letter posted by Martin is James Edwards, or as Roland called him, “Bigot.”
For example, “Bigot” tried to describe the difference between the races. He explained that “only 3 million nucleotide SNPs separate the races,” and he went on saying that within a decade, we will have a better understanding of these nucleotide SNP’s. This understanding, “Bigot” said, would;
… pinpoint the DNA that gives blacks such a remarkable talent for music, Asians a talent for math, and whites an incredible talent for creativity and inventiveness. If it wasn’t for whites, you would be practicing your own culture in Africa– just starving to death in a mud hut. At least, for the 60% or so of your genes that are African. African-Americans are really more like dark Latinos.
“Given this situation, I am really very moderate in my views, almost liberal. I just want segregation and an end to immigration, not the mass genocide that could easily be justified under even the simplest understanding of evolution. Life is supposed to be a struggle for survival; a survival of the fittest. I OWN you, nigger. Whites have invented technology making slavery obsolete– it’s now cheaper to just make everything with technology. So, chuk your spear, use your own culture to fight sniper rifles and helicopters with machine guns; replacing you wouldn’t even be much of a challenge.
The economy is going to keep shrinking and shedding jobs from here on out, which will cause third parties to be successful due to the outrage of Americans at their country slipping into the Third World. We are already becoming a Third World nation, but we will be victorious and take this country back, and return it to the `50s, when we had moral and racial integrity. You will be put in your place, and whites will one again take their ruling place as the masters of their own cultural heritage.”
So, to all who are not ‘pure‘-white, “chuk your spear” and be prepared to struggle and fight for our rights as American citizens…once again!
In tonight’s debate sponsored by CNN and moderated by Wolf Blitzer, the question was put to various candidates as to whether they support the Patriotic Act, a law that gives the federal government the authority to take extreme steps in gathering intelligence, even among American citizens. Just about all the participants agreed with the Patriot Act, except Ron Paul of course, who believes in freedom over security.
After Rick Santorum got his chance to answer the question, Blitzer pointed out the fact that “under certain circumstances” Santorum said he would support profiling. He then asked Santorum to explain in what instances would profiling be supported, “…is it ethnic profiling, religious profiling?”
Santorum answered;
Well, the folks most likely to be committing these crimes… obviously Muslims would be someone you’d look at, absolutely…. those are the folks who are the radical Muslims who would be committing these crimes,:
The Republican audience applauded… what else is new?
[cincopa AAKAwyq6EFLX]
He is probably the smartest Republican alive today, and in a world where crazy people get to be the toast-of-the-town and are selected to run for the Republican party’s nomination for President, one wonders why a man of Colin Powell’s intelligence still calls himself a Republican.
In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, Powell spoke favorably of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, a movement other Republicans have gone out of their way to ostracize.
The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations are “as American as apple pie,” former Secretary of State Colin Powell said during a recent interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan. According to Powell, there is plenty of justification for the movement’s outrage, but also some reason for concern over its direction.
Powell began by recalling his upbringing in Harlem and the Bronx at a time when his parents didn’t make much, but were at least able to find stable employment.
“I don’t think either of them ever made more than 50 or 60 dollars a week,” Powell said. “Both my parents worked for as long as I can remember, they always worked, they always had work.”
But this sort of job stability is no longer present, the retired four-star Army general said, a fact that is now serving as a catalyzing force for the Occupy movement.
It is time to leave the Republican Asylum Mr. Powell. Your talents and wisdom cannot be appreciated by a group of people who are willing to bury this country just to make the President fail.
Come on over, there’s plenty of room here.
