Now We're Talking

I don't know that I can just keep yammering on about the Jared Lee Loughner being a nutjob situation much longer. Granted, things are starting to simmer down a bit, but people are still giving way too much credit to a bunch of things that don't deserve ANY credit. Thus, I thought that today I would go with this caricature/cartoon which I found on Facebook at something called Chris Spangle's Blog. It's about the most accurate piece of "reporting" that I've run across so far on this topic. Behold! (And thank you.)

You Don't Want It "Repealed"

I'm warning you right now: This entire post is kind of based solely on a technicality. There's no implied meaning behind any of it. I'm just pointing something out. That's all. Don't blame the messenger. And don't accuse me of being pedantic. I just find it interesting. Barely interesting, but interesting none the less.

It looks like the whole "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provision for serving in the US Armed Forces is about to go down in flames. The study/survey that the Pentagon did was finally concluded and it showed that about 70% of folks that are currently serving said that they would not have a problem serving with other folks who are gay. Seventy percent is a pretty good majority, don't get me wrong, but I find it interesting that it wasn't higher than that. I'm not sure what it means, but I'd like to know. Sadly, I doubt that there is actually any way of knowing, so I'm just going to leave it at 70% said "OK", so woo-hoo! Or something like that.

And here's where I point out a technicality that I haven't seen addressed yet. Everyone keeps reporting that the Senate has voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Usually, when something is repealed, that means that it goes back to how it was before. For example, the Twenty-First Amendment to the US Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment which had instated Prohibition. After the Twenty-First Amendment had passed, things went back to how they were before the Eighteenth Amendment had been enacted. That is, alcohol was once again legal, just as it had been before Prohibition.

By calling the vote in favor of discontinuing the US Armed Forces policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", isn't that implying that things in the military will go back to how they were before DADT was implemented? That really doesn't help folks who are gay and want to serve openly, as before DADT, the policy was that if you were gay, you couldn't serve at all.

Aren't there going to have to be some new rules written or old rules amended that remove any mention of whether or not someone is gay or not? Because if they simply boot out DADT, without new rules, what is to stop it from reverting right back to what it was before? Yeah, see, that's the question that I don't see answered anywhere. Not one single news source that I have read or heard or seen has addressed what the effect is going to be on gay soldiers and those who are gay who want to sign up. And of course, no one mentioned that before DADT, those who are gay couldn't serve at all. They act like DADT is so constrictive and repressive. Uh, it was a little more restrictive before DADT, don't you think?

So, that's all. It bugs me when people talk about this provision being "repealed". I think it's misleading. I also think the media sucks. That is all.

That's NOT What Happened!

Have I mentioned how much I despise the media? I do. They suck out loud at times. And the incident I'm about to describe is one of those times.

Keith Olbermann was suspended from MSNBC yesterday. No great loss. I can't stand the guy. But, then again, I can't stand any of those folks who are so one-sided I wonder how they just don't tip right on over in the morning. Olbermann is particularly obnoxious, though. But that's not the point. The point is why he was suspended. And either I'm totally misunderstanding why he was suspended or everyone in the media is blatantly leaving that reason out. And I don't get it.

I'll start with The Huffington Post. Their article starts out: "MSNBC has suspended star anchor Keith Olbermann following the news that he had donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle." OK. Now over to the LA Times blog which tells us (in an extremely pithy fashion which I appreciate) "Keith Olbermann was suspended because he donated a total of $7,200 to three political candidates who had been on his program or supported by his comments." All right, sir. And even from the New York Freaking Times which begins their article with: "Keith Olbermann, the pre-eminent liberal voice on American television, was suspended Friday after his employer, MSNBC, discovered that he made campaign contributions to three Democrats last month." Do you get it? Do you understand why he was suspended? You do? Trust me. You don't.

All three of those examples that I cited are fairly reputable (to say the least) sources of news. That's what makes me so angry. They're leaving out a key part! And it's the part for why he was really suspended! That's the thing! He wasn't suspended for making the donations! Did you get that impression from any of those sources above? Even an organization called FAIR, which stands for "Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting" got it wrong when they reported "MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been placed on indefinite suspension without pay in the wake of a Politico report (11/5/10) that revealed Olbermann had donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates, in violation of NBC's standards barring employees from making political contributions." That's not correct!

What they're all leaving out is that Olbermann was suspended because, according to the president of MSNBC, a one Phil Griffin, "I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay." And the freaking policy to which he is referring to does NOT bar employees from making political contributions. No, it requires them to obtain prior approval from NBC News executives before doing so.

Do you see the difference? The way that it is being reported makes it sound (because that's how it sounds) like he was suspended because he donated. No. That's not it! He was suspended because he didn't obtain the approval that was required. There's a difference! Am I the only one who sees that? Why is it not being reported that way? Either way, are we supposed to feel sorry for Keith Olbermann? I can't imagine ever feeling that way toward the man. But that aside, what the hell is going on here?!

And it's not just one news source. It's EVERY news source. ALL of them are reporting that he was suspended for making political donations and ALL of them leave off the part about him doing so without obtaining approval. Why are they doing that? It's maddening is what it is. Do I think that he needed to be suspended indefinitely without pay for doing it? Look, it's not exactly like he's a strict news reporter. He's chock full of opinion! That being said, I think it's a bit harsh, but that's not the point. The point is that the media sucks! And on this one, they suck SO bad that I am almost (almost) completely speechless.

We're so doomed. This is a pretty basic concept to try and report correctly, yet everyone has it wrong. If the media can't get this right, how are we supposed to trust them to explain and report on things more complicated than why some jackass got suspended? We can't be expected to do that at all. And it saddens me. Back to you