Mr. Reed, while we've never met (although I believe we have been in the same press screenings at TIFF in the past) I have heard nothing but kind words spoken about you as a person. As one of the elder statesmen of film reviewing, you have earned and can command a great deal of respect. Which is why I was so shocked and disappointed in your recent review of Cabin In the Woods, and why I am imploring you to issue some sort of retraction and public apology.
I'm sure that by now you've been made aware of the complaints stemming from that review. We genre fans tend to be a superstitious, cowardly lot, to misappropriate a phrase, and you likely think the vast majority of the criticism directed at you and your review is simply sour grapes, that we are circling the wagons and protecting one of our own. I assure you that is not the case. Genre fans are used to "our" films being misunderstood and scorned by 'mainstream' reviewers (see, for instance, another 'open letter' directed towards Roger Ebert regarding his review of the recent action film The Raid: Redemption) and if you had simply disliked the movie and given it a one-star review, as Ebert did, there would have been little furor. Even the level of juvenile contempt you displayed (your "writing under the guidance of crystal meth" line directed at Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon, for instance), which would typically be more appropriate for a venue like Ain't It Cool News than the New York Observer, wouldn't have occasioned too much comment. In fact, I suspect it would have been seen as something of a badge of honor in some circles.
Nor is the fact that your review contained glaring spoilers (specifically with regard to a cameo towards the end of the movie) the focus of the criticism. Again, spoilers are par for the course in the world of the modern cinema fan, especially since the explosion of social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter. Had you merely written a negative review containing spoilers, there would have been some grumbling but mostly shrugged shoulders and a resigned attitude that you "didn't get it."
No, the extreme criticism directed at you and your Cabin In the Woods review comes almost exclusively from the fact that it contains numerous, glaring factual inaccuracies. Taking them in the order in which they appear:
1) "...the creaking door to a cellar of corpses". There are no corpses, animated or otherwise, in the cellar of the cabin. Perhaps you were confused by the wedding dress on a stand which one of the characters is drawn to, or perhaps this was intended to merely be a colorful phrase rather than a literal description of events.
2) "Zombies rise from the swamp and eat the sexy chick’s flesh." No, actually, the zombies in the film don't eat their victims. Nor is there a swamp in the film for them to rise from.
3) "Vampires circle the moon and suck the hot stud’s blood." This is a complete figment of your imagination. There are no vampires in the film, circling the moon or otherwise. In fact, the "hot stud" character (I presume you are referring to Chris Hemsworth) doesn't get killed by a monster at all, whether vampire, zombie, or something else.
4) "What they fail to notice is the hidden cameras." Actually, the "reefer-smoking doofus" you mention in the previous sentence does find the hidden cameras. Which makes your later line about the characters "Somehow miraculously managing to figure it all out..." nonsensical, as that deduction is not the least bit miraculous.
5) "It’s all part of an elaborate video game that allows paying customers to watch real people slaughtered according to the horror of choice. The five kids in the cabin are innocent pawns to test the mechanics of the game..." This, also, is a complete fabrication on your part. There is nothing in the film, either stated or implied, to indicate that what is taking place is any kind of video game, or indeed a game at all. This is not a matter of differing interpretations, Mr. Reed. You invented an entire plot point in your review that does not exist in the film. It would be as if you claimed the main obstacle to Rick and Ilsa's romance in Casablanca was that Rick had a wife back in America, because at one point in the film you see him fiddling with a ring on his finger. It's not just untrue, it directly contradicts the actual contents and themes of the film.
6) "The game ends only if the virgin survives." Putting aside your 'video game' fabrication for a moment, Richard Jenkins' character explicitly says that the survival of the 'virgin' is immaterial to what is taking place. What matters is that the others all die before her, that she is the last one standing. (Also, as is made clear in the first five minutes of the movie, the character of Dana is not a virgin, as she recently ended an affair with her professor. As she is filling the archetypal 'virgin' role in the proceedings, however, referring to her as such should not be counted among the inaccuracies in your review.)
7) "...the stoner and the brainy girl (who is also a virgin)" OK, now it has to count as a separate inaccuracy.
8) "...if the virgin doesn’t survive it will mean the agonizing death of every human soul on the planet." I believe you meant to write if she does survive here. Again though, her survival is irrelevant. She is not the one being threatened in the final act, she's the one pointing the gun trying to decide whether to kill another character or not. This is not a subtle point that might have eluded an inattentive or confused viewer, Mr. Reed. It's something that's made very clear and explicit in both dialogue and action.
While you might claim that some of these inaccuracies are mere nitpicks, or examples of me taking turns of phrase too seriously, the sheer volume of them should be alarming to both you and your editors. The general impression given is that you didn't actually watch the movie you claim to have reviewed. Perhaps you saw the beginning, left the theater in disgust and only caught snatches of the rest through the door. Perhaps you weren't feeling well and slept through great portions of the film, and tried to guess at what happened while your eyes were closed. Whatever the reason, it's clear to anyone who has seen Cabin In the Woods and then read your piece on it (I can't in good conscience any longer call it a review) that you either did not watch the entirely of the film, or that you for whatever reason thought it appropriate and professional behavior to make things up about it.
I don't know what would have prompted you to do this. Elvis Mitchell was rumored to have been dismissed from Movieline not that long ago for a similar but far more trifling offense, as he merely mentioned in passing a character's personal affectation that was in an early draft of the script but didn't make the final cut of the film. You, either through ignorance, embarrassment or some other motive, deliberately misinformed your readers as to the contents of the movie you were supposed to be reviewing.
You violated the trust of your readers, Mr. Reed. This is not a matter of your opinion being suspect, it's now a matter of your veracity and integrity being called in question.
You've been in this game a long time, Mr. Reed. You of all people should understand how important those traits are to a film critic. If people no longer believe you are willing to at least accurately tell them what a movie's about, then your opinions on that movie becomes meaningless, and worthless.
This is not a controversy that is likely to go away quickly. Other critics have already noted your unprofessional behavior in your piece. Given the speed at which social media spreads an idea, it may not be long before your reputation and legacy as a critic are in serious jeopardy. For that reason if no other, I think it would be in your best interest to provide your readers and the general public with both an explanation for the multiple inaccuracies in your Cabin In the Woods piece, and an apology.
to: rreed@observer.com
cc: editorial@observer.com
Showing posts with label Media Bloodclots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Bloodclots. Show all posts
Sloppy Math Is Sloppy
So according to the Washington Post, more evangelicals are voting in this year's GOP primaries.
The proof? The percentage of voters who call themselves evangelical is up to 50% from 44% in 2008.
Ummm... dunno if you've noticed, Washington Post, but overall turnout is down in the GOP primaries. Like, more than 10% down. So while evangelicals represent a bigger share of the total, that doesn't mean their raw numbers are up. In fact, they're just about the same.
But you are going to believe, the laws of mathematics or a narrative that requires 'evidence' of a close race to survive?
The proof? The percentage of voters who call themselves evangelical is up to 50% from 44% in 2008.
Ummm... dunno if you've noticed, Washington Post, but overall turnout is down in the GOP primaries. Like, more than 10% down. So while evangelicals represent a bigger share of the total, that doesn't mean their raw numbers are up. In fact, they're just about the same.
But you are going to believe, the laws of mathematics or a narrative that requires 'evidence' of a close race to survive?
Dumbass of the Day
Sun Media's Jim Slotek, in trying to be all contrary and actually defend Piranha 3D as a horror movie, describes Steven R. McQueen as "tow-headed".
"Tow-headed" means light blonde hair, dumbass, as in "When I was growing up in Knoxville I was such a tow-headed little cracker." McQueen's got dark hair. The daughter was tow-headed, sure. The younger son, ehh, borderline - he was more dirty, sandy blonde. Jake? Not even close.
Dumbass.
UPDATE: Slotek apologized in an email. On behalf of all the tow-headed and formerly tow-headed peoples of the earth, I accept.
"Tow-headed" means light blonde hair, dumbass, as in "When I was growing up in Knoxville I was such a tow-headed little cracker." McQueen's got dark hair. The daughter was tow-headed, sure. The younger son, ehh, borderline - he was more dirty, sandy blonde. Jake? Not even close.
Dumbass.
UPDATE: Slotek apologized in an email. On behalf of all the tow-headed and formerly tow-headed peoples of the earth, I accept.
Fair(-Skinned) and Balanced
1.38% of Fox News' viewers are African-American. Actually, that should probably just be 'black' instead of African-American as it likely includes an international audience.
In raw terms, that's 29,000 black viewers in prime time per night, on average, out of 2.1 million actual FoxNews viewers, and however many millions of potential Fox viewers.
That's unbelievably low. To put it in a different perspective: the Seattle Mariners, who still have a shot at finishing with the worst record in baseball, are drawing an average of 27,759 fans a night.
The average black prime time audience for Fox News is about the same size as the average crowd for a Mariners game. And the Mariners have sucked donkey scrotum this season.
In raw terms, that's 29,000 black viewers in prime time per night, on average, out of 2.1 million actual FoxNews viewers, and however many millions of potential Fox viewers.
That's unbelievably low. To put it in a different perspective: the Seattle Mariners, who still have a shot at finishing with the worst record in baseball, are drawing an average of 27,759 fans a night.
The average black prime time audience for Fox News is about the same size as the average crowd for a Mariners game. And the Mariners have sucked donkey scrotum this season.
Swan Dive!... Into Sillyville
Sully goes off the deep end about JournoList, apparently because they didn't have his back on Trig.
If Sully, or bratty Tucker, or anybody wants to make a case that the list dictated liberal media talking points, then they'll need to produce some sort of evidence that there would be repercussions if someone bucked the party line. We know what happens when a Frum or a Bartlett or a Sullivan breaks away from their herd.
You can't make a reasonable case for lock-step orthodoxy when there's no downside to being a heretic. It's nonsense.
If Sully, or bratty Tucker, or anybody wants to make a case that the list dictated liberal media talking points, then they'll need to produce some sort of evidence that there would be repercussions if someone bucked the party line. We know what happens when a Frum or a Bartlett or a Sullivan breaks away from their herd.
You can't make a reasonable case for lock-step orthodoxy when there's no downside to being a heretic. It's nonsense.
OK, Vilsack Can Stay
His apology seemed genuine. No sacking necessary.
Now it's time to end Breitbart. Just wipe him off the media map. Bury him so deep his reputation will never recover.
The way to discourage this sort of behavior is to make the costs for doing it too high. Anderson Cooper's intro to his show tonight was a good start.
Now it's time to end Breitbart. Just wipe him off the media map. Bury him so deep his reputation will never recover.
The way to discourage this sort of behavior is to make the costs for doing it too high. Anderson Cooper's intro to his show tonight was a good start.
Vilsack Needs To Resign
...and he can apparently take Cheryl Cook with him.
Right after restoring Shirley Sherrod to her post.
Anybody stupid enough to get suckered by Breitbrat even after the ACORN video fraud does not deserve their government job, and especially not a cabinet post.
Right after restoring Shirley Sherrod to her post.
Anybody stupid enough to get suckered by Breitbrat even after the ACORN video fraud does not deserve their government job, and especially not a cabinet post.
He's Ba-a-a-a-ack
You know Sully's returned from his vacation, because he responds to Weigel's slam at his Trig coverage with a 56 million word piece (that's a conservative estimate) about it, bless his bald head.
And in the middle of his torrent, gold:
And then the killshot at the end.
Fuckin' A, Sully. Fuckin' A.
And in the middle of his torrent, gold:
The more revealing point Dave makes is that what truly matters in journalism is not truth but "reputation." Almost every single one of my peers in September 2008 told me not to ask these questions because it would hurt my "reputation". Many of them privately conceded that there could be something fishy here (many privately outright disbelieve Palin's stories) but one's "reputation" as a "serious" journalist forbade one from even inquiring.
Let me simply state my view: these people are a disgrace to journalism.
We journalists are and should remain the lowest of the low life forms in a political democracy. We should not be hobnobbing with the powerful, let alone bragging about it, and begging for scooplets to get Politico-style pageview moolah. We should not be garnering our reputations and angling to get on cable or playing water-slides with the people we cover.
We should be asking the most uncomfortable questions of the many frauds and phonies and charlatans who are in public office - and enjoy being despised by the legions of true-believers who actually credit the endless bullshit shoveled out into the public by frauds like Palin.
And then the killshot at the end.
I am, after all, not claiming something for which there can be no proof. I am not claiming something after contrary proof has been provided (as in Obama's birth certificate). I am merely asking to clear up a question for which there must be a mountain of readily available medical records, and which Palin could have released almost two years ago - and still refuses, even when asked in a friendly attempt to kill off the rumors once and for all. In this refusal to provide information, Palin's key allies are in what now passes for the press. And you wonder why we knew nothing about John Edwards or Eliot Spitzer or Stanley McChrystal or ... well, WMDs in Iraq or torture, until it was all over and done with.
Until this syndrome of "reputation" is abandoned, this democracy has no functioning adversarial press.
Fuckin' A, Sully. Fuckin' A.
To Answer JC's Question...
Things like seepage don't get explained because the stenographers who work for the corporate media don't have the curiosity to get an explanation for things they are told, and that they don't understand.
I don't even think you can say that there's a systemic incentive not to investigate. I just think the system is geared towards promoting extremely uncurious people. Asking impertinent questions, or going to outside experts to check facts and such, doesn't get you an invite to the next rodeo.
I don't even think you can say that there's a systemic incentive not to investigate. I just think the system is geared towards promoting extremely uncurious people. Asking impertinent questions, or going to outside experts to check facts and such, doesn't get you an invite to the next rodeo.
George Orwell Says Hi
The New York Times thinks accurate language is political:
In other words, the Senile Old Lady is willing to let the definitions of words be dictated from the White House. All they have to do is dispute a word's use and, poof! That word disappears from the NYT's lexicon.
This is how an industry dies. Not with a bang, but a whimper.
(h/t Sully, natch)
When using a word amounts to taking sides in a political dispute, our general practice is to supply the readers with the information to decide for themselves.
In other words, the Senile Old Lady is willing to let the definitions of words be dictated from the White House. All they have to do is dispute a word's use and, poof! That word disappears from the NYT's lexicon.
This is how an industry dies. Not with a bang, but a whimper.
(h/t Sully, natch)
I've Finally Got Glenn Beck Figured Out
Glenn Beck is a clown. Everyone knows it, even his supporters; deep in their hearts they know his shtick his just that, an act, and that he's not a True Believer. Which is why his inevitable fall will be epic.
But the thing that's been stumping me is exactly what act Beck is doing. It seemed kind of familiar, yet I could never quite put my finger on it.
Couldn't put my finger on it, that it, until I was flipping channels and caught the middle of a movie I hadn't seen in a dog's age.
Glenn Beck is channeling JT Walsh's Big Bob character from Pleasantville. Same hair. Same basic look, although Larry King had dibs on the suspenders. Same reactionary desire to hide in the past and never let things change from what they were before Things Went Bad.
Don't believe me? Then let's play, "Who Said It?":
"It's a question of values. It's a question of whether we're gonna hold onto the values that have made this place great. So the time has come to make a decision. Are we in this alone, or are we in it together?"
Now, is that from Beck's infamous "We Surround Them" bit, or from Big Bob's bowling alley speech in Pleasantville?
But the thing that's been stumping me is exactly what act Beck is doing. It seemed kind of familiar, yet I could never quite put my finger on it.
Couldn't put my finger on it, that it, until I was flipping channels and caught the middle of a movie I hadn't seen in a dog's age.
Glenn Beck is channeling JT Walsh's Big Bob character from Pleasantville. Same hair. Same basic look, although Larry King had dibs on the suspenders. Same reactionary desire to hide in the past and never let things change from what they were before Things Went Bad.
Don't believe me? Then let's play, "Who Said It?":
"It's a question of values. It's a question of whether we're gonna hold onto the values that have made this place great. So the time has come to make a decision. Are we in this alone, or are we in it together?"
Now, is that from Beck's infamous "We Surround Them" bit, or from Big Bob's bowling alley speech in Pleasantville?
Oh, The Weigel Thing
Yeah, sucks to be him, I guess, what with being able to flee a dying media organization before its inevitable collapse, and get a Conan O'Brien-like lionization doing it.
Otherwise, Conor says about what I think on the matter (if in about 8000 more words than I'd use): it's impossible to take seriously the ethical standards of a newspaper that regularly employs Marc Theissen.
Frankly, I find it difficult to take seriously the ethical standards of anyone who would work as a journalist for a newspaper that regularly employs Marc Theissen. If Ezra Klein is half as smart as everyone thinks he is, he'll be following Weigel out the door.
Otherwise, Conor says about what I think on the matter (if in about 8000 more words than I'd use): it's impossible to take seriously the ethical standards of a newspaper that regularly employs Marc Theissen.
Frankly, I find it difficult to take seriously the ethical standards of anyone who would work as a journalist for a newspaper that regularly employs Marc Theissen. If Ezra Klein is half as smart as everyone thinks he is, he'll be following Weigel out the door.
I Am Bleeding Out My Eye Sockets
Why did I read this? Why did I just do that to myself? Aaagh. Damn you Sully.
Let me sum it up, to save you the agony: The Atlantic's Josh Green claims to have been an indie music critic, and a teenage fan of Rush (even describing himself as "worshipping" Neil Peart), yet somehow failed to recognize the heavy Ayn Rand influence in Peart's lyrics until he 'inadvertently' started a feud between Rush and Rand Paul via Twitter over Paul's use of Rush songs.
First, I call bullshit. No teenage Rush fan -- especially one who grows up to be a political journalist -- can possibly be ignorant of the Ayn Rand influence on Peart's lyrics. It's like saying you were a big Springsteen fan, but didn't realize his songs were about America.
I also call bullshit on Green claiming that he didn't realize Tweeting about Paul using Rush songs might result in Rush telling Paul to fuck off and stop. You got the controversy you wanted, pal. Don't be a tool and pretend it was all an accident.
Second, the anecdote Green leads off his article with -- one in which he gets dissed by the lead singer of Son Volt -- displays a horrific lack of self-awareness. Basically, Green did an interview with Jay Farrar (said lead singer), then went to the show and wanted one of the other members of the band to get Farrar's attention so Green could say hi to him while they stood around and watched the opening act. God forbid Green should have to talk to a lowly bassist or something, huh? And to this day he remains baffled as to why they all treated him like a dick. Gosh, Josh, maybe it's because you were acting like a dick? Just a thought.
Remember, the Atlantic is hiring. You too can work right alongside great minds like this.
Crikey.
Let me sum it up, to save you the agony: The Atlantic's Josh Green claims to have been an indie music critic, and a teenage fan of Rush (even describing himself as "worshipping" Neil Peart), yet somehow failed to recognize the heavy Ayn Rand influence in Peart's lyrics until he 'inadvertently' started a feud between Rush and Rand Paul via Twitter over Paul's use of Rush songs.
First, I call bullshit. No teenage Rush fan -- especially one who grows up to be a political journalist -- can possibly be ignorant of the Ayn Rand influence on Peart's lyrics. It's like saying you were a big Springsteen fan, but didn't realize his songs were about America.
I also call bullshit on Green claiming that he didn't realize Tweeting about Paul using Rush songs might result in Rush telling Paul to fuck off and stop. You got the controversy you wanted, pal. Don't be a tool and pretend it was all an accident.
Second, the anecdote Green leads off his article with -- one in which he gets dissed by the lead singer of Son Volt -- displays a horrific lack of self-awareness. Basically, Green did an interview with Jay Farrar (said lead singer), then went to the show and wanted one of the other members of the band to get Farrar's attention so Green could say hi to him while they stood around and watched the opening act. God forbid Green should have to talk to a lowly bassist or something, huh? And to this day he remains baffled as to why they all treated him like a dick. Gosh, Josh, maybe it's because you were acting like a dick? Just a thought.
Remember, the Atlantic is hiring. You too can work right alongside great minds like this.
Crikey.
What's Wrong With the Media, Explained In One Sentence
The Gulf spill, Israeli/Palestinian/Turkish tensions on the rise, eight bazillion other things to worry about... and our intrepid fourth estate gives us this:
The modern press corps: Leaving no completely vacuous, fucking irrelevant stone unturned since... I dunno, 1983? Has Somerby pinned down the exact date journalism died yet?
The White House was forced to respond Wednesday to a conspiracy theory too silly for even the birthers: Did Barack Obama appear in the video for Tag Team's 1993 one-hit wonder "Whoomp! (There it is)"?
The modern press corps: Leaving no completely vacuous, fucking irrelevant stone unturned since... I dunno, 1983? Has Somerby pinned down the exact date journalism died yet?
Right Up To Your Face And Diss You
I've been trying to watch the health care summit on CNN, but their inane sports commentary drives me nuts. They keep cutting away to the studio so Wolf Blitzer can ask Candy Crowley or John King who's scoring the most points. It's like a seminar on what killed American political journalism. Hell, they're even calling the lunch break half time, and wondering if Coach Obama is going to change the game plan in the locker room. I want to strangle the lot of them.
Except Roland Martin. Goddess bless you, Roland. Wolf turned to him for some half time analysis, asked him how he'd score the action so far, and Martin's response was essentially: I wouldn't. It's stupid. A big part of the problem is that voters are sick of seeing politicians try and "score points" on this issue, and want to see an actual discussion and actual results.
Wolf quickly went and talked to someone else, and I'm not sure Martin appeared on camera again the rest of the day.
Except Roland Martin. Goddess bless you, Roland. Wolf turned to him for some half time analysis, asked him how he'd score the action so far, and Martin's response was essentially: I wouldn't. It's stupid. A big part of the problem is that voters are sick of seeing politicians try and "score points" on this issue, and want to see an actual discussion and actual results.
Wolf quickly went and talked to someone else, and I'm not sure Martin appeared on camera again the rest of the day.
He Gets My Vote
Bono states his case to be declared the Biggest Prat on the Planet. I think it's the occasional head-fakes towards some mild form of self-deprecation that really set him apart from other famous prats like Sean Penn.
Of all the stupid things in this column though, from the regurgitation of blatant lies with regard to media piracy to his reference to Neda as a living testimony to non-violent revolution, the stone stupidest has to be the idea that a Jeff Koons-designed car would be sexy. (Or purchased by more than a handful of people, for that matter.) Unless maybe Bono is hinting that he has a balloon animal fetish...
(h/t DougJ at BJ)
Of all the stupid things in this column though, from the regurgitation of blatant lies with regard to media piracy to his reference to Neda as a living testimony to non-violent revolution, the stone stupidest has to be the idea that a Jeff Koons-designed car would be sexy. (Or purchased by more than a handful of people, for that matter.) Unless maybe Bono is hinting that he has a balloon animal fetish...
(h/t DougJ at BJ)
Caple Goes Rogue
It would be nice if the hypocritical shite Caple points out in regards to Tiger Woods coverage were only true of sports journalism, and not the whole wretched profession.
It would also be nice if I had Tiger Woods' bank account.
It would also be nice if I had Tiger Woods' bank account.
All Members of the Media Are Dumb
All of them. They must lobotomize you when they hand you your journalism degree. It's the only explanation.
All the shrieking about Bill Belichick's decision last night to spit in the face of Conventional Wisdom and go for it on 4th and 2 inside the Pats' 30 yard line, with a little over two minutes left in the game, is just funny. If you give Peyton the ball back and force him to go 75 yards in two minutes instead of 25, he probably scores anyway. On the other hand, if New England gets the first down there, they can run down the clock and win the game without giving Peyton a chance to beat them. Plus, the high-percentage short pass to Kevin Faulk only came up short because of a) a great tackle by the Colts' defender, and b) a questionable spot by the ref that Belichick couldn't challenge.
The moral of the story is that it doesn't matter in what field you flount Conventional Wisdom. The media, in their ordained role as defenders of orthodoxy, will attack you for it.
All the shrieking about Bill Belichick's decision last night to spit in the face of Conventional Wisdom and go for it on 4th and 2 inside the Pats' 30 yard line, with a little over two minutes left in the game, is just funny. If you give Peyton the ball back and force him to go 75 yards in two minutes instead of 25, he probably scores anyway. On the other hand, if New England gets the first down there, they can run down the clock and win the game without giving Peyton a chance to beat them. Plus, the high-percentage short pass to Kevin Faulk only came up short because of a) a great tackle by the Colts' defender, and b) a questionable spot by the ref that Belichick couldn't challenge.
The moral of the story is that it doesn't matter in what field you flount Conventional Wisdom. The media, in their ordained role as defenders of orthodoxy, will attack you for it.
Smilin' Lou Hits the Road
Smilin' Lou Dobbs gave his final CNN broadcast tonight.
What's next for Ole Pumpkinhead? Based on his farewell comments
...you'd almost think he was going to run for office. He now lives in Sussex County, New Jersey though, and their current Representative Scott Garrett seems heterodox enough to be safe from any wingnut purge attempts. There's no Senate seat up for grabs in 2010 either.
That pretty much leaves Fox. Maybe CNN can trade him for Shep Smith, so Shep can finally come out of the closet.
What's next for Ole Pumpkinhead? Based on his farewell comments
Over the past six months, it has become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country and affecting all of us, and some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem-solving as well as to contribute positively to a better understanding of the great issues of our day and to continue to do so in the most honest and direct language possible
...you'd almost think he was going to run for office. He now lives in Sussex County, New Jersey though, and their current Representative Scott Garrett seems heterodox enough to be safe from any wingnut purge attempts. There's no Senate seat up for grabs in 2010 either.
That pretty much leaves Fox. Maybe CNN can trade him for Shep Smith, so Shep can finally come out of the closet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)