"Oh my God, I feel like I just got off a roller coaster, going round and round, and up and down. **** flying out … everywhere," one said, as someone else made whooshing sounds.
Another one chimed in, comparing the address to the work of a sloppy college student.
"When you’ve got to write a report as a college student and you just try to jam as many quotes in as possible … That’s what I got," he said.
Someone else added: "She didn’t finish a statement."
Then another voice could be heard cutting through, saying: "Did she make a statement, because I didn’t catch that either."
I don't like Sarah Palin, either. I don't trust her, I think she's an intellectual lightweight, and while she never did anything worth investigating, there were instances when she came damned close to it in her use of official authority. But the worst thing anyone can do at this point is show this kind of favoritism, and publicly mock her. It just gives the far right ammo to use against her opponents.
I don't like Sarah Palin, either. I don't trust her, I think she's an intellectual lightweight, and while she never did anything worth investigating, there were instances when she came damned close to it in her use of official authority. But the worst thing anyone can do at this point is show this kind of favoritism, and publicly mock her. It just gives the far right ammo to use against her opponents.
Nothing sinister. Just someone not thinking. And I'm sure in the minds of the far right, just the idea of disagreeing with Sexy Sarah is somehow evidence of some sort of a moral defect.
Nothing sinister. Just someone not thinking. And I'm sure in the minds of the far right, just the idea of disagreeing with Sexy Sarah is somehow evidence of some sort of a moral defect.
Wouldn't surprise me if all of these people were. She was speaking at a college. But still, please, people! THINK!
I'm not sure it's wrong for college students to discuss a speaker who just gave an address candidly, especially if he/she is bad, since the university and/or the SAC paid for them to come there.
I would hope they would think about what the speaker said or didn't say and discuss it with their peers.
I remember the speaker at my graduation. He had mounted a failed run for Governor of Minnesota and had a bee in his bonnet about that. I didn't pay attention to most of it, since a sick friend was sitting next to me. She had just gotten out of sugery the day before and I was worried about her. She was so tired and just wanted to shake the president/dean's hand and get out of there (plus the head of the Theatre/Dance department was one of the greeters on the dias).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/27/reporters-caught-tape-mocking-palin-speech/I don't like Sarah Palin, either. I don't trust her, I think she's an intellectual lightweight, and while she never did anything worth investigating, there were instances when she came damned close to it in her use of official authority. But the worst thing anyone can do at this point is show this kind of favoritism, and publicly mock her.
These (student) reporters probably were expected to write up a summary of the speech, including such details as the main subject. If the speech didn't have a subject, but was just a rambling slogan-fest, shouldn't they be annoyed?
I'm not sure it's wrong for college students to discuss a speaker who just gave an address candidly, especially if he/she is bad, since the university and/or the SAC paid for them to come there.
I would hope they would think about what the speaker said or didn't say and discuss it with their peers.
These (student) reporters probably were expected to write up a summary of the speech, including such details as the main subject. If the speech didn't have a subject, but was just a rambling slogan-fest, shouldn't they be annoyed?
Again, yes. By all means, discuss it. But the facts of this speak loudly enough, you don't need to expose yourself for the Whack-job Right, and make this half-witted excuse of a politician look like a martyr.
Oooh, wrong again, sir. Perhaps you should have passed on the Cheez-Whiz.
My thought was that you choose your time and place. And IF these were legitimate reporters, they damned well should have known better than to do this when they did it.
One of the biggest beefs I had with Newt Gingrich is that he knew his words and actions would be taken out of context, and he STILL said stupid things that kept getting him in trouble. I expected better from a man who taught history at the Graduate and Post-Graduate level.
(Then again, after bouncing over 250 checks with the House Bank, I thought the honorable thing for him to have done was resign the House. Just my rather biased opinion.)
I not only need a facepalm smiley, but a macro to use it fast enough...
Okay, one more time: I don't like Palin the Pinhead. Sloganeering is not public speaking. It fact, it is the exact opposite of that, and it's probably one of the reasons that even Glenn Beck hates her. This is not a good thing for anyone, including the Republicans, because what you want of the voters is people who THINK, and you want them THINKING because you want to offer them something BETTER. (Not that they're really capable of it, but go along with me for a moment.)
The worst thing about Sarah Palin is that she is not only a poor public speaker, but her "ideas," such as they are, offer no real substantive change. Reduce taxes? Sure, I'm for that. But if you're going to do that, what about eliminating Federal, State and Local programs that don't work? Once you start talking about that to anyone who's spent any time in public office, they cringe, because that's your power base.
What about defending the nation? Are we really any safer than we were during the Cold War? And has the loss of personal liberties helped us any? Seriously, I've yet to see Sarah Simple offer any views on that which would make any sense.
But when we have people who are mocking her in this particular situation, and assuming the mockers are in fact members of the media, it's a bad move. This is the kind of stupid move which her supporters record and use to show just how out of touch the media is with the general population. (The media is out of touch, to be certain, but it isn't just on the liberal side. The conservatives are just as whacked out.)
There's a time and a place for this kind of thing. This was not it. It has given her supporters ammo, and the last thing we need is for this woman to get ANY traction. I don't trust her, I wouldn't vote for her, I can't stand her. The thought that she is even considered a possible contender for the Oval Office scares the holy crap out of me, (and the unholy crap, too.) Please! Enough.
And while I'm at it, LS, there are times when I agree with what you say, but you make it so damned hard to. People have asked you to ratchet it back, but you seem to be getting worse. Please! You make so much sense sometimes, but you make it a duty, not a pleasure to agree with you!
Removed inappropriate content. Please remember that this is a public section of the forum, not the humour sub-forum.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: LashL
An important consideration would be as to whether any of the mockers could reasonably be expected to know that their remarks were being picked up. After all, they weren't standing in front of the mikes. It seems reasonable to me that they were having a private conversation that got inadvertently picked up.
I don't think it is reasonable to ask reporters not to have any political leanings and if they do, never to talk about them. Perhaps in this "wired" age, we should all presume that every word we say is being recorded, and maybe they were "stupid" for not guarding their conversation at all times, but I have a hard time faulting them for this.
An important consideration would be as to whether any of the mockers could reasonably be expected to know that their remarks were being picked up. After all, they weren't standing in front of the mikes. It seems reasonable to me that they were having a private conversation that got inadvertently picked up.
I don't think it is reasonable to ask reporters not to have any political leanings and if they do, never to talk about them. Perhaps in this "wired" age, we should all presume that every word we say is being recorded, and maybe they were "stupid" for not guarding their conversation at all times, but I have a hard time faulting them for this.
I would actually be more offended if they had no political leanings one way or another. That, frankly, scares me even more. But, dammit, think about the place. Of course there were microphones all over the place! This woman was making a "speech," and they were there to cover it.
While I was in broadcasting, I worked with a guy who usually forgot that he'd left his mic open. Trust me, it led to some interesting gaffes, none of which was pleasant. I learned from the example, and kept mine off as often as possible. Scary stuff.
One of the more interesting ones was prior to my joining the Army. A DJ at AFN Shape, (I think), not thinking his mic was open, had a Belgian engineer step into the studio. The DJ demanded, "What the **** do you want you *********** Gique?"
The Royal Family of Belgium was not amused. (Yes, they heard it.) Nor was the commander of US Eucom. Nor the American Ambassador who had to go apologize to the Belgian Royals, and the PM. Need I say more?
You just don't know who's listening. And at a political event like this, it's just not smart to run off at the mouth.
Oooh, wrong again, sir. Perhaps you should have passed on the Cheez-Whiz.
My thought was that you choose your time and place. And IF these were legitimate reporters, they damned well should have known better than to do this when they did it.
Your capitalized word being the important point here that you seem to be overlooking. According to the station, they couldn't get into the venue so had to record off a screen set up in an overflow area. Thus, the mic could have picked up anyone from the crowd. And, as the reporters, students, and others were milling about after the speech, making comments about what they just heard is to be expected. And there is no reason to think that they should have known there was an open mic in the area.
There's no controversy here. Some unknown people expressed their candid opinion. So what?
The source said they were reporters. Again, IF these were reporters, they should have known better. Since these people were obviously inside, and not in the overflow, they, in all likelihood, they were students, or average folks.
The source said they were reporters. Again, IF these were reporters, they should have known better. Since these people were obviously inside, and not in the overflow, they, in all likelihood, they were students, or average folks.
Actually, 'toad, the source does say they were reporters but how could they know who the commentators were based on some scratchy voices on the tape. I think the article you cited overstates the case but it does support your concerns.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
