Salon.com Article Backfires
Referring to this article, where the website doesn’t allow you enough space to reply (1000 characters, yeah ok).
New heights of stupidity by Glenn Greenwald
My response to him and a few people on Facebook:
What kind of person running for President is calling people pigs and stinky fish? I guess that’s how some people think a President is supposed to act or something. That’s how Obama takes care of problems and we’re supposed to ignore that they’re saying. These candidates are interviewing right now for a job. People mess up job interviews with less than a bad joke. Any media outlet (cough… Salon) that points out things to ignore that a candidate says isn’t biased or anything then, right? What??
This article says that this is a cliché that Obama said. What cliché is that, exactly? Not any one that I know of. The article left out the fact that the crowd started chanting "no more pitt bull!" when he mentioned lipstick on a pig. The crowd knew what he was referring to right away. For this article to say that this comment was just some unknown cliché that just happened to come out of Obama’s mouth at this time by coincidence kind of says that what Obama says isn’t carefully crafted with any thought but just random. So does this job candidate not know what he’s saying or are we just supposed to ignore some of the things he says?
We’re practically at the height of the election season – when any candidate coughs, it turns into news for 24 hours. Yeah, the media is worse than ever, but that’s just expected at this time, right? Why would anyone be surprised by that? The media wants people glued to their TVs or website thinking that we just can’t live without them so they get great rankings / traffic and sell more ads. It’s all about the almighty dollar. The more outrageous, the better for them. The first step is to recognize this but unfortunately the media has too many people under their spell… to the point where we’re told what parts of a job interview to ignore. Who do they think we are?
(chew on that a little)