On May 15. Julie Chen, co-anchor of CBS' "The Early Show" glossed over a declaration from former Miss California co-executive director that the National Organization for Marriage is a hate group
After her resignation from her Miss California position, Moakler went on the show in an exclusive interview to discuss her departure. Donald Trump's announcement in a press conference on May 13 that Carrie Prejean would keep her title as Miss California led to her departure, and Moakler criticized Prejean in the interview.
"I think it's wrong to start screaming that you're being persecuted, then you go and align yourself with organizations like NOM, to me that are particularly, I consider them hate groups," said Moakler.
After briefly clarifying what "NOM" refers to (Moakler said, "The National Organization for Marriage."), Chen immediately moved on to a completely different question about Trump's response to her resignation.
If Chen found anything controversial in this characterization of an organization dedicated to the defense of traditional marriage as a hate group, she hid it well.
Chen also gave Moakler an opening to imply that Prejean was dishonest when she asked, "By the way, we were led to believe that she kind of wasn't aware that her breasts were exposed. Do you think that she is misleading us again by telling that story?"
The former playboy bunny responded, "Well a little bit. She's barely wearing a top [chuckles]."
Chen's performance is part of a mainstream media pattern in which they discredit and demonize traditional marriage advocates.
At least she finally made clear that one of the reasons Prejean almost lost her crown was because of her view on traditional marriage. In the opening line Chen said, "Donald Trump decided that Carrie Prejean would keep her title despite outspoken views on gay marriage and a series of semi-naked photos."
Moakler won the Miss New York title in 1995. In an ironic twist, she also became the first runner up in the Miss USA competition just as Prejean did this year. In 2001 she signed on as a playboy bunny and later became the Co-Executive Director of the Miss California Organization until her recent departure.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Dingbats, both of them.
May 15, 2009 - 13:47 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltSo...let me ask you, Ms. Moakler...do you believe that a man can have several wives/husbands/whatever?
No? Well, then you must be a hate-monger.
Twit.
No support for her assertions?
May 15, 2009 - 13:54 ET by sevenI suspect Obama and many others are also filled with hate. Didn't the vile gay issue hate and his friends issue death threats?
This is just rich: a
May 15, 2009 - 13:49 ET by Richard RomanoThis is just rich: a playmate of the month lecturing us on morality. You know, Ms. Moakler, you have marital issues of your own, why don't you worry about those instead of misrepresenting the opinion of others, as well as aiding and abetting the left-wing nutcases that went all out to destroy her for her simply honest answer.
SHE DID NOT FOIST HER OPINION ON THE AUDIENCE, YOU LEFT-WING NUT -- she was asked a question to which she calmly and honorably answered. Get the story straight, you moron.
Can anyone say, "I want my
May 15, 2009 - 13:51 ET by BKeyserCan anyone say, "I want my five minutes, too!!!"
Re Queen Bee
May 15, 2009 - 14:01 ET by slickwillie2001Yep, nothing like a good catfight. Carrie's career is better off now than had she given the PC-answer, and this other girl can't handle that fact.
what an idiot
May 15, 2009 - 14:00 ET by charlietexasI can't believe this woman still worked for Miss USA. she posed spread eagle for Playboy, then we're supposed to respect her opinion??? not to mention her gross ex hubby and that mindless show she was on. what a dittttttz.
I would think she would be happy for Miss California staying on after showing everyone her junk.
mom
Truth Be Told
May 15, 2009 - 14:06 ET by ktwardThis clip sums up nicely what many of us on either side of this divide think about the whole thing:
http://www.thedailys...
The inarguably absurd & manufactured drama that is ring-mastering this media circus proves a complete waste of perfectly good scrutiny better spent elsewhere.
Really. Move on.
The media will not move on this issue. NB will continue to
May 15, 2009 - 14:34 ET by pahuberexpose bias where it exists.
Bias* everywhere.
May 15, 2009 - 20:23 ET by ktward*Bias, defined as coverage on every network/cable broadcast channel. For ratings. And ad revenue.
Look, I had it on good advice from a Conservative friend that this site was the 'C' media watchdog version of the Left's Media Matters. But MM does not dip into this petty crap, it sticks to substantive issues.
If I want partisan rhetoric on petty, non-substantive issues, I can get that easily from Dkos and RedState et al.
Is that NB? Just another partisan hack site?
Seriously.
kt... You're seriously
May 15, 2009 - 20:33 ET by bigtimerkt...
You're seriously not going to last around here long.
Geesh...don't you obvious trolls even know how to be somewhat sneaky?
Your masters aren't teaching you well...or you're incapable of learning.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Chuckle.
May 15, 2009 - 22:17 ET by ktwardSneaky? I wasn't trying to be sneaky, no need to project.
As for your contention regarding my longevity, I'll take that as a challenge. See, there are actually individuals, such as myself, who prefer to have well-informed opinions: this requires one to consider all sides of an issue, not just the one within their own ideological bubble. That said, I will admit the jury's out as to the veracity of this site, but I won't jump to conclusions just yet.
Nonetheless, this column and blog thread remain nothing more than petty substance and petty bantering. It was indeed my mistake to venture into it, I'll choose more wisely next.
I am betting
May 15, 2009 - 22:29 ET by general companyNonetheless, this column and blog thread remain nothing more
than petty substance and petty bantering. It was indeed my mistake to
venture into it, I'll choose more wisely next.
2 weeks, maybe 3? I like the fact you think you can choose more wisely, show's good effort there.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
kt... Well aren't you
May 15, 2009 - 22:30 ET by bigtimerkt...
Well aren't you special?
...and I'm quite sure you already have back-up user names all set to go...or you wouldn't be so obvious...it doesn't take rocket- science to understand you brazen arrogance.
So carry on Leon...have a blast....
We shall see who has the last laugh.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Just what we
May 16, 2009 - 09:11 ET by motherbeltJust what we need....another poster whose every other comment is "How does this relate to media bias?"
You don't think it's bias when a guest calls a group that supports marriage a "hate group" and the interviewer just lets it pass without a challenge? Was Chen being fair?
kt...how do stories (on MediaMatters) such as "Arlen Specter Gets a Taste of the GOP Noise Machine" and "The Right's Tortured Shell Game" relate to media bias????
If you prefer MediaMatters, or Kos...you know where they are....
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
"Nonetheless, this column
May 15, 2009 - 22:33 ET by JAB"Nonetheless, this column and blog thread remain nothing more than petty substance and petty bantering. It was indeed my mistake to venture into it, I'll choose more wisely next."
In a word : "BYE"!
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
Hey kt, I understand your
May 16, 2009 - 15:05 ET by CamelopardalisHey kt,
I understand your point. I sometimes think that NewsBusters makes fuss over nothing, but I started visiting the NB site shortly after the election (I'm a registered Democrat, but I'm hardly a leftist or a 'rightie') and it opened my eyes to some of the bias in the media of that I previously had no idea. However, I have also recognized that NewsBusters (like most news sites) has an agenda, so I take what I read with a grain of salt. I do the same when I read news on the Huffington Post or Media Matters or Media Research Center. My point is is that reading material all around, you should be able to find the truth in the middle. So I suggest you stick with NewsBusters, but keep visiting the Media Matters site as well.
Boy oh boy...
May 15, 2009 - 14:29 ET by nolotrippenBoy oh boy, it seems I belong to a LOT of hate groups. Who knew?
"I hear you" says the report to moekler's comments.
May 15, 2009 - 14:32 ET by pahuberNOM is a hate group? Really?
moekler was allready looking to replace Prejean before Trump made his decision and her comments were as they are now.
She is a kool-aid drinker and a hater of traditional people everywhere.
Glad she is a quitter too!
what a joke!
May 15, 2009 - 14:34 ET by rowdygirlIt's so apparent that this is all about supporting the left and their way of thinking. If she had said "yes, I think gays are groovy and they should be married too" she would now be their queen and they would be milking her comments for all they were worth, and wouldn't have a problem at all with her promoting that cause. Because she dared to disagree with the liberals, she's become their target of hate.
Why is it that they are only tolerant and understanding if you agree with them?
Rowdygirl...
May 15, 2009 - 14:57 ET by GecksIf she had said "yes, I think gays are groovy and they should be married too" Pervez would not had any reason to rant and rave, the MSM would not have had any reason to pay attention to it at all. Shauna Moekler is a aging skank whore who cheats on her husband. Is it any suprise that she doesn't support traditional marriage.
Destiny rarely calls on you when it is convenient!
Is It This Shanna Moakler?
May 15, 2009 - 14:43 ET by HoosierEmThe same Shanna Moakler who punched Paris Hilton? That Shanna Moakler? Wouldn't that be hateful behavior?
http://www.newsday.c...
Ms. Moakler: When the people of this country look to you for a moral judgment, then we will know we are really in trouble. Typical hypocritical leftist.
So let me get this straight,
May 15, 2009 - 14:49 ET by MrSnugglesSo let me get this straight, Moakler goes full nude in playboy and gets to keep her job with Miss USA, yet Prejean shows the bottom part of one of her breasts when she was.. 17? And she needs to be kicked out of Miss USA?
No
May 15, 2009 - 15:00 ET by ChaitealoverMoakler thinks she should have been kicked out because she's a Christian who believes in traditional marriage and had the colossal nerve to say so in answer to a direct question from a little twerp.
Chai
“Honor, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us” - Thomas Jefferson
I know, so why aren't they
May 15, 2009 - 15:14 ET by MrSnugglesI know, so why aren't they open about that instead of pretending that they want her fired for showing half her breast when she was 17?
The answer is simple
May 15, 2009 - 19:24 ET by moderncommentaries83If you're asking why they didn't throw her out for being a Christian who supports real marriage, the answer is simple: they know most Americans would be appalled by it and, in reality, that's open discrimination and then a violation of Prejean's First Amendment rights.
Their agenda is much more subtle.
And, despite the whole "gay marriage will win because voters are embracing it!" meme, that's not the truth. Marriage amendments in states like California and Wisconsin (blue states) never would have passed with the margins they did if only gray-haired grannies were voting. It is a safe, and logical, guess that liberals, Democrats, young voters, and even gays themselves are voting in favor of marriage amendments when they crop up. So people like Moakler know that sentiment is not on their side. Thanks to folks like Hilton, it will take even longer for it to shift, if ever.
Why do you think they need to cram this stuff down kids' throats at school and in college?
Why do you think they need to find activist judges to ram through rulings overturning the will of the people?
It's because they know the public at large doesn't stand for it.
This is much in the same way to how the pro-abortion movement declared the pro-life movement dead after Obama won - that his election was a "mandate" for abortion.
Huh. Then why has pro-life sentiment pretty much trended upward since Gallup started polling in 1995? This marks the first time more people responded "pro-life" than "pro-choice."
Which means that traditional morals and values - i.e., TRUTH as formed by this nation's Judeo-Christian heritage - has a place in the hearts and minds of Americans.
And it drives the left absolutely crazy.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
How dare you use the word
May 15, 2009 - 15:32 ET by mattmHow dare you use the word "straight" - you hater, you! ; )
I find it hard to take seriously...
May 15, 2009 - 15:07 ET by jdripperI find it hard to take seriously any broad whose two cheif accomplishments hold up the front of her dress. Ms Moakler's 15 minutes of fame were up 10 years ago time for her to get a real job say one that requires her to be standing to be paid?
Jack
"If at age 20 you are a conservative then you have no heart. If at age 30 you are a liberal then you have no brains." Sir Winston Churchill
Irony
May 15, 2009 - 15:24 ET by lmarie373I find it funny how this people defend gay mariage with a passion but ironically both are maried to the opposite sex!! Most celebrities use the gay community in order to sell their product or go see their movies but to be honest most of them prefer the opposite sex shows how intellectual and honest they really are.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
napolitano must resign!
http://www.grassfire...
Via Free republic!
http://www.freerepub...
Who is the hater; the
May 15, 2009 - 15:31 ET by mattmWho is the hater; the person who spoke her mind, or the people who have been excoriating her for speaking her mind?
Why can't they just disagree without resorting to accusations of hatred and bigotry? (Don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question. We all know the reason - they basically have no other argument)
Sorry, was that a hateful thing to say?
Sorry means never having to....
May 15, 2009 - 16:12 ET by acumenSorry, was that a hateful thing to say?
Yes. But no stay at a reeducation camp will be required matt....you prefaced your question with the word "sorry".////
I find it interesting that NOM and the Obama Administration's views on marriage are exactly the same. Does that mean the Obama Administration is also a hate group? (Don't answer that. Based on Obama's numerous America Apologizes to the World Tours, we already know the answer.)
Moakler
May 15, 2009 - 15:46 ET by BondPlainBondMoakler, an obvious lefty, must have received the entire DHS Right-Wing Extremism Report (which officially delineates all bona fide hate groups in the US), and knows that besides Republicans, pro-lifers, returning military from the theatre of war, veterans, lower tax proponants, and gun owners, the National Organization for Marriage must be on the OFFICIAL Obama Administration's terror watch list, too.
Thanks for the share and the heads-up, Moakler.
This baloney has gone way too far into the ridiculous.
Yep more than half of
May 15, 2009 - 16:03 ET by eaglewingz08Yep more than half of californians and more than half of African Americans and Latinos are hate group members cause they voted for Proposition 8 and believe in traditional marriage. I hope repubs will use these quotes in the next year elections translated in spanish and played to the African American community to let them know what their democrap friends really think of them.
...and to prove how hateful
May 15, 2009 - 16:05 ET by gromit...and to prove how hateful they are I'm going to make a bunch more "B" sleaze movies and pose for Playboy again
A more pertinent inquiry
May 15, 2009 - 16:42 ET by gopcongressWhy is Perez Hilton still working? His question was totally inappropriate for the pageant in the context it was issued.
In addition, Hilton said things about Prejean that, frankly, Trump himself could be liable for such destructive comments that go beyond the normal political discourse and approach personal slander.
But that's not going to happen. Trump knows the score, and he knows that he will tick off the wrong people if he would have fired Prejean; it's just that by NOT firing Hilton he's justifying HIS actions, which frankly I find extremely nauseating.
______________________
Moderate... Democrat... Liberal... Progressive... Socialist... Communist—The progression is clear as day.
Let me get this straight....
May 15, 2009 - 17:39 ET by OlympicLeprechaun"I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman." Hate speech.
"Dumb b**ch, c**t, tranny, whore, fake boobs, homophobe, had her d**k and adam's apple sanded off" etc., etc. Rational thoughtful debate.
Oceania has arrived. God help us.
Some ideas are so preposterous that only an intellectual can believe in them.
George Orwell
Does Anybody Even Care About The Truth Anymore?
May 15, 2009 - 22:47 ET by The7SticksThe only reason that there was an inquiry about disqualifying Miss Prejean was not because of alleged topless photos she posed for (which I, for one, believe are fabulous), but because she besmirched her duties as Miss California by letting the National Organization for Marriage use her as a spokesman, which is a clear violation of the rules in holding the title of Miss California. That was the issue, and it is conveniently overlooked by groups that have as much an agenda as the pro-gay groups. You're only going to find this kind of truth on shows such as the Phil Hendrie show.
And I'll be honest: Miss Prejean sounds like a nice young woman who shouldn't have been victimized by restroom tappers like Perez Hilton. She's not a politician, she's a celebrity who's probably the most famous Miss USA contestant since, ironically, Vanessa Williams (no offense.) But you cannot deny the fact that there are groups like NOM that, while certainly not hateful, they are as vapid as the National Organization for Women...
If you ask me, I'm neither a memeber of NOW or NOM. I consider myself a member of NO MA'AM. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to join Al Bundy over at the Nudie Bar and drink some tequila shots over Shanna Moakler. It's the least we can do.
After the incessant attacks
May 16, 2009 - 20:19 ET by RogerCfromSDAfter the incessant attacks against her by Moakler, the queer activists, and the media, you have an issue with her speaking on behalf of NOM?
Do you have an issue with Moakler being a spokeshole for SSM?
A nation cannot be free without a free, unbiased media. We are not free.
7,
May 16, 2009 - 20:25 ET by UpNorthI'll join you and Al at the nudie bar. Maybe Moakler will show up, cruising for another guy. Or Perez Hilton will show up, cruising the men's room.
So the majority of voters in
May 15, 2009 - 23:43 ET by mostlymoderateSo the majority of voters in California are haters I suppose. Can they be prosecuted for promoting hate by casting their votes?
Moakler
May 16, 2009 - 09:46 ET by quimperAnd Donald Trump is sitting back, laughing all the way to the bank. You can't buy this kind of publicity. He knew keeping Prejean would stir up more controversy, and he was right. Now Shanna Moakler is making her rounds on the media outlets, whining about this and that. She'll fade into obscurity until she and her ex husband have another brawl with some celebutante.
But next year, Miss USA will have higher advertising prices and revenues. For an industry that was fading into obscurity a month ago, this has brought renewed interest. How high will the ratings be next year?
And Trump, the master of self promotion, is loving every minute of it.
Re Prejean
May 16, 2009 - 12:51 ET by slickwillie2001Don't know if you folks have seen this, Axelrod referring to Prejean as a dog; there's a reason Axelrod stays in the background of this administration, he's basically an a-hole.
Axelrod: Prejean is a dog: http://www.americanthinker.com
It wouldn't sound quite so
May 16, 2009 - 20:08 ET by gabbyhayesIt wouldn't sound quite so silly to you if you took a few minutes to find out what a "hate group" is and what "hate speech" is. I've had any number of conversations with people about these things and rarely have I run across a person who thinks the terms are laughable (or risable) who actually knows what they mean. I actually had one person accuse me of hate speech for pointing out that President Bush had done something particularly stupid.
Take the time to do a bit (just a bit) of research. Educate yourself and you won't say foolish things quite so often.
Moakler's a skank who is
May 16, 2009 - 20:15 ET by RogerCfromSDMoakler's a skank who is about as hateful as they come. Look how fast she threw Ms. Prejean under the bus. And they were friends!
Moakler's going to keep throwing a tantrum, milking this for all she can get out of it.
What a typical hypocritical lib.
A nation cannot be free without a free, unbiased media. We are not free.