I watch Fareed Zakaria because he covers global news very well, and his guests are some of the most brilliant minds out there. But I was very disappointed in his show on Sunday.
As Noel pointed out, yesterday he had as a guest Bill Maher. Certainly not a brilliant mind. In fact, the opposite of that. I have no idea why Zakaria would have such a person on his show. It lowers the standards. Naturally I wouldn't expect any less than a disgusting display of bitterness and hatred cloaked in jokes from Bill Maher. Which is exactly what he did. What I have a problem with is Fareed Zakaria allowing Bill Maher to speak of Americans who are Tea Party activists as "Teabaggers." We all know that is a perverse sexual slur, yet Zakaria allowed him to say it over and over again. Not once or twice, but every time he reffered to the activists.
I wonder if Zakaria would have allowed someone to refer to black Americans as the "n" word over and over? I wonder if he would have allowed any guest to call Hispanics "wetb**ks? Would he have allowed even a comedian to call gays "fa**ots" over and over?
I think not. But slurring Tea Party activists seems to be acceptable to Zakarai.
Shame on him. Shame on CNN.
If people want a civil discourse in the news, then people like Zakarai need to lead by example, not wallow in the swamp of political muck with Bill Maher.
I imagine if any of the above examples had occurred, Zakarai would have asked the guest to refrain from using those slurs. But in the case of the Tea Party activists being slurred, Zakarai just sat there. Unacceptable.
I may not have agreed with Fareed Zakaria politically, but I respected him.
I no longer do.
When I addressed this on Twitter they said that "teabaggers" isn't nearly as bad of a slur as the "n" word or the others. But I say when are slurs prioritized? I'm not talking namecalling. I'm talking about slurring an entire group of people for who or what they are. That is what "teabaggers" does. Those who use it know how offensive it is, especially since it refers to a perverse sexual act. How is this any less offensive than other slurs? I might add that I can see people saying that it isn't that bad of a slur if they aren't talking about you.
People are free to slur. Bill Maher has made a career out of it. What angered me is that this serious news show allowed him to do it, when I know they would never have allowed other slurs, even coming from him.
Comments
Lighten up on Fareed
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 12:05pm.
I'm sure he'd be just as understanding if Maher had made a derogatory comment about the marital situation between Mohammed and his child bride.
Spot on and good call
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 12:46pm.
CNN shows that they are in fact biased when they allow one-sided guests to slur others with no challenge at all. It's not just Fareed. It is common on CNN. It seems that the only fair and ballanced shows on CNN are those lucky enough to have a host AND a producer who want to be (which is very rare).
You are better off sticking with Chris Wallace and Bret Baier on FoxNews. You get the same news without the smarmy bias and slurs.
Part time Congress with term limits! - No more professional politicians. Let's start rebuilding the Republic!
CNN - Zakaria - Maher
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 12:59pm.
Kathleen, you pondered: "I have no idea why Zakaria would have such a person on his show."
Bill Maher has become a standard on CNN; from Larry King Life to Blitzer's Situation Room - and now Fareed's show.
While I agree w/ your assessment that Zakaria does indeed cover very critical and sensitive international issues, and with a surprising bevy of guests, with rare exception it is difficult not to see his far left leanings threaded through his daily fare. His editorials run the far left agenda on a consistent basis, yet it is easy to get caught up in his intellectual skills, as he often seems to be conducting hard ball interviews of numerous radical Islamic creatures - from a vantage point of actually caring about America.
That being said, I threw in the towel on Zakaria, when he boldly promoted this biggie, promoted as his last broadcast of the Bush era:
CNN- 01-16-2009 Fareed Zakaria- Legacy of Bush-The Worst President Ever (my bold)? - Video here:
In 2000, the Clinton administration had almost balanced the federal budget, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was projecting that over the next 10 years the United States would have surpluses that would add up to $5.6 trillion -- yes, trillion.
Well, the Clinton administration, the Gingrich led Republican congress, the irrationally exuberant Dot.com bubble economy (the Enron economy, if you will) all combined to create this short-term phenomenon . CBO's projections, however, were based on the economy continuing to grow - with continued tax revenue growth - at the growth rate of the Dot.com bubble economy - a pure paper projection a fantasy. Of course Zakaria forgets that Clinton economy crashed in March of 2000 - and with it tax revenue would not only stop growing, it would go into reverse. Goodness, there are dozens of easy to understand economic indicators, Fareed, that you might have run across - here's the year before Bush became president - this so called roaring economy that he inherited... Real Industrial Production.
By the spring of 2002, two thirds of that projected surplus had evaporated, and the rest disappeared soon thereafter.
There were many reasons for this, out-of-control spending being one. But by far the lion's share of the surpluses went into the tax cuts.
"..spring of 2002?" That would be around 15 +/- months into the Bush presidency. The 2001 budget was Clinton's last by the way. We'll skip much of the discussion about the recession that Bush inherited from Clinton, and that little event called 9/11 and the resulting effect on the economy (by the spring of 2002?) from that. In fact, we can probably just skip whatever the big spending by Bush during 2001, as well - I mean, how much could he spend prior to passing his first budget? We do know that the Democrats always want to spend more - just to keep that on the table.
So let's talk about how $trillions in projected budget surpluses disappeared by the spring of 2002, because of the Bush tax cuts.
Oh, looks like we can leave the Bush tax cuts of 2003 off the table here - that is, if I know how to read a calendar.
Now there were the tax rebates of 2001 (mailed out in the fall), which account for $40-60 billion; however, those were put into the tax cut package at the insistence of the Democrats (quoting leftist economist, Dean Baker, there); specifically Daschle, Liebermann and Kucinich).
To be very giving, I'm not about to attempt to pro-rate out 2002:
The tax cuts for all of 2001 and 2002 were calculated to be $146 billion
combined ($71 and $75 billion, respectively.) That includes the rebates.
Are we up to $trillions yet, Fareed?
Idiot liar. He's little more than the typical biased and uninformed Bush basher - he's a dangerous one.
(;~/ gary
Two beers and a popcorn please....................
Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 6:00pm.
I was passsing through as the games yesterday were kind of boring and I saw Maher and figured i'd check out "Fareed the screed" one more time to see if there was any real journalistic integrity in him, nah, just sat there as an "audience member" while Maher did his hateful, factless standup.
That's the impression I got, audience member who was compliant with the "act" of stupidity masquerading as intelligent discourse...............
Zakaria = Soros Watercarrier
Submitted by djwolf12 on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:18am.
I don't trust this Zakaria. He works for both NEWSWEEK AND CNN, who basically has their hands in Soros' pants. Even a 7 year old child can do their research on zakaria and his ties to George Soros and see that this guy is a fraud and should resign immediately. If you don't believe me, check out this link. Madeleine Albright, Kofi Annan (Former Secretary General of the United Nations) are guilty.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/support/event-calendar/award-dinner-2010.aspx
Um, Because Being A TEA Partier IS A Choice?
Submitted by TheReal7Sticks on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:47am.
Last time I checked, a TEA Partier has a choice of being a TEA Partier or not. Unlike skin color or sexual orientation, a political ideology has no special protections in regards to civil discourse or name-calling. Ever heard of attack ads? Does the term commie pinko ring any bells? Last time I checked, nobody blinked an eye because we Americans happen to loathe communism. In America, the First Amendment cuts both ways in regards to political speech, and name-calling happens to be a God-given right for both the left and the right. In fact, you know what you sound like when you whine about letting left-wingers call right-wingers names? You sound like a left-winger wanting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine because you never learned the lesson that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
And would it kill a tree if you used spell and grammar check before you post your blog?