Monday, October 04, 2010

Rick Sanchez vs Jews, Abbie Boudreau vs James O'Keeffe : CNN Trouble

CNN is under fire.

In firing Rick's List Anchor Rick Sanchez, the Cable News Network has ignited an Internet conversation over censorship, as much as it has the overall stupidity of an employee getting on radio and getting off racist bombs against his own employer.

While many agree that what Sanchez said was wrong, there are a number of people who respond to the opposite, and say not only that Sanchez was correct, but that he had a right to make his statements. One of those with such a view is noted writer Christopher Hitchens.

In Slate on Monday, Hitchens calls for CNN to reinstate Rick Sanchez in an article called Is it so offensive to note the effectiveness of the Jewish lobby?:


In the manner in which Sanchez spoke, also, there was something like a buried resentment. He didn't descend into saying that there was Jewish control of the media, but he did imply that liberalism was linked to a single ethnicity. Still, there is nothing criminal about this, and the speed of his firing, like the other recent abrupt disappearances of Laura Schlessinger and Octavia Nasr, seems to suggest a network system that cares only about playing safe and avoiding "offense." The best way to demonstrate the hidden influence of the chosen people would be for Jon Stewart and others to join me in calling for Rick Sanchez's reinstatement. If it then didn't happen, it would help us understand who really pulls the strings around here.


In his generally indirect way, Hitchens is implying that CNN's proving Sanchez' point by so quickly ridding themselves of his presence. Personally, Rick should have been made to explain his radio blast and CNN would have enjoyed a much-needed ratings bump from curious television viewers.

Indeed, erasing Sanchez would seem to run counter to CNN's recent habit of trying to cause discussion by over-featuring the Tea Party Movement and young conservative activists. In the case of CNN Correspondent Abbie Boudreau, her entire segment called Right On The Edge, seemed to be an excuse to cover attractive young white men and women. The only thing we learned is something that's no real surprise: James O'Keefe is not a nice person.

If you're new to this story, Anti-ACORN Activist James O'Keefe, who pretended to be a pimp (badly) and made hidden videos showing how some ACORN workers helped he and his "prostitute," played by Conservative Activist Hanna Giles, tried to "pimp" Abbie Boudreau. In the segment that aired Saturday night, O'Keefe wants to meet just with Boudreau, and she agrees. Here's what was said according to CNN's transcript:


O'KEEFE: I just want to talk. I just want to have a, you know, a meeting with you and talk to you face to face about this because I don't -- you know, I feel sort of -- let's just say reserved about, about letting people into my inner sanctum.

BOUDREAU: So, I agreed. And a week later, I flew to Maryland for the meeting. James had founded a new organization called Project Veritas, and Izzy Santa was the executive director. The group is supposed to be dedicated to exposing corruption and supporting James' undercover endeavors.


But then, upon driving to meet him, Abbie realizes that it's a blue house next to a boat called "Cinco" and not an office O'Keefe's in. This is what Abbie said:


BOUDREAU: When I pulled up to the property, there was no office. Just a blue house. Izzy Santa was waiting for me.

BOUDREAU (on-camera): And she said, I need to talk to you. Can I get in the car? And I was like, OK. So, I noticed that she had like a little bit of dirt on her face. Her lip was shaking. She seemed really uncomfortable, and I asked her if she was OK, and the first thing that she basically said to me was, I'm not recording you. I'm not recording you. Are you recording me? No. And she showed me her digital recorder. It was not recording.


Then Izzy explains that it was James' intent to get her on the boat. Now, here's where details cloud the overall issue. This blogger's contention is Abbie had a certain comfort with making the trip to Maryland to meet James because he was white, attractive, and male.

That upsets some people, but the question persists: Abbie herself says she wasn't making the trip alone to interview James, but to just "talk." If she wasn't going to interview him, what the hell did she expect to have happen?

His plan was to seduce her and make CNN look bad. And James almost succeeded because Abbie put herself in the position of flying down there, but not to interview O'Keefe, only to see him face-to-face alone. Abbie at least expected that to happen - she says so in the transcript:


BOUDREAU (on-camera): And I was like well, you know, that's just not something I'm comfortable with is to have this conversation recorded. Plus, it's not an interview. I mean, I'm just here to try to, you know, answer your questions and answer your concerns, address your concerns about this upcoming shoot.


Abbie could have either done that on the phone, or not agreed to meet James by himself. Abbie never insisted that someone else be at the meeting. Meanwhile, in the transcript, O'Keefe says he wants to meet with "just you." It's right there in black and white.

Abbie Escapes Thanks To Izzy, But...

So, as reported here, Izzy Santa spills the beans on James O'Keefe's ugly plan to make a kind of sex tape, and Abbie avoids a bad situation. But, again, why did Abbie place herself in that position?

Why the story? What's the story?

Others observers are asking questions about Right To The Edge. Tommy Christopher at Mediaite says "Abbie Boudreau doesn't ask anything approaching a tough question." Heather at Crooks and Liars was even harsher:


"..All they did is lend some very undeserved credibility to Andrew Breitbart and his minions who have a terrible history with ambushing politicians or anyone else they decide to scapegoat for the week and then putting out highly edited videos later. That's not journalism. CNN should really be ashamed of themselves for this horrid piece of "investigative journalism.".."


And for the record, Mediaite, Crooks And Liars, and Zennie62.com are all liberal blogs.

Not A Good Period For CNN

Overall, score it a "D for CNN. The Rick Sanchez issue's causing a backlash. Sanchez' replacement Brooke Baldwin has the looks but not the cutting-edge zest for Twitter that Rick brought to his shows. And Abbie Boudreau's taking flack for an "expose" that really looks more like an all-white Abercrombie and Fitch commercial, with all the sexual overtones we've come to expect.

Can CNN recover? Stay tuned.

8 comments:

  1. nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney9:07 PM

    support the federal reserve
    follow your AIPAC orders
    trust the government
    trust that 9/11 story
    trust the media

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous7:31 AM

    "But I don't care if Americans think we're [Jews] running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them." and "As a proud Jew, I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood." - Joel Stein, "Who runs Hollywood? C'mon"

    "First, it is extremely clear to anyone in Hollywood that Jews are, so to speak, "in charge" in Hollywood in a way that is not duplicated in any other large business, except maybe garments or scrap metal or folding boxes. " - Ben Stein, “Do Jews run Hollywood? You bet they do - and what of it?”

    WHY WEREN'T THEY FIRED AND EXCOMMUNICATED AND CALLED BIGOTS? OH, BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS AND JEWS CAN BE AS HATEFUL AND SUPREMACIST AS THEY WANT BECAUSE NO ONE CONFRONTS THEM. THAT IS EVIL AND DISGUSTING.

    "Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews - and they should have a greater sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering. Because...we have seen...the greaseball, we've seen the Chink, we've seen the slit-eyed dangerous Jap, we have seen the wily Filipino, we've seen everything but we never saw the kike. Because they knew perfectly well, that that is where you draw the [line]." - Brando on Larry King Live

    THIS COUNTRY IS A POLITICALLY CORRECT HELLHOLE. LET IT BURN!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rick Sanchez was CNN's ONLY Hispanic anchor. It shocks me that they'd be so quick to fire him. Both facts support his point. He was wrong about Stewart though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:33 AM

    Sanchez told the truth. In todays world Jews in USA are not the oppressed but Blacks and Mexicans are the oppressed. Jews own hollywood, the media, wallstreet, law firms, hospitals. They have taken advantage of every opportunity out there. However, despite the fact that we have a black president, we have a long way to go for oppression in America. Being Jewish is only a religion and is not a race. Jews are white people or caucasians that do not believe in the new testament.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous8:58 AM

    O'Keefe tried to 'punk CNN' using Abbie Boudreau, 'pimp' has a totally different meaning. I agree with Chris Hitchens and believe we're overly correct politically and socially. Bigotry is based on ignorance and lies. Rick Sanchez stumbled, bumbled and could have expressed himself with greater clarity, but he spoke the truth, it wasn't just a condemnation but his personal experience and viewpoint. Jon Stewart was a misguided target but his aim was obvious, elite northeast liberals who discriminate against him professionally and belittle him with condescension and innuendo.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:17 AM

    It's unbelievable that CNN fired Sanchez for stating his own views on radio. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Although I have always been extremely supportive of Jewish people and consider myself a liberal, CNN's actions have caused me to question CNN's independence and its views relative to freedom of speech, both of which are crucial in news reporting. I have read transcripts of Sanchez's interview and have seen and heard his comments on video. While Sanchez could have been more restrained in his comments, they were clearly off-the-cuff. I believe that what Sanchez said was neither egregious nor insulting to CNN or Jewish people in general. He insulted Stewart by calling him a bigot, period. So what? Sanchez was entitled to express his own opinion and CNN was wrong to fire him for it. CNN tied a noose around its own neck and jumped off the chair by making a mountain out of a molehill and firing Sanchez. I am sure Sanchez will continue to report elsewhere. However, CNN lost status, credibility and any shred of independence it had in my eyes, with its vindictive and blundered handling of this sensitive matter.

    Other programs and individuals will be tarnished as well. For example, I watched the comments by Barbara Walters and other panel members on "The View" with great interest. I like the panel's strong give-and-take. However, when Barbara Walters gave her statement, I noticed that the other panelists did not dare express their views openly but rather carefully addressed the issue of free speech guardedly and without their usual energy. The panelists were affected by what happened to Sanchez and will not be as open in the future about stating their views as they should be. What a shame! Too bad, Barbara, that after all these years of achievement, you've come to support this level of pettiness. Harry Reasoner was petty when he berated you and I stopped watching him then. You have now managed to join his ranks with your petty comments about Sanchez. Shame on you!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous11:41 AM

    Excuse me, Jewish people are Jewish! It is a religion and a nationality!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous4:37 PM

    Wait, if a 100% irish catholic dude converts to the jewish religion, he gets a jewish nationality too? That's stupid! Jewish is a religion NOT a nationality. Israeli, now that's a nationality.

    ReplyDelete