CNN suspends commentator Roland Martin over his perceived anti-homosexual tweets (enemies, illegal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmm. Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh seem to be doing pretty well, and I don't have any sense that they're walking on egg shells when they speak.
You're comparing apples to Cadillacs. Even though they are both public figures, Shock Jock is a very different medium than CNN journalist. Two very different standards as to what constitutes dumb speech that harms public image.
I was just thinking, if these two jokes had not been centered around gay men and physical violence, but instead were centered around women and sexual violence, what would the reaction have been.
For those who think Martins jokes were completely in-bounds, would rape joke have been in-bounds too?
I think you're reading way too much into it. Do you seriously believe that Martin was advocating violence against anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
You're comparing apples to Cadillacs. Shock Jock is a very different medium than CNN journalist.
He's not really a journalist. He's a commentator.
I've heard Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann say some pretty nasty things about Republicans, and Ann Coulter regularly says nasty things about Democrats. I don't usually like it, but I give them a wide berth in what they say because they are essentially commentators.
I've heard Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann say some pretty nasty things about Republicans, and Ann Coulter regularly says nasty things about Democrats. I don't usually like it, but I give them a wide berth in what they say because they are essentially commentators.
All that matters is CNN's judgement. CNN puts Martin out there as a reputable man of ideas with valuable commentary and insight into the issues of the day. If CNN believes Martin's actions during the Superbowl harm his reputation as a reputable man of ideas with valuable commentary and insight - and by association harms CNN's reputation as a platform showcasing reputable commentators - then they should get rid of him. CNN has the freedom to do that. There's no guarantee of freedom from the consequence of your speech.
Last edited by hammertime33; 02-09-2012 at 12:11 AM..
When god shows up, proves he's supernatural and says it's an "abomination", we'll listen. Until then keep your imaginary friend out of the conversation.
Imaginary friend? Really? The Bible speaks of God. It is so. By the way, my dad died for fifteen to eighteen minutes and saw glimpses of what awaits us in the after life. You can't be that deluded.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,095,649 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Three people will be really upset.
This is my thought too...I couldn't care less if they fired EVERY commentator and did something like......I don't know...REPORT THE NEWS WITHOUT COMMENTS!!!! What a novel idea...no bias,no BS,just the facts
Yes, I know CNN is a private company, and they can hire and fire whoever they want, but I still find it regrettable whenever someone is reprimanded or fired for simply making a statement in his private life that is considered controversial by some.
I think this pretty much says it all. Roland martin isn't entitled to his own cultural values because he works for a company that is owned and operated by liberal upper class whites.
from your source
Quote:
Roland Martin's tweets were regrettable and offensive," reads the statement. "Language that demeans is inconsistent with the values and culture of our organization, and is not tolerated. We have been giving careful consideration to this matter, and Roland will not be appearing on our air for the time being."
So I read what Martin tweeted. I fail to see how that is offensive. Then again, I'm not an overly sensitive member of GLAAD.
This is the context in which I see the tweet: Guy is sitting around watching the SB and the commercials with friends (some of them guys). Commercials come on. Some commercials provoke the watcher to get excited. Maybe about the new Fiat (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the girl in the video). Or maybe the new Honda due to all the retro mentionings of Ferris Bueller's Day off. Or maybe they get excited about a new type of Doritos nacho chip.
I highly doubt they'd be getting excited about an underwear commercial. It's the Super Bowl. Chances are, most male members of the audience are watching mostly for the game and not for an underwear commercial.
GLAAD is reaching on this one. But that is what interest groups do. If anyone looks hard enough for a reason to be offended by something, they'll find it. And GLAAD found it in Martin's tweet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..I don't know...REPORT THE NEWS WITHOUT COMMENTS!!!! What a novel idea...no bias,no BS,just the facts
