The disdain and open mockery of the media predates Trumps political career by a LONG time. He may have coined the phrase "fake news", or at least made it popular. But he was not the source of disdain.
OT: don’t like whatever is brewing with Kim Mulkey and this Washington Post article
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
The disdain and open mockery of the media predates Trumps political career by a LONG time. He may have coined the phrase "fake news", or at least made it popular. But he was not the source of disdain.
I dont care for any media news, nor do I trust many, outlet but there is not a single one that is unbiased whether liberal or conservative or whatever. They ALL slant things to sway public opinion and it hurts all society and makes this country look pretty dumb because we all regurgitate the nonsense we see based on that which we agree with. We support that which we want to believe and bash that which we disagree with. However, none are really fair and impartial. It also hurts a great deal that too many people listen to social media posts and some stupid podcasts that any avg Joe can make that also has no clue but wants to sound like they do. Its kind of like hearing two sides of a situation between two kids. They both tell their side but we know the truth is somewhere in the middle and we have to figure that out.
This has become the most amusing imbroglio of a thread that I've seen in ages. I've learned not to become embroiled on the Internet. I wish I had learned it sooner. Some of y'all might come around to it eventually.
My entire social media existence is here and the Rivals site. Confusing the internet with facts or news is dangerous. You can achieve both if used properly, but most don’t. Life experience before Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram helps.
Think you are correct King. I lose sight of the fact that I come here to learn about and discuss Gamecock sports. Gotta keep my eye on the ball and not fall down the rabbit hole. Few, if any posters, change their political stripes based on the posts they read on here.
I think nostalgia for an unbiased and comprehensive media landscape doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny
I'm all for healthy disagreement. I wish we could go without sweeping generalizations, name calling, baiting, and the like. Thank you @KingWard for the post
I don't think we should be making arguments under the premise we'll change each others' minds. Rather we should make arguments for the sake of the arguments: objective truths combined with well informed and well reasoned opinions. Bring thoughtful consideration to life.
I just don't like to get too wrapped up anymore in contentious non-sports threads that might require multiple days to exit advantageously. I'm too old for that now.
Or anyplace else. That applies to faith-related matters as well.
Don’t forget orange man encouraged everyone to drink bleach too, amirite.
Geez man, what are you, 12?
Fox News is on, hurry before you miss any award winning journalism.
I wouldn't talk too much, especially if you voted for that joke of a Mayor in Athens. That town has really gone to sh*t.
Television journalism in the Sixties and Seventies was not as it is now. For one thing, you didn't have these all-news networks that needed incendiary talk programming to keep enough people watching to pay the bills. Same with talk radio, which didn't really exist to any extent.
No internet, either. No blogs. No news sites and all the entities vying for primacy.
The 30-minute nightly network newscasts all played it fairly straight and the Sunday interview programs, while edgy, were not as adversarial as we see now. They can get nasty now.
Things began to change noticably during the Vietnam War and then Watergate. Guys like Dan Rather and Daniel Schorr started insinuating opinions, but they were a little unique for quite awhile.
Now, even Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel are on every night stirring the pot, most of the time from right to left. But Johnny Carson, when asked why he avoided overt forays into political commentary, stated his belief in, and his intention to continue, the Jack Benny/Milton Berle template in doing his job, not the sardonic, cynical commentary model we see on late- night television now.
So lots has changed.
As previously stated, Carson was one who could not be replaced.
And he helped launch many other great comedy careers as well.
I agree lots has changed. And the civility and polity is a major piece of that. But the news was very censored and very biased despite the civility and polity. It was sanitized to lull citizens into thinking it credible. A few well-known examples include
- Hearst was the #1 media company in the world in the 1920s and 30s. Amongst other biases, owner William Randolph Hearst championed an anti-hemp, anti-marijuana agenda in part because legalized and industrialized hemp production would threaten Hearst's forestry business supplying paper mills.
- Henry Ford's media properties openly advocated anti-semitism.
- During the world wars, American publications ran jingoistic content as part of the war machine.
- Propagation of racism: anti-black, anti-Chinese, anti-Japanese, anti-civil rights movements - bias and antifactual reporting run amok for decades.
- Hell, virtually no Americans knew FDR had polio because the media were complicit in his power posture to not be photographed in a wheelchair or braces. Kennedy's affair with Marilyn Monroe and countless others was suppressed from the news.
Back to the matter at hand - did the article come out, or did they know they were about to lose a lawsuit after her threats?
On the one hand, no. On the other hand, open to speculation but I suspect not.
Seems much ado about nothing. Just a story, nothing more. Perhaps there were some serious edits? Either way, I’m glad sports reporters got put on notice.
It can out. I different read it word for word. Really not bad. Biggest take away. Her father was unfaithful to her mom and she has not spoken to him in 37 years. She has spoken to her sister in 5 years. Her husband felt he was not getting her attention…they divorced.
What a letdown. All that buildup apparently just to say: “she’s intense and expects a lot of her players and that rubs some people the wrong way.”’
From what I have gleaned over the years concerning the editorial leanings of the Post, I believe the one of the objectives was to cast her as questionable on the matter of homosexual players, and specifically that she did not sufficiently use her bully pulpit on behalf of Griner's release from Russia.
I want to be honest. I have not read the article. What I just wrote was based on a purported excerpt I saw earlier today.
That sounds reasonable and highly likely. Particularly the Griner part.
I heard the bit about Griner, and it’s totally moronic. How much pull does the ladies basketball coach from LSU have with Russia for prisoner release, or any issue for that matter? Answer: zero. People making it sound like Mulkey had any power whatsoever to expedite the process is completely absurd. In that respect, Mulkey is 100% completely irrelevant.
I honestly don't think that any expectations were related to power or "pull". I think it was more about prominence and prior relationship.
What prominence does Mulkey have when it comes to foreign relations?
I suppose the contention is that she should have spoken up on Grindr’s behalf. I get it as she was a former player. But practically, it would have been utterly meaningless.
Last edited:
Could have been; might not have not been. Mulkey is more prominent publicly than the vast majority of people so that what she says gets coverage. Consider what's happening right now.
Additionally, she has a long-standing relationship with Griner that involves a measure of trust, presumed affection and anticipated support. That's what Griner would have been counting on and taken some encouragement from, not diplomatic credentials.
Last edited:
Interesting take and analysis of THE article.
awfulannouncing.com
Kim Mulkey proved the point of the Washington Post's profile before it was even published
The Washington Post's profile on Kim Mulkey wasn't full of shock and awe, but it exposed her to be a flawed person, the worst crime possible.
awfulannouncing.com
Oh well, in any event, it's kind of embarrassing for the author of the article that he/she took 2 years to put this thing together. From the snippets I've picked up, it seems there's no real new info in the article. She's a harda** and rubs a lot of people the wrong way, great coach, demanding, perfectionist.
