Post: #101

(06-04-2018 11:34 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  A Roseanne Spinoff Could Be Announced This Week

https://screenrant.com/roseanne-spinoff-...ment-soon/

A Roseanne spinoff is looking more and more likely, with insiders expecting an announcement from ABC as early as this week. ABC has been contemplating a potential spinoff centered around Darlene Conner (Sara Gilbert) ever since they canceled the hit Roseanne revival last month; a move made in response to a horrifically racist tweet that Roseanne Barr had written on her personal Twitter account.

Roseanne had already been renewed for a second season when the series was canceled, so that left ABC with an open primetime slot to fill. While some people were hoping ABC would revive Agent Carter, it seems they plan on moving forward with a Roseanne spinoff. Aside from Gilbert, the Roseanne executive producers are reportedly scrambling to find a way to bring back Dan (John Goodman), Jackie (Laurie Metcalf), and possibly the rest of the revival cast– minus Barr, of course.

"...a move made in response to a horrifically racist tweet that Roseanne Barr had written on her personal Twitter account."

This sentence is a textbook example of why journalism as a field is now despised by so many Americans. It's not the big focus of the journalist's stories. The bias is easy to spot there. It's the little things they throw in on the sly.

This writer's use of the words "horrifically racist" is such a phrase. It's not "reporting." He's editorializing. And he's stoking hysteria by using a hyperbolic phrase.

Roseanne has said she didn't know the woman targeted by the Tweet, Valerie Jarrett, was even black. Whether that's true or not, it's part of the public record. Therefore, the phrase "unintentionally racist" might apply. An honest reporter has to acknowledge this.

But even if she did know, Roseanne's Tweet was more idiotic, immature, and just plain bigoted than "horrifically racist." Whatever the case, "career-destroying Tweet" would have been the most accurate description.

Back in the old days, copy editors would comb through your every word and pull out phrases that you might have reflexively written without really them through. Copy editors were largely purged from publications because of the great 2008-09 downturn, so this kind of poor writing is what you now get.

Most readers don't see little things like this, but still feel them on an emotional level. This is how reporters insidiously get their biases to slip through their stories.

If I had any ambition, I'd hold a "how to decode journalists" courses. As with "Seinfeld," it's all about "the little things."

Post: #102

^
You're right.

But it's precisely because of the financial situation that papers are publishing divisive opinion pieces. The reason they work so well is not because they're catering to a liberal agenda (many liberals are sick of identity politics) but because it makes people click. It's good for people to keep that in mind before jumping to conclusions about society based on tabloid articles.

Post: #103

(06-04-2018 11:34 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  A Roseanne Spinoff Could Be Announced This Week

https://screenrant.com/roseanne-spinoff-...ment-soon/

A Roseanne spinoff is looking more and more likely, with insiders expecting an announcement from ABC as early as this week. ABC has been contemplating a potential spinoff centered around Darlene Conner (Sara Gilbert) ever since they canceled the hit Roseanne revival last month; a move made in response to a horrifically racist tweet that Roseanne Barr had written on her personal Twitter account.

Roseanne had already been renewed for a second season when the series was canceled, so that left ABC with an open primetime slot to fill. While some people were hoping ABC would revive Agent Carter, it seems they plan on moving forward with a Roseanne spinoff. Aside from Gilbert, the Roseanne executive producers are reportedly scrambling to find a way to bring back Dan (John Goodman), Jackie (Laurie Metcalf), and possibly the rest of the revival cast– minus Barr, of course.

It reads as if she had beheaded someone's child. Clown world.

Post: #104

(06-05-2018 01:46 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  It reads as if she had beheaded someone's child. Clown world.

Well, that is the job / domain of Kathy Griffin.

Post: #105

Valerie Jarrett seems to be a far more powerful woman than it seems - her name is actually Bowman and she appears to be more powerful than Obama as well as Hillary.

No wonder that they wiped Roseanne off instantly.

Ah well - old communist globalist families are well-protected. Also she seems to be only Iranian born with not much heritage from the Muslim world. Her father has some African admixture, but the dominating part was his communist white Bowman communist family.

Post: #106

(06-02-2018 03:11 PM)nola Wrote:  I've used Camille Paglia on a lot of my leftwing and feminazi friends. Some of them have pretty much wrote her off as "internalizing the patriarchy" even when they know she is a fucking lesbian.

I'm convinced these lefties are actually truly evil people because I can't wrap my head around this many people being so blatantly fucking stupid when logic is hitting them in the face. I feel like one would have to be getting paid in some way to outwardly support such insane ideas.

Anonymous Conservative explains this really well with r/K.

Progressives lean narcissist because they're biologically built to betray the conservatives/in-group, they're anti-competitive because they've biologically imagined they would lose in a competition for resources. The conservatives/in-group(a lot of humans in general) really dislike disloyalty(historically, death to traitors), thus to still be able to betray they have to convincingly claim they are being loyal(dissent is patriotic). Best way to do this is to believe the delusion yourself.

So progs literally cannot(and refuse to) see logic if it interferes with their r-selected drives. Because of narcissistic leanings, you can't even convince them with overwhelming evidence if their prog beliefs are on the line.