Current Events > CNN anchor furious and speechless after guest uses the word boobs

(+) Yeah! (+)

COVxy posted...

fusespliff posted...

COVxy posted...

No it shouldn't be. The context around your words absolutely matters.

Good thing you aren't a reporter then.

I mean, you hear the n-word and you turn around and you see either:
1. Two klansmen talking.
2. Two black people talking.

Do you interpret that word the same? I mean, the word is the same! By your account, you should react the same way both times.

I shouldn't and you shouldn't either.
Someone claiming to be impartisan and objectively reporting should. That's what acting professionally in a media setting is. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

That moron shouldn't have casually mentioned boobs on this type of show with serious subject matter.
An anchor with 17 years of experience should know better than diverting the attention to how he or she feels.
---

She's literally shaking
---

fusespliff posted...

Someone claiming to be impartisan and objectively reporting should.

How is context not part of the objective reality, exactly?

A reporter absolutely should consider context.
---

COVxy posted...

fusespliff posted...

Someone claiming to be impartisan and objectively reporting should.

How is context not part of the objective reality, exactly?

Be dense all you like, I'm done explaining it to you.
---

fusespliff posted...

Be dense all you like, I'm done explaining it to you.

It's not being dense. Context literally exists as objective. The idea that there's a context free objective reality is ludicrously stupid.
---

COVxy posted...

I mean, you hear the n-word and you turn around and you see either:
1. Two klansmen talking.
2. Two black people talking.

Do you interpret that word the same? I mean, the word is the same! By your account, you should react the same way both times.

let's take this a little farther. to something that is a bit more realistic.

case 1: two white guys are saying the n-word, and discussing its long-term implications for black people and how it shouldn't be used

case 2: two guys are talking about a black man shot by police and suggesting the "n-word" had it coming

that's closer to what we're looking at here

step away from the word. what happened here put simply was: "sports radio host came on show to talk about the worth of an ESPN female reporter. he was an asshole right away. the host cut his mic." full stop, those are the events that transpired

saying "his mic was cut for saying boobs" is removing the context. the issue isn't the word, the issue is that he went on the air and immediately suggested the value of a female reporter was primarily her body.

did it merit an article about it written by the host who cut him? nah. did it merit his mic getting cut? sure.
---

Darkman124 posted...

COVxy posted...

I mean, you hear the n-word and you turn around and you see either:
1. Two klansmen talking.
2. Two black people talking.

Do you interpret that word the same? I mean, the word is the same! By your account, you should react the same way both times.

let's take this a little farther. to something that is a bit more realistic.

case 1: two white guys are saying the n-word, and discussing its long-term implications for black people and how it shouldn't be used

case 2: two guys are talking about a black man shot by police and suggesting the "n-word" had it coming

that's closer to what we're looking at here

step away from the word. what happened here put simply was: "sports radio host came on show to talk about the worth of an ESPN female reporter. he was an asshole right away. the host cut his mic." full stop, those are the events that transpired

saying "his mic was cut for saying boobs" is removing the context. the issue isn't the word, the issue is that he went on the air and immediately suggested the value of a female reporter was primarily her body.

did it merit an article about it written by the host who cut him? nah. did it merit his mic getting cut? sure.

to be fair, what criteria do you think they use to hire female reporters in sports? I'm pretty sure looks (or boobs) are a factor, like it or not. I think there's also a legitimate argument that the hiring is based "primarily" on their bodies is not too ridiculous.

She needs to get over the fact that it's current year.

Fam_Fam posted...

to be fair, what criteria do you think they use to hire female reporters in sports?

knowledge of players, coaching strategies, rivalries, etc. do you actually watch player interviews? the reporters ask pointed questions about key details that a dedicated fan would be aware of, in order to elicit player responses that expand upon existing knowledge.

are looks a factor too? yes. like it or not male gaze is a marketing tool.

are they the only factor? certainly not.

are they the main factor? certainly not.
---

The VFN hosts are so quick to become the "victims" it's friggin disgusting. This is the liberal strategy, though.

If you can demonize the person by claiming they're a bigot or a sexist...or racist, islamaphobe, transphobe...etc etc.
Then you do it. Anything to fake pretend that you have the "moral high ground" and try to pretend that you even care that you were offended.

Nobody is an adult anymore. Nobody can handle jokes anymore. Nobody can handle an adult conversation anymore. Nobody can talk about the serious issues that are facing our culture. ...If we do, we have to walk on egg-shells because god forbid...if we use the wrong word...or make a joke...then you're branded as a bigot.

That's what liberalism has devolved into these days.

The liberal regression has begun.
---

YourDrunkFather posted...

She's literally shaking

Her boobs, though?
---

I feel like the reaction from the host was too over the top. They were discussing whether the ESPN reporter should or should not be fired for her comments. Clay, while making a very solid and concise argument, said the word "boobs". Maybe this was a point he was trying to prove, and did it by having himself silenced for the comment, or maybe he was just being a dick.

Dunno.

If she's on board with the ESPN reporter keeping her position, than this is clear hypocrisy on her part.

Was it called for on the dudes part? No, it wasn't, but it illustrated his point very well.
---

It was kind of stupid and out of place for that kind of interview, but he's a sports radio host, and that's what they do.

She should have just said something along the lines of "Well, that's irrelevant and out of place in this discussion" and then gotten back on topic, but of course, this is CNN and we have to be outraged over "BEE DOUBLE OH BEE ESS!"
---

Eat More Beef posted...

Clay, while making a very solid and concise argument

his argument was not solid.
---

C_Pain posted...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/opinions/espn-and-women-in-2017-brooke-baldwin-opinion/index.html

LMAO liberals
LMAO cnn

---

how is cnn still on air?
---

Darkman124 posted...

his argument was not solid.

This dude has basically turned into don lemon.
---

MangaFan462 posted...

C_Pain posted...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/opinions/espn-and-women-in-2017-brooke-baldwin-opinion/index.html

LMAO liberals
LMAO cnn

That article is almost as embarrassing as trigglypuff meltdown
---

She boobed
---

I shouldn't be surprised that ce is making this about the host being awful but I actually am
---

Darkman124 posted...

Eat More Beef posted...

Clay, while making a very solid and concise argument

his argument was not solid.

You'll have to explain to me why it isn't. He brought up the point that another ESPN analyst was let go due to having a political opinion that had nothing to do with so. He then said he doesn't believe that the most recent analyst should not be fired for her beliefs, but should be based on ESPN's now policy.
At least, that's what i got out of it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
---

I mean, how could he have thought that was appropriate for live television? Nothing even prompted that response.

FOX News

Oh
---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

YourDrunkFather posted...

She's literally shaking

Her boobs, though?

I wish
---

Eat More Beef posted...

but should be based on ESPN's new policy.

none of which has anything to do with breasts.

yet he went there anyway.

if he had stuck to his point, it'd be a non issue.

there is no solid point about employee quality that relates to a reporter's breasts.
---

Smh he should have said ass
---