CNN is on a roll these days, from Roland Martin’s offensive tweet about David Beckham’s Super Bowl underwear ad to Erick Erickson’s unforgiveable comments about President Obama to the latest offense du jour.
Tea Party affiliate, Editor-in-Chief of Big Journalism and CNN contributor Dana Loesch brings this one to us from her radio show, saying women who have abortions are “ageist bigots”. Dana thinks that women who advocate for choice are ageist bigots, and that they had a choice when they were at Wal-Mart or Target (to buy contraceptives) but they don’t get a choice after they engage in activities that create a life.
From the February 3 edition of KFTK’s The Dana Show courtesy of Media Matters:
Sure, Dana’s offensive in her name-calling but what’s really offensive is the level of her ignorance. She spent most of the two minutes just nattering away about Wal-Mart and Target, not getting to the point, not even suggesting what the point was, but just talking to hear herself talk. It’s not that she dropped out of college (she did), but rather that she has nothing to say that can’t be read in the comment section of a site like TMZ meets Free Republic.
When she finally got to the point, Dana stepped up on her carnival-barking chair to preach with rage about bigoted women who want an abortion because they are ageist.
While every movement has their radicals, most are not on allegedly impartial networks. Dana is on the self-proclaimed non-partisan CNN. CNN hired her for her “Tea Party” point of view. To balance things out, they hired a Democratic strategist and another hard right conservative (to balance out the other hard right conservatives).
If they were really balancing things out, they would give Code Pink an anchor desk at CNN. Or Michael Moore. Or an Occupy Wall Street spokesperson. Or, heck, any a liberal who is a radical humanist.
Perhaps CNN is unaware that just as conservatives have a Tea Party, so too do liberals have their activists. But Dana was hired as a “political analyst,” a title that assumes she will be analyzing politics, instead of spouting feelings.
So if CNN is so balanced why don’t they hire Michael Moore as a political analyst or some far left environmentalist? They hired Erick Erickson allegedly because he hails from “small town America” so what about midtown America? What about urban America? No, I mean real urban, not elite urban.
They say they want different points of view, but in reality they want conservative Tea Party points of view. This is fine, if they admit what they’re doing. But America doesn’t need another partisan, dishonest cable network dumbing down Americans while pretending to be non-partisan.
Clearly, intelligence and media savvy have nothing to do with CNN’s job offers, for Dana shows in this clip that she couldn’t create a sound bite to save her life. Maybe it’s that she’s top mom on the interwebs. Maybe it’s her being named top “15 Hottest Conservative Women of the Year in The New Media.” If so, may I urge CNN to call me in the name of balance, as I have several gorgeous liberal friends who would be happy to be used as eye candy while spouting their feelings about Wall Street vultures and lawless capitalism, and they even have an established online presences and knowledge about politics.
Preaching isn’t the same thing as political analysis or commentary. You can tell the difference because if you take the emotion out of what the person is saying, there is nothing left. So it is with Dana’s ageist bigots abortion rant. Nothing Dana said made one bit of sense. She just threw some bombs to make her audience feel morally superior and that was it. Any empty-headed, egomaniacal loudmouth can do that.
In fact, they do it all day long on Fox News.
Someone has no doubt offered Dana the advantages of Google, wherein she might learn about rapes and incest and contraceptives that didn’t work or ectopic pregnancies or other life-threatening conditions, but obviously Dana isn’t talking to inform people. She’s talking to incite them.
The Right wants to frame this debate (all debates) around the emotions of hot issues like abortion. In doing so, they avoid discussing facts and the pros and cons of their policies.
The Right will throw the fire to distract Americans like they always do. The question is, once again, why is CNN employing people like this?
Let us not forget Dana’s recent contribution to political analysis, when she gleefully supported Marines urinating on the dead bodies of alleged Taliban, “I’d drop trou and do it too. That’s me though. I want a million cool points for these guys.” In response to this, Politico emailed CNN for a statement. Here is their excuse, “CNN contributors are commentators who express a wide range of viewpoints—on and off of CNN—that often provoke strong agreement or disagreement. Their viewpoints are their own.” Only CNN legitimizes these viewpoints by giving them a respected platform and denying the other side the equivalent platform. And then CNN calls their network non-partisan.
Dana calls her level of discourse “diverse thought”, issuing the following statement when she was hired, “I’m excited to be working with CNN and am appreciative of their efforts to showcase diverse political thought on their airwaves. I look forward to the discussions.” I take issue with both qualifiers, actually, for Dana is contributing neither diversity nor thought.
Sure, Dana’s lacks of intelligence and poor media showing are not nearly as offensive as Erick Erickson’s “Obama perverted the word of God” hate. But CNN is building a reputation for pallin’ around with hate, and using their network to legitimize it.
In this, they can never hope to compete with Fox, so it’s a bad business move on top of being out of step with America. Lastly, it’s offensive, unpatriotic, and downright insulting. CNN, the place where paid political analysts condemn the President as “perverting God’s word,” call pro-choice women “ageist bigots”, tweet anti-gay “jokes”, and say they would piss on the dead bodies of alleged Taliban.
CNN must be so proud. I remember the days when they fired people for less.