Seems some are shocked, just shocked, that bloggers hold strong opinions -- and are fond of expressing them. Of course, our Ministry of Faith and (Religion-based) Values is out there waiting to get you if you dare cross their idea of what "the line" is. And we worry about Sharia law...
As usual, the Daily Kos brings nothing but prattle-babble to the table. (Is it just me, or is that Markos Moulitsas dude the worst political writer ever?)
And Terry Moran, hon, we who often speak-up and out on matters of religious zealotry don't "hate" the sinners who impose their religious beliefs on this nation and throughout our system of government; rather, we hate the sin (of religious imposition, of course).
Quote of the day, from a senior CNN staffer who will remain anonymous: "Things are so bad here (CNN), that I'm now calling for seperation of media and religion."
Meanwhile, back at the Ivy Ranch, Harvard can't get enough of that olde-timey religion. Fine by me. They can have my share. Forty-something years of Christian Fundamentalist-driven culture, etc. is more than my fair share of the burden. I'm tired of the shit. Let someone else deal with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Seed Newsvine
3 comments:
Oh, wow. WTF!
This reminds me... I can hardly wait until we get the audio from the Women and Blogging session at BlogSavannah posted... I want to hear what you'll say about those fools who kept talking about, "everything you do is a reflection on your employer!! No controversial opinions allowed!"
Makes an awfully big case for becoming your own boss, eh!? And not grabbing for the first bit of politico dough that someone waves in front of your face. Just tighten that belt another notch and keep at your INDIE blogging. Unless you get scooped up by MSM as flush with cash as ABC News... in the case of Ms. Amanda Congdon. Then again, I don't think she'd know a controversial issue if it whooped her upside her pretty littel head. But I diverge...
I gotta say I do not love the political campaign practice of hiring well-known bloggers. What is the purpose...to get them to shill for you? Doesn't that compromise their integrity if they are blogging about the presidential election? If not to shill, then is it because the campaigns believe they will write more interesting posts about the latest whistlestop tour through Omaha than some campaign flunky? I don't think it's writing style that they're paying for. It just really bothers me. I guess because if we are saying that bloggers are technically media, then we need to consider how we would react to a campaign officially hiring a particular New York Times or Fox News reporter.
But hiring someone who has been vocal about controversial issues in the past is an even dumber idea, for exactly this reason. You are in effect buying every single incendiary and potentially offensive thing that person has ever said.
I just don't get it. I understand the importance of wooing the blogosphere, I just don't see why HIRING the blogosphere is the method chosen to do that.
Post a Comment