In response to CNN piece

Media Matters drew my attention to a CNN piece. My comments on the piece are:

Re: “Are whites racially oppressed?” Mar 4
In CNN's article “Are whites racially oppressed?,” it would have been appropriate to have followed Mona Charen's sensible, skeptical comments with the narrator of the piece showing that the views of people who feel that “whites” have been magically transformed into a harassed minority are not dealing in reality.
Very obviously, the piece talks about people who are horrified that America has a black President. What is also quite obvious is the fact that Barack Obama was elected President and that what that shows is that those horrified people are a minority.
The phrase “...many white Americans feel anxious about their race...” should have read “...a small minority of white Americans feel anxious about their race...”.
The statement: "There was no one for white males until we came around," is patently ridiculous as there is no need for anyone to be “for white males.” White males are doing just fine, thank you very much.
I'm puzzled as to why CNN felt the need to legitimize the person named Peter Brimelow. Why did CNN feel the need to grant him an interview? Couldn't they simply read the racist claptrap this guy publishes and quote some of it? The website VDARE was declared a hate site many years ago and it truly is a disgrace for CNN to give them any legitimacy by doing an interview with someone who writes for that site.
“Some may see him as extreme, but Brimelow argues in his columns that more white Americans are moving toward his stance on immigration and other issues.” Ugh, “Some may see him...” is SUCH a classic “He said, she said” equivocation! Was it impossible for CNN reporters to have gone over Brimelow's words and to have unequivocally declared him to be a racist? Was it THAT difficult for someone to have done a BIT of homework on the issue?
Neither Brimelow's nor James Edwards' words are followed up with any evaluations by the author. Their statements are followed with the ludicrous accusation that "[whites] are the victims of [racism] every day,” Yes, the SPLC is given the final word, but it's such a broad, general statement that's so lacking in specific details that it's easily overlooked.
“Obama's 'unpopular liberal expansion' of the federal government” wasn't unpopular at all during the 2008 campaign, where Obama very specifically went over his proposals many times. Obama didn't pull the wool over anybody's eyes. He did what he said what he was going to do and was attacked for it because Republicans saw it as the death knell for their party. It would have been good for CNN to have gone over the fact that Republicans adopted a “scorched earth” strategy and that they bear a great deal of responsibility for the minority of Americans who feel that the “white race” is under attack.

No comments: