The segment follows the structure that used to be isolated to Fox: frame it in terms of a predetermined judgment, smirk your way through the interview with the person representing the view of the opposition (but present the interviewee as a straw man), then end by commiserating with the second and final interviewee who simply validates the point of view of the interviewer. An abbreviated example concerns the white panic of illegal immigration (i.e., poor people with a better work ethic than white Americans who are willing to work shitty jobs in order to help their families survive), specifically Vicente Fox's aggressive (progressive?) stance at trying to persuade American lawmakers not to build a giant fence across the border.
1. Kitty frames the issue as "shameless"
2. She shakes her head and rolls her eyes through an interview with a representative from a PR firm Fox hired, all the while asking questions in full panic attack mode. She fails to listen to a relatively complex and detailed argument about historical, economic, and social trends and structures.
3. She abruptly ends the first interview and goes straight to commiseration mode with an equally white-panic-oriented congressman and they shake their heads and perform outrage that a foreigner could dare tell America what to do (implying, I guess, that nations should not meddle in the affairs of other nations--which, of course, is even more ironic than the name Kitty Pilgrim).
In other news, Michael Bloomberg said this about the striking transit workers (who can only strike for a better contract by breaking the law): No one should be able to break the law in order to make personal gains. I'm glad he wasn't a leader of the Civil Rights Movement.
4 comments:
Re: Bloomberg--excellent observation. I hadn't heard him say that. Sigh. I hope this is over soon. The flying rhetorical is really tiresome, and ugly.
Yep, yep, and yep. CNN still isn't quite as bad as Faux, in the sense that they are only as bad as Faux most of the time whereas Faux is that bad all the time. And Bloomberg is a shithead.
You know, just as I hit enter a thought struck me re: Bloomberg. Do you think he'll stand up and say Dubya's not allowed to break the law--by lying us into a needless war, by spying on US citizens without warrants, et cetera?
I thought about drawing that same connection, but then I didn't want to listen to the argument that that breaking of law wasn't for "personal" gain, but rather for the general good (which is, in fact, W's actual rhetoric).
Post a Comment