Roger Ebert: If you criticize CNN, you might be a terrorist
posted at 6:22 pm on June 22, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
That’s actually true. If you criticize CNN for not airing more jihadi sniper video then you probably are a terrorist.
The Americans who complain about “negative” news are the ideological cousins of those who shoot at CNN crews. The news is the news, good or bad, and those who resent being informed of it are pitiful. More Americans are well-informed about current sports and auto-racing statistics, I sometimes think, than anything else.
Bonus leftist blind-to-the-threat points: this comes in the context of a review of “A Mighty Heart,” the new film about the murder of Daniel Pearl by jihadist animals. Exit question: Does this stern bromide about those who resent the truth apply to the nutroots too or, per Eric Boehlert, does the avenue run one-way only?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Allah strikes again with the photographs. How do you do it? LOL!
jaleach on June 22, 2007 at 6:23 PM
wow. Is that a real Photo of Ebert?
He looks like a re-animated corpse out of some Quentin Tarantino ego-fest.
Jones Zemkophill on June 22, 2007 at 6:24 PM
The news is the news. Bush skirted his National Guard duties. It’s true. It was on the news. Deal with it!
Seixon on June 22, 2007 at 6:27 PM
LOL! Nobody shoots at CNN crews, except maybe gang members in New Orleans…
TheBigOldDog on June 22, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Seixon, you old scallywag…get your butt back to blogging! We need you, man.
Jim-Rose on June 22, 2007 at 6:32 PM
What an idiot. These people have been living in a artificial bubble for so long they’ve lost all concept of reality.
darwin on June 22, 2007 at 6:33 PM
The man has been ill with cancer(?) so one shouldn’t crack wise with appearance comments. It’s an automatic no-no.
But perhaps that may explain some of his statements?
kevcad on June 22, 2007 at 6:35 PM
This condescension from a guy who makes a living watching movies. We’re all stoopid because we follow sports. He’s a super genius because he’s watched every movie since The Graduate.
What’s more, what he fails to recognize or acknowledge, is that CNN presents only the news that fits their template, buries stories that don’t fit their worldview, follows OJ and Paris around, pay their “sources”, censor themselves when they might run afoul brutal dictators, report uncorroborated stories, reproduce fauxtography, and so on.
Yeah, Rog. Got it. We’re the stupid ones.
cmay on June 22, 2007 at 6:39 PM
I know. Just like the CBS report on Bush’s NG service. Oh, and the photos from Reuters of Israeli jets launching missiles. Oh, and can’t forget green helmet guy, and the ambulances last year.
amerpundit on June 22, 2007 at 6:40 PM
He looks like a bewildered grandmother.
Entelechy on June 22, 2007 at 6:42 PM
I know Roger has been ill but who is this guy kidding. Maybe it’s his illness but I certainly doubt it. In the world he lives in everything is make believe.
Catie96706 on June 22, 2007 at 6:48 PM
I refuse to be criticized by the man who gave us “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls“
Viewtifulgare on June 22, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Hey, he wrote the classic “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.” The man’s a genius!!
Jim-Rose on June 22, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Soooo…I’m pitiful if I resent hearing about Paris??
heatherrc77 on June 22, 2007 at 7:05 PM
He’s right!
Spoken words and hijacked aircraft flown into buildings are basically the same thing.
It makes perfect sense to me, what’s your problem?
Joshua P. Allem on June 22, 2007 at 7:19 PM
You might as well say that CNN’s “negative” reporting makes them the ideological cousins of the murderers who flew those planes into those buildings in what must be the dim mists of history to a certain movie reviewer who sees fit to judge everyone else’s significance.
It’s difficult to avoid profanity in a situation like this, and frankly I don’t care what physical illness the man has, it’s no excuse for being such a jerkwad.
Merovign on June 22, 2007 at 7:22 PM
The man does nothing but watch moves so it’s little wonder that he’s confused. Also, if CNN is his electronic messiah then no further explanation is necessary. Sad case.
rplat on June 22, 2007 at 7:24 PM
It’s not his illness; Roger embraced his inner moonbat many, many years ago. It’s the traditional journalist’s dementia combined, in Ebert’s case, with a fervent desire to be more than just a movie critic. He can’t help but routinely take swipes at conservatives in his movie reviews. Occasionally he’ll write a straightforward editorial on the opinion page of the Chicago Sun-Times, and the results are without exception embarrassing. Guess what? George W. Bush is intellectually incurious! Thanks, Roger! Brilliant observation!
Roger wrote a Sundance review a couple of years ago in which he basically called the Minutemen stupid bigots, too. I blogged about it here.
It’s really bad with these movie guys, isn’t it? Ebert’s partner Roeper writes a column for the Chicago Sun-Times, and his political writings tend to make even the typical moonbat message board troll look sophisticated.
Kensington on June 22, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Oh, yeah, and Ebert routinely spoils movies, which is particularly odd since he once went on a rampage against Medved for spoiling the ending of Million Dollar Baby.
Roger may not give away endings, usually, but I’ve often had the experience of learning 2/3 to 3/4 of a movie’s plot from his reviews alone. It got so bad at times that I learned to avoid reading his reviews if I really wanted to see something unspoiled.
Kensington on June 22, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Let’s not overlook this gem in Ebert’s review:
So those complaining about CNN running sniper video are the ideological cousins of those who shoot at CNN crews, but leaving out Pearl’s beheading is tact and taste.
And deposing one of the worst mass-murdering tyrants of the last 50 years makes the US government akin to the terrorists themselves.
Karl on June 22, 2007 at 8:04 PM
Don’t forget his “review” of An Inconvenient Truth:
“I believe that to be “impartial” and “balanced” on global warming means one must take a position like Gore’s. There is no other view that can be defended.”
Dude, it’s a movie.
saint kansas on June 22, 2007 at 8:08 PM
Bingo! Why do newspapers have editorial meetings everyday? To figure out what stories they will present or cover. They can’t report everything, they have to make choices. And those choices are being criticized more than ever. The blogsphere is a complete rejection of his statement that what CNN and their ilk present is all the news.
I am sorry for him that he is ill, but this isn’t the first idiot leftist statement he has made.
Mallard T. Drake on June 22, 2007 at 8:11 PM
So if criticizing CNN makes one the idealogical cousin of terrorist then criticizing war in Iraq against al Qaeda must also make one the idealogical cousin of a terrorist.
Right?
Laura on June 22, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Not only that, it’s a remake.
Laura on June 22, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Well I must say he fits right in with the other nutroots. They piss and moan with no soultion of their own. For cryin out loud Eggbert! Your a friggin film critic and are a couple steps farther from reality than actors. You make your living critiquing moving pictures. Eggbert they are not real get a grip. He’s just like the nutroots except Rodger this ain’t no movie!Somebody better call Rex Reed.
sonnyspats1 on June 22, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Holy C20, either my watch has stopped or I’ve grown gills and now live underwater? I guess when you watched too many movies, you lose the concept of reality. Pass the popcorn!
Just don’t criticize anything, but the movies, make fun of the characters, talk loud during the show, change cell phone ringers during the show, and remember peace can be found at your local video store, along with pizza and beer, a remote to pause for the cause, and you’ve got entertainment Baby! Without questioning my patriotism, of course.
Kini on June 22, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Hey, I actually like most of his his non-political movie reviews. When Politics aren’t involved he’s the best in his field.
But that doesn’t change the fact that I’ve seen video-game-flesh-eating-zombies that looked better than that.
As for my reaction to that picture, that was my legitimate reaction.
What’s the point of “Comment forums” if you’re not allowed to comment? Feel free to dislike me for an honest reaction to that visage, but in my honest opinion, my reaction was predictable, reasonable, and normal.
What? you can only admnit a reaction when the person you’re criticising is in perfect health?
The Old Folks Home we call the Capitol Building is full of ill and diseased members of congress and their staffers.
And I’ve become jaded enough to believe that unless there’s a true reason someone can’t “Take it” (children, and … Hmmm, that’s pretty much the end of THAT list.)
Then I have no problem saying what I believe to be true simply because I am (generally) either right or willing to be corrected.
Jones Zemkophill on June 22, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Hell, I think Ebert deserves a lot of credit for the courageous attitude with which he’s responded to the cancer that pretty much devastated his life last year. In spite of the fact that he lost part of his lower jaw and now looks unfortunately odd, he’s opted to resume a public life. He believes (and I agree) that illness is no reason to hide, and I support him in this 100%.
Nonetheless, the guy is a tedious moonbat when it comes to politics and deserves all the scorn that attends it.
Kensington on June 22, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Then I have no problem saying what I believe to be true simply because I am (generally) either right or willing to be corrected.
Jones Zemkophill on June 22, 2007 at 9:00 PM
UH Well yes kind of like oh whats the word? Oh yeah a critic. Remember ‘Live by the Sword…..’
sonnyspats1 on June 22, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I read this this morning, but wasn’t sure it was any worse than his usual fifth-grade political understanding he occasionally put in his reviews (plus, he’s been out of practice for so long due to illness). He once had a passionate defense of Ann Coulter inserted into a review for no reason, but he pretty much always leans hard left.
In this review, BTW, he also equated supporters of the war with supporters of terrorism:
frankj on June 22, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Since when does ebert have any credibility to speak to world affairs? Go back to the balcony roger.
csdeven on June 22, 2007 at 9:41 PM
What possible relevance can any illness of his, past or present, have to the fact that he’s a sensationally simple-minded mental defective?
Misha I on June 22, 2007 at 11:28 PM
The journalists who complain about such civil, restrained opposition from the Americans are biological cousins of the dead.
Kralizec on June 23, 2007 at 12:23 AM
I liked him better when he was FAT, and writing screenplays for soft-core & Incredibly Bad porn: “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls”, et al
When it was Siskel & Ebert, everyone knew that Fat Boy was the bitchy wife, and Gene the flustered hubby
Janos Hunyadi on June 23, 2007 at 2:50 AM
He scares small children.
Montana on June 23, 2007 at 2:52 AM
So we can shoot at CNN crews if we get our cousins to complain about negative news?
Sweet.
James on June 23, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Yep, I guess I must be pathetic and a terrorist because I object to CNN committing treason, got to love that f#cking logic…
doriangrey on June 23, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Looking at this again, I’ve realized Ebert is paid to believe and say that “the news is the news,” as if he, his colleagues, and his employers are just an undistorted, undistorting signal. He’s in no better position to think and speak clearly about what he’s selling than a salesman on commission.
Kralizec on June 23, 2007 at 12:22 PM
It appears that Ebert is confirming the lefty propaganda that the US military shoots at CNN news crews. Wasn’t it Eason Jordan who floated that at Davos? Apparently that has become part of the lefty orthodoxy that Ebert witlessly supports.
The other bogus assumption of the left, confirmed by Ebert, is that the news excreted by the liberal media is unbiased and therefore the absolute truth, which should be immune from criticism, in the eyes of Ebert and the Left. In other words, the Left should have a monopoly on the news and its propaganda should be above criticism.
When you consider what Ebert has to say, which is typical of the Left, you realize that it’s an argument against free speech. Real Americans love criticism and debate on an issue. Real Stalinists do not.
I watched Siskel & Ebert for years without knowing what their political leanings were until I watched their nasty review for “Red Dawn” and realized they were lefty ideologues. They talked the photo down as ridiculous and a conservative fantasy because it was impossible for the US to be invaded. I thought movies were all about impossible fantasy. If they wanted to criticize an impossible fantasy, they should watch “Motorcycle Diaries” portray Che as a good guy.
Tantor on June 23, 2007 at 2:24 PM
People who want to silence the news might be ideological cousins to the terrorists according to Ebert? Sounds about right to me. Funny to see such criticism over the Fairness Doctrine (which has been repudiated) and see people on this site liken the left to terrorists (falsely) yet when those on the right who wish to silence the press reporting on the bad news around the world are criticized HotAir goes into hyperdrive in insulting Roger Ebert’s look and ignoring the topic of censorship Ebert brought up.
Nonfactor on June 23, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Maybe that’s because nobody’s spinning the statistics when it comes to sports. I’ve never seen a sports report where they only mentioned what teams lost that day without ever mentioning a winning team. Or a hilights reel that only showed the bad plays…
Maybe the “hard news” people have something to learn from the sports side?
taznar on June 24, 2007 at 12:16 AM
As a matter of logic, certainly. After all, the word “might” is inherently wobbly, leaving wide open the alternative possibility of “then again, might not.” I think you’d be hard pressed to come up with any sentence of the form “If X, then you might be a terrorist” that wasn’t true.
Xrlq on June 26, 2007 at 4:47 PM