Trump "clocking" to the floor someone with the CNN logo
Video via: I Bleed Red, White and Blue
There are longer versions of the above clip available at You Tube. I used the one above because of its brevity.
CNN has reached a new high in their hyperbole:
Donald Trump's tweet of a doctored video was no joke. It was dangerously irresponsible. In the video -- defended by Trump's supporters as just good fun -- The President of the United States can be seen punching a person with a label digitally superimposed over his face that reads "CNN."While still president, had this been done by Bill Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama, the media would be extolling the magnitude of humor displayed by Clinton or Obama.
[.]
Trump defenders saying this video was just a joke are missing something: context matters. In 2007, that WWE video was fine; Trump was a private citizen/reality show host putting on an act and everyone involved was in on the joke.
CNN continues:
...the image of him in the doctored video body slamming and repeatedly punching a person in the face who represents a media outlet he has been railing against is so dangerous[.]"Dangerous." LameStream, very LameStream.
[The Media IS AWARE that wrestling is...scripted and acted, right? The "attack" in the video was planned and rehearsed.]
"Ah-waah! Ah-waah!" Cue CNN:
From the same CNN link above:
People do get that - - - that the play is about "chaos and destruction that results for that misbegotten act." But this is the same Media that, in 1993, informed us that an episode of Beavis and Butthead is blamed for a fire started by a 5 year old boy that killed his sister.Also, recall that Trump supporters also went ballistic (incorrectly) over the New York City production of Julius Caesar, which featured a Trump-looking Caesar. (Far from celebrating the assassination of Caesar, Shakespeare's play is a warning about the chaos and destruction that results for that misbegotten act.)[sic].
Well, dear Media - which is it? You can't have it both ways. Remember when politically Conservative-leaning types told us that violent behavior in real life is tied to what the person committing the act sees on television and movies?
On the other side, remember when we had the politically Liberal-leaning crowd campaigning against movie-makers to stop glorifying cigarettes and to stop showing characters in film and television smoking?
And remember Al Gore's former wife, Democrat Tipper Gore lobbying for Parental Warning Labels on records with "explicit lyrics"?
The Reporters Committee said... [about Trump's WWE/CNN video]:
"[journalists shouldn't] be threatened with physical harm for doing their jobs."Watching the Media twisting and turning in fits of agony, despair and their endless, endless whining about anything that does not fit their narrow, Liberal narrative is just. Too. Funny!
From the same Reporters Committee above:
Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said, "When the president attacks the press, he attacks the people."No. The president does not attack "the people" when he "attacks" the press. And choosing the word "attacks' is used in an overtly extreme manner. The press feels that "criticism" directed at them is "attacking" them. It isn't. Bruce Brown seeks to garner sympathy for the press by associating Trump with "attacks". Not even close.
Harry Truman compared the press to prostitutes. Prostitute is a nicer way to say "whore", and calling the press Whores is much more accurate.
Bess Truman...? Well, she HATED the press.
Words do mean something. But who decides what the definitive definition is, especially how the manner of those words are conveyed? It comes down to being a very subjective interpretation based on the individual. Like being told that it's not a Caesar-lookalike-of Trump being stabbed to death in the play, that instead, it's the "chaos and destruction" that is being represented...as art...in a play.
And we have Maureen Dowd calling Trump, "a pig." I've always considered Dowd a porcine porklette. When she appears on a television program, if the camera catches a glimpse of her full "body-side"...or a full view from behind her...you will see a big, wide ass on her.
No Maureen, it's not the dress that makes your ass look fat. It's your fat ass that makes your ass look big. Think I'm joking? Anyone see her in person want to leave a comment telling me I'm wrong? Because you'd be lying if you did.
"David, that's just too mean...what you wrote about her and the photo-shop of her as a pig is way past pushing the envelope."
No. It isn't. And even if I thought it was, it wouldn't make me reconsider not publishing it. I totally pushed the envelope and walked up to the very edge of "taste" at my old site. But I didn't cross the line into bad "taste." At least I don't think I did.
Many a liberal comic will say that "tragedy plus time equals humor/comedy." And that is a true statement, one in which I fully believe.
Tragedy plus time didn't equal humor, though, when David Letterman joked about raping 14-year old Willow Palin?
Was it "funny" in May, 2008, when Daily KoS ran the below photo-shop of Michelle Obama?Letterman said "an awkward moment" occurred for Palin when, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by (Yankee third baseman) Alex Rodriguez."Without naming her, the joke seemed to refer to Palin's 18-year-old daughter Bristol, an unwed mother.But it was 14-year-old daughter Willow, not Bristol, who had been at the game.Todd Palin issued a statement that said "any 'jokes' about raping my 14-year-old are despicable."
I'm guessing very few people found it funny, because Daily KoS spiked (deleted) the image and the entire post.
Their rationale? The above image was a statement about Republicans and their "Southern Strategy". Well, a big. big swing and a miss by DKoS on that one.
The Daily KoS link to the image and story results in a "404 error, page not found."
The page you were looking for doesn't exist. You may have mistyped the address or the page may have moved.No...I didn't "mistype" the address nor did the page "move". Such a nice way for DKoS to avoid admitting "we really fucked up on this one."
Who makes the ultimate decision of defining "humor"? Al Franken? Jimmy Kimmel? Me? You? (No, not you, definitely not you).
Being offended because your process of interpreting something intended as a joke or humor, that isn't received on the same level as it was intended, doesn't necessarily mean it's "mean" or "violent".
See - your interpretation really doesn't count or matter. It is the intent of the creator that matters and that defines and separates humor from gravity, humor as satire, humor as parody and, pretty much, anything else communicated by one person to another or several others. And the medium of conveyance is irrelevant.
Is the film "Death of a President" humor? Satire? Parody? A mix of all? Would that film be responsible had it incited someone to act on its message? Would Liberals interpret the film differently had it been about Clinton or Obama?
Any good, new, funny JFK shot in the head jokes going around? Any good jokes about Heath Ledger or Chris Cornell? Too soon?
Satire, parody and even "meanness" are not necessarily violent in scope. It is the result, if any, of that scope that has the potential to turn into violent acts. And that can only be formed within the mind of the person who chooses to act upon it.
What was the final straw that drove James T. Hodgkinson to make it his mission to kill, or attempt to kill, only Republican politicians?
What motivated John W. Hinckley in his attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan? He wanted to impress Jodie Foster.
Think of the the above. In his head, he's telling himself that shooting Reagan will impress Jodie Foster. He has convinced himself of that. It is rational for him to think this. He tells himself Jodie Foster will be impressed by me taking this action. I think it's fair to say that Hinckley was, and remains, mentally unbalanced.Dear Jodie:There is definitely a possibility that I will be killed in my attempt to get Reagan. It is for this very reason that I am writing you this letter now.As you well know by now I love you very much.[.]Jodie, I would abandon the idea of getting Reagan in a second if I could only win your heart and live out the rest of my life with you[.][.]I will admit to you that the reason I'm going ahead with this attempt now is because I cannot wait any longer to impress you. I've got to do something now to make you understand, in no uncertain terms, that I'm doing all of this for your sake!
Trump hit the Media with a powerful parody with the WWE footage and the CNN logo superimposed onto the person he knocked down. It's funny. It's parody. It's unfortunate that the "inclusive (political) party" isn't inclusive at all, does not want to hear anything that contradicts what they believe and anything that challenges what they view as their territory and only their territory.
With blogging, Tweeting, Insta-this-or-that, Facebook, etc, the Press and "The Media" no longer are the Titans of controlling News and Information. The Press and the Media have both lost loads of significance and power. The hierarchy of Media, what is was thirty years ago compared to today, has been stripped down to bare bones.
The punch Trump landed on "CNN"...? Well, "if it bends, it's funny. If it breaks, it's not."
And it did indeed bend, and it is hysterically funny. The Empire of Media continues its rapid meltdown.
And it bends. A lot.
- - -
Slight revisions and grammar fixes 7/4/2017
No comments:
Post a Comment