11/28/2006 08:07:08 AM EST

Can we stop the cattiness in covering Pelosi?

posted by beemer

I just heard the Turks talking to Michael Isikoff about the selection of the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and it seems that he's one of the multitudes in the media that are ascribing catty personal reasons for Speaker-elect Pelosi's possible selection of someone other than ranking Democrat Jane Harman for the post.

Instead of accusing Pelosi of basically being a bitch about this, why not look at two main factors: Harman has been vocally supportive of Bush's illegal wiretapping program, and she's been a strong supporter of AIPAC, which has been implicated in espionage activities against the United States. 

I'd like to see SOMEONE in the media just call bullshit on the coloring of Pelosi coverage that would NEVER happen to a man. 

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
< Young Turks no longer podcasting on Itunes? | NBC Says Sky is Blue >
 Display:
Can we stop the cattiness in covering Pelosi? | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 hidden)
Comments? (none / 0)
Just to get this on the page

by beemer on 11/28/2006 08:07:58 AM EST

thank you beemer (none / 0)
I heard this crap on the way to work.  Can we just let Pelosi do her damn job. Nobody gave a shit back in '94 who Gingrich picked for various positions.  It's bad enough that the MSM is going to scrutinize every little thing that Ms. Pelosi does, do we really need the Young Turks piling on.

Read Glenn Greenwald's take on this, he nails it.... 

http://glenngreenwald.blogs pot.com/2006/11/medias-sudd en-intense-interest-in.htm

by rkrider on 11/28/2006 08:36:52 AM EST

Fixed link (none / 0)
Whoops....http://glenngreenwald.blogs pot.com/2006/11/medias-sudd en-intense-interest-in.html

by rkrider on 11/28/2006 08:39:38 AM EST

Can we stop the cattiness in covering Pelosi? | 3 comments (3 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: