The CNN hit and run conspiracy?

Originally posted by iamsupermanv2


Again I will state: Just because someone hits and runs it really does not mean they are a bad person.

LOL. But apparently if someone makes a remark saying Jews aren't underrepresented they are, huh...

We make mistakes, some worse then others.

Oh, I see. And perhaps you meant "than"?

I believe a murderer is not forever a terrible person for one act.

Uhhh.... So just one little murder isn't enough to make someone a bad person. I get it.

To say someone that hits and runs is a bad person is borderline bigoted.

Saying that someone who hits and runs is a bad person is "borderline bigoted"?
What the....

People make mistakes, no matter how despicable the act.

I'm sorry, but I don't call murder or running someone over and fleeing without helping the person suffering and dying a "mistake."

Originally posted by IamCorrect
And I'm not sure what you mean when you ask me what the "mitigating factor" is, because the term doesn't seem relevant in this context.

Critique well taken! My own stupid fault for being stuck on the word whilst reading Sherlock Holmes.

The term I had meant to use was "motivating" -- makes much more sense that way.

CNN had three major reporters employed for them who had been involved with running over pedestrians and then fleeing the scene instead of stopping and calling for help, one of them being Sanchez.

Odd bit of information? Yes. However, you may want to take into consideration that chances are CNN -- like any other company that deals with on-air personalities or personas -- place heavy emphasis on public perception. If the hit and run incidents were not widely known or heavily damaging to their employees' public perception, then it was probably worth it to run damage control and maintain the "good will" (for lack of a better term) that these anchors have with their viewers.

For example, Tom Cruise tarnished his "good will" or reputation when he publicly bashed women suffering from post-partum depression for taking anti-depressants. Sure it was his personal opinion, and he's certainly entitled to it, but he turned off fans and viewers by stating so on the air.

The same thing is happening with Mel Gibson at the moment. He made some fairly nasty and threatening remarks against women and ethnic minorities over the past few years and it has negatively impacted his reputation.

Simply put, it doesn't matter how talented these two actors are or how much money they have raked in for the various movie studios -- they are both now essentially damaged goods because their public reputations are now in shreds. Mark it down to the fact that image is everything for on-air personalities.

Back to Rick Sanchez and his current situation.

Perhaps someone should ask CNN what the mitigating factor was when they kept/hired three persons who ran over pedestrians and then fled the scene, but fired someone for expressing his opinion that someone who relentlessly poked fun of him was a bigot, and pointing out that Jews are not underprivileged albeit a minority.

Sanchez is entitled to his own opinions -- there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that his remarks were made publicly and can be construed as a bigoted rant. In short, he has tarnished his reputation and is now considered damaged goods by CNN.

Let's face it, Sanchez does not have the same pull and fan base like Bill O'Rielly, Limbaugh or Beck. If any of these others had made similar public remarks (I don't know if they have or not) chances are their careers may weather such a storm better. But again, that is purely speculation on my part.

Had Sanchez merely been critical of Jon Stewart without bringing up or discussing the issue of race -- or playing the race card himself -- he wouldn't have damaged his reputation to nearly the same extent and would probably still have a job.

.


On second though...it's best to leave this discussion...there's no conspiracy here