Insomnia (insomnia) wrote,
Insomnia
insomnia

The New York Times notices -- yet softpedals -- on "wetbacks" slur

In an article today in the New York Times, Bill O'Reilly's use of the term "wetbacks" on national television is barely mentioned in a story primarily about how Dame Edna poked fun at Cervantes.

I'm sorry, but the two cases are very different. Dame Edna is a comedian, who, while occasionally tasteless, draws chuckles. Bill O'Reilly, however, hosts an internationally broadcast news show and is taken all too seriously by millions of people worldwide. Dame Edna didn't use any racial slurs. Bill O'Reilly did. In fact, he used one of the racial slurs that the US Supreme Court specifically upheld a ban on in a Supreme Court decision, in order to guarantee that people can work in a non-abusive, non-hostile workplace.

"The network doesn't condone the use of any racial epithet," says a Fox spokesman. Really?! What, then, does the network do about it when one of their employees uses a racial epithet in the workplace, much less on a news program that is broadcast worldwide? Did they go up to Bill O'Reilly and say "Oh, by the way Bill, we don't condone racial epithets, and neither do you..."

I'm sorry, my definition for condone is the following - To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.

Where is the protest? Where is the censure? Where is the logic in this?!
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 3 comments