« Obama laying the groundwork to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve | Mobile Home Page | Myth-spinning greenies alienate the greatest myth-maker of our time » April 11, 2012
Is Gawker's 'Fox Mole' a real person?
Gawker has hired an unamed worker at Fox News who will be writing "reports" on what actually happens at the Number 1 cable news network:
What actually follows is hardly newsworthy and calls into question whether any real person could harbor such outrageous stereotypes of conservatives. If Gawker wants the "mole" to be taken seriously, shouldn't he, like, you know, be more than a one-dimensional stick figure - a satire of a typical leftist? His blowhard generalities about the right can be found on any run of the mill lefty blog, but elevating this schmuck to the level of "informer" is laughable on its face.
Here are some deep thoughts from Gawker's "mole":
That is soooooo 2005. Everyone knows that internet comments are not reflective or representative of anything on any website. That tacit agreement was reached years ago between right and left bloggers who got tired of the opposition pointing to individual wackos who commented on their sites. Violating internet protocol by raising the specter of racists in the comments who watch Fox News shows how truly bereft our mole is of original thought.
Yes, the mole is actually saying criticizing the president is akin to racism. Is accusing the president of attending a "Hip-Hop summit" really a case of "race baiting?" Perhaps it is - on a planet where trotting out the race card is actually taken seriously anymore. Making a big deal of the president hanging around with Hip-Hop artists who condone violence and disrespect toward women, police officers, white people, and others is, in most places, legitimate news. But the guilt factor in accusing the right of racism at the drop of a hat is gone - it's impact diminished substantially thanks to the overuse of the word by liberals.
This is a dead giveway that either Gawker is pulling our leg, or they have a certified loon acting as their "mole." The mole claims to be "blacklisted" in the industry because of his employment at Fox News. This is utter, unbelievable nonsense. No Fox employees have ever left for another network? Is he serious?
Could it be that our "mole" just isn't good enough to get a job somewhere else? Perish the thought that anything as mundane as the abilities of the mole to perform his job might enter into another company's decision not to hire him. That wouldn't be fair. That wouldn't be interesting enough. So by blaming his employer for his lack of success in life, our mole gets himself off the hook quite nicely, while keeping his ego structure intact.
If this is an example of the kind of stuff we're going to be getting from Gawker's "mole," Fox is hardly quaking in its boots. Typical liberal pablum about conservatives can be found on dozens of lefty websites on the net. Why go to Gawker to read the same crap you can find at Daily Kos or Firedoglake?
I guess because someone who think's they are imitating John McLane is pretty cool.