I now know the truth about most liberals in the media. When they tell me they believe in diversity, they're probably lying.
What they actually believe in is "selective diversity," or "limited diversity;" meaning, diversity is only diversity if they tell you it's diversity. And if this story as posted by Myway News and the Drudge Report is true, this is a perfect case in point.
I wonder if, perhaps, what some liberals believe is that there's such a thing as good diversity and bad diversity. If this is true, then I'll at least give these people credit for having their actions in-line with their beliefs.
But any media liberal, or any liberal at all, for that matter, who believes in the traditional definition of diversity, but approves of the firing of Playgirl Editor, Michele Zipp, who outed herself as a Republican earlier this month and now claims to have been fired for it, is either a liar or a hypocrite... Or both.
Today, Matt Drudge published an email message from Ms. Zipp claiming that she has been removed from her position as editor of Playgirl Magazine. Here is an excerpt of an email message to Drudge posted to Drudgereport.com:
I also received a phone call from a leading official from Playgirl magazine, in which he stated with a laugh, "I wouldn't have hired you if I knew you were a Republican."
Even if this turns out to not be true, I'm amazed at the lack of response over Ms Zipp's claim. If this had been, for example, some conservative Wall Street guy calling a woman to say with a laugh, "I wouldn't have hired you if I knew you were a Democrat," what would our liberal media friends have done? Personally, I think the coverage would have made Abu Ghraib coverage, or the OJ Simpson trial coverage, pale in comparison.
And, of course, that conservative Wall Street guy would have "ties" to the Bush Administration (donated $10 to the Bush Campaign!!). It would be a scandal that would spawn dozens of headlines, news stories galore, and, ultimately, a made-for-tv movie regarding the life of our liberal heroine who was fired for making a political choice.
But now the shoe is on the other foot. Now the accusation is being made by a woman who might still be registered as a Democrat, but who had the audacity to declare that she voted for President Bush.
Which explains why the only thing I'm currently hearing related to this story is the sound of crickets chirping. And it's all I'm likely to hear, other than, of course, the obligatory, "anything Drudge publishes is a lie," comments. If this is your response, then let me just mention the fact that this is exactly what Bill Clinton used to say.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mike Saton
GOOD! Thats what I like to hear, hopefully being Republican can be the new Leprosy. Dump them on some barren island with Anne Coulter covered in honey and tax papers.
2 - David Flanagan
Anne Coulter covered in honey? I'm there!
Thanks,
David
3 - Steve S
where in your post or in the link provided does it say why she was fired?
Her quote to Drudge, while talking about an inappropriate comment from some 'official' (obviously not the one who fired her), says nothing about who fired her or for what reason. So what am I supposed to get worked up about? Your speculation?
Oh, now I see, it's an attempt to compare the firing of a playgirl editor with Congress's attempt to overstep their powers and undermine our judicial system. hmmm, I never would have made that connection myself.
4 - simon hb
Oh, for god's sake.
IT WAS A LIGHT-HEARTED COMMENT.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to try and stop my eyes rolling in the back of my head.
5 - Rodney Welch
Is it all that unusual to fire people for their political sympathies, left or right, particularly when it comes to magazines with a decided bias one way or the other? I doubt the National Review or The American Spectator would allow extensive Bush-bashing or support for the Kennedys, and I can't say it surprises me that a magazine like Playgirl doesn't want a conservative on their staff. Why did she want to work there in the first place?
6 - Lono
I agree 100% with Mike Saton (comment #1) on this! Where is RJ on this? He is our token arch-conservative.
7 - David Flanagan
Okay, I'm going to stick to my guns here (sorry if my use of the word "guns" offends you) and ask the question, what if this woman were a liberal Democrat who was fired because of her political affiliation? Would you be working quite so hard to defend the organization and/or corporation that fired her?
Again, it's the liberal principle of "selective diversity." A conservative woman in a position of power who voted for Senator Kerry in the last election would have been called a hero. A liberal woman in a position of power is seen as empowered and a valid voice (a statement that I would wholeheartedly agree with), but a conservative woman in power who expresses her viewpoint in a valid way on the job and is fired for it is seen as a threat.
So much for "speaking truth to power."
David
8 - Rodney Welch
See my previous post, David.
9 - Steve S
Would you be working quite so hard to defend the organization and/or corporation that fired her?
quite so hard as what? Are there BlogCritics here 'toiling' away at defending playgirl?
is fired for it
still asking for proof.
So much for "speaking truth
apparently.
10 - JR
David Flanagan: I now know the truth about most liberals in the media.
So up to now you've been writing about them without knowing the truth?
Makes me wonder why I should believe you this time.
11 - Dave Nalle
I lay the blame for this on the Neocons. Traditionally the Republicans have been freespeech supporting, porn-enjoying civil libertarians who would fit right in running Playgirl. But now the Neocons have tainted the party so that people think Republicans stand for some sort of puritanical moral values, while it's still not true of most Republicans and probably not of this poor woman.
Dave
12 - Steve S
That's true, Dave. I'd agree with that. They made your party one of puritanism and your party allowed them in the door, remember?
It certainly makes it easy to trump the 'hypocrisy banner' every time a Jack Ryan or Rush Limbaugh has a Fall From Grace®.
13 - Temple Stark
I'm tired of these shitty - lying headlines.
Get a ........ clue. We are considered a NEWS source now and this headline is simply not backed by the facts.
Period.
14 - David Flanagan
I doubt the National Review or The American Spectator would allow extensive Bush-bashing or support for the Kennedys, and I can't say it surprises me that a magazine like Playgirl doesn't want a conservative on their staff.
Rodney,
Michele never bashed any political candidates. She just wrote an article talking about how she voted "red state" and how difficult it was to say such a thing in the middle of a "blue state" stronghold. MANY Democrats voted Republican in this last election, and I'm sure quite a few Republicans voted Democrat. Should we convene a panel to track these offenders down and make sure they are in a job that "properly reflects their political affiliation?"
Thanks,
David
15 - David Flanagan
Temple,
Are you trying to argue that a story about a woman in a prominent position with a famous entertainment magazine who claims she's been fired for outing herself as a Republican is not news? What was your stance on the supposed termination of John Kefelas?
David
16 - Lisa McKay
I think that what Temple is arguing is that apart from her own email to Drudge, you've failed to supply any proof that she was fired for her political affiliation.
17 - Temple Stark
You know it's about the headline. How do you know? Cause that's what I ...!@$%...... typed.
18 - Eric Olsen
David, I am concerned that we don't have enough information here to justify such a specific title to this story, which is presented s a statemetn of fact. Do we know she was fired, do we know specifically why she was fired, and do we have any sources for any of this other than her email to Drudge?
19 - Temple Stark
I've calmed down a bit. Sorry. I just really don't like these asserting headlines that are not fact-based just to get people riled up or to push an without-basis political point. That's sub-tabloid because, presumably we think the site is better than tabloid.
I know I do.
Sorry David.
If the woman was fired for being Republican that's illegal and so we are in a sense accusing Playgirl management of an illegal act. You'll notice even Drudge's headline: "'PLAYGIRL' EDITOR FIRED AFTER OUTING SELF AS REPUBLICAN..." states nothing of such cause-and-effect fact, though the implication hangs there heavily.
20 - bhw
Why not put "claims she was" in there before "fired"?
21 - Temple Stark
The post is pretty sub-standard stereotypical tripe, too, now that I read it more closely. But that's just a subjective thing.
22 - Eric Olsen
the post is fine as opinion,, which is certainly allowed, but I think bhw's remedy is right for the title
23 - Steve S
to me, it's not just the headline but the content of the whole post. The whole concept is about her being fired because of political belief and it's not presented as a hypothetical but as fact. Yet no proof is given. Should only headlines represent the truth?
To me, a question like this:
do you approve of the firing of Ms. Zipp for voting Republican?
is just as erroneous as the title. At least for now, without proof.
24 - Victor Plenty
Basing articles on events that never happened, like the unsupported claim "Kerry calls blogs the sub-media," for example?
Hmm, is there anything these two articles have in common, in addition to their complete absence of verifiable facts that might come anywhere near justifying their headlines?
25 - Eric Olsen
how about we add a question mark to the title?