Ailene Voisin:

[bajaden]

Yesterday, or the day before, Ailene Voisin wrote an article in which she referenced Westphal's friendship with Rush Limbaugh. She could have left if at just that, but she decided to include the words right wing blowhard. Which is obviously her opinion of Limbaugh. Apparently she's been taking a lot of flack from those that follow Limbaugh. She defended herself by saying that had Westphal been friends with someone on the left, she would have said the same thing. She closed by saying that if she wanted to be yelled at or lectured, she would re-enroll in her catholic grammer school class.

Ok! First off, I'm not here to defend or promote either side of the aisle. And, Ailene is entitled to her opinion. But did she really think she could attack one of the most popular radio talkshow hosts in the country without some fallout. If you don't want to be lectured or yelled at, as she describes it, then don't write what you wrote. She'll probably be wondering why she's now getting caustic responses from catholics. She couldn't just say grammer school. She had to say catholic grammer school.

By saying that she would have said the same thing about someone on the left as a defense, predisposes that we're all mindreaders, and is childish at best. To respond that she doesn't want to be lectured or yelled at, and comparing those that did, to catholic grammer school is both condesending and naive on her part.

If she thinks that Rush Limbaugh is a right wing blowhard, she has every right to say so. I don't have a problem with that. I might even admire her courage to say so, if she didn't try to hide under a rock after the statement. For her not to expect criticism is beyond me.

In parting, let me say that I'm also tiring of her campaign against Evans as a point guard. She makes statements as though she has inside information but never quotes anyone. This is cheapshot journalism at best. Anyone can make up anything to fit their needs. Here's some advice for her. If you have some facts you can back up with quotes from creditable people, fine. If not, then make sure you state that its just your opinion, which in my opinion, is worthless!!!

 

[Tetsujin]

Yesterday, or the day before, Ailene Voisin wrote an article in which she referenced Westphal's friendship with Rush Limbaugh. She could have left if at just that, but she decided to include the words right wing blowhard. Which is obviously her opinion of Limbaugh. Apparently she's been taking a lot of flack from those that follow Limbaugh. She defended herself by saying that had Westphal been friends with someone on the left, she would have said the same thing. She closed by saying that if she wanted to be yelled at or lectured, she would re-enroll in her catholic grammer school class.

Ok! First off, I'm not here to defend or promote either side of the aisle. And, Ailene is entitled to her opinion. But did she really think she could attack one of the most popular radio talkshow hosts in the country without some fallout. If you don't want to be lectured or yelled at, as she describes it, then don't write what you wrote. She'll probably be wondering why she's now getting caustic responses from catholics. She couldn't just say grammer school. She had to say catholic grammer school.

By saying that she would have said the same thing about someone on the left as a defense, predisposes that we're all mindreaders, and is childish at best. To respond that she doesn't want to be lectured or yelled at, and comparing those that did, to catholic grammer school is both condesending and naive on her part.

If she thinks that Rush Limbaugh is a right wing blowhard, she has every right to say so. I don't have a problem with that. I might even admire her courage to say so, if she didn't try to hide under a rock after the statement. For her not to expect criticism is beyond me.

In parting, let me say that I'm also tiring of her campaign against Evans as a point guard. She makes statements as though she has inside information but never quotes anyone. This is cheapshot journalism at best. Anyone can make up anything to fit their needs. Here's some advice for her. If you have some facts you can back up with quotes from creditable people, fine. If not, then make sure you state that its just your opinion, which in my opinion, is worthless!!!

She's a journalist?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Yesterday, or the day before, Ailene Voisin wrote an article in which she referenced Westphal's friendship with Rush Limbaugh. She could have left if at just that, but she decided to include the words right wing blowhard. Which is obviously her opinion of Limbaugh. Apparently she's been taking a lot of flack from those that follow Limbaugh. She defended herself by saying that had Westphal been friends with someone on the left, she would have said the same thing. She closed by saying that if she wanted to be yelled at or lectured, she would re-enroll in her catholic grammer school class.

Ok! First off, I'm not here to defend or promote either side of the aisle. And, Ailene is entitled to her opinion. But did she really think she could attack one of the most popular radio talkshow hosts in the country without some fallout. If you don't want to be lectured or yelled at, as she describes it, then don't write what you wrote. She'll probably be wondering why she's now getting caustic responses from catholics. She couldn't just say grammer school. She had to say catholic grammer school.

By saying that she would have said the same thing about someone on the left as a defense, predisposes that we're all mindreaders, and is childish at best. To respond that she doesn't want to be lectured or yelled at, and comparing those that did, to catholic grammer school is both condesending and naive on her part.

If she thinks that Rush Limbaugh is a right wing blowhard, she has every right to say so. I don't have a problem with that. I might even admire her courage to say so, if she didn't try to hide under a rock after the statement. For her not to expect criticism is beyond me.

In parting, let me say that I'm also tiring of her campaign against Evans as a point guard. She makes statements as though she has inside information but never quotes anyone. This is cheapshot journalism at best. Anyone can make up anything to fit their needs. Here's some advice for her. If you have some facts you can back up with quotes from creditable people, fine. If not, then make sure you state that its just your opinion, which in my opinion, is worthless!!!

Trying to gauge the general sentiment, there's not a lot of love for Voisin in these parts from a sports journalism standpoint.

This thread itself may be inviting trouble, though. I believe that this board's policy is to steer clear of political arguments, period. It is probably best to simply say that it would be preferable for our sports media to avoid making derogatory political (or religious) comments, it is unfortunate that Voisin has done so, and leave it at that.

 

[Rookie]

I don't read anything she wrote and living happily.

 

[Merdiesel]

Yesterday, or the day before, Ailene Voisin wrote an article in which she referenced Westphal's friendship with Rush Limbaugh. She could have left if at just that, but she decided to include the words right wing blowhard. Which is obviously her opinion of Limbaugh. Apparently she's been taking a lot of flack from those that follow Limbaugh. She defended herself by saying that had Westphal been friends with someone on the left, she would have said the same thing. She closed by saying that if she wanted to be yelled at or lectured, she would re-enroll in her catholic grammer school class.

Ok! First off, I'm not here to defend or promote either side of the aisle. And, Ailene is entitled to her opinion. But did she really think she could attack one of the most popular radio talkshow hosts in the country without some fallout. If you don't want to be lectured or yelled at, as she describes it, then don't write what you wrote. She'll probably be wondering why she's now getting caustic responses from catholics. She couldn't just say grammer school. She had to say catholic grammer school.

By saying that she would have said the same thing about someone on the left as a defense, predisposes that we're all mindreaders, and is childish at best. To respond that she doesn't want to be lectured or yelled at, and comparing those that did, to catholic grammer school is both condesending and naive on her part.

If she thinks that Rush Limbaugh is a right wing blowhard, she has every right to say so. I don't have a problem with that. I might even admire her courage to say so, if she didn't try to hide under a rock after the statement. For her not to expect criticism is beyond me.

In parting, let me say that I'm also tiring of her campaign against Evans as a point guard. She makes statements as though she has inside information but never quotes anyone. This is cheapshot journalism at best. Anyone can make up anything to fit their needs. Here's some advice for her. If you have some facts you can back up with quotes from creditable people, fine. If not, then make sure you state that its just your opinion, which in my opinion, is worthless!!!

Both of my parents went to Catholic school and neither one would be offended by this by any means. Everyone on the planet knows that it's over the top strict. Anyways, she said re-enroll, as in she attended Catholic school as a child. I think she's qualified to make that statement. I think you're blowing that one way out of proportion.

Finding out Paul Westphal's BFF is Rush Limbaugh is a whole different story.

 

[NoBonus]

Let's see... how could a member of the press demonize someone?

Step 1: "Bring to light" all of their negative associations.

Step 2: Use those associations as a "lens" to view everything the person does. (For example, should Paul drive a SUV, it would be a "Fat-cat, gas-guzzler", should he drive a sportscar, it would be a like he is "flaunting his wealth" and he would be wealthy "like the son of a rich texas oilman", if he drove a hybrid it would be "all for show" or a result of someone else's actions)

Step 3: Demonize, demonize, demonize... remember, the rule of demonization is: "put a person in the wrong and keep them there, no matter what"

Step 4: Victory comes when bad things happen to this person, when the public sentiment turns against them, or they cave under the pressure created by the spotlight of media demonization.

Simple, destructive strategy. But remember, when this works, the only person that "wins" is the journallist, not the public, not the team, not the person being demonized, just the journallist. Let's see how long it takes for her to get to step 2...

 

[NoBonus]

I don't read anything she wrote and living happily.

Yes!

 

[Bricklayer]

Much as everybody here has been pretty reasonable, and much as I relish the opportunity to mock many of the personalities at play in this thread, I think its obviously too slanted toward stuff that we try to avoid to stay clean for long, so I'm going to close it up.