Today's Judy Woodruff rant (gay marriage)

Skinny freakin dipshit cutesypoop airhead

Quote: Have Democrats boxed themselves in on the WRONG side of the gay marriage controversy?

Who said it's the WRONG side?
You?
bitch
worse
stupid bitch
even worser
stupid bitch who thinks she's cute
AARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!
:mad::mad::mad:

Those cute days are over for Judy.

judy woodruff is one of the nicest journalists and people i know...

as well, i've never detected an OUNCE of bias in her...

as well, much of what you hear her say on air is written by writers, producers, etc. (besides, she' a journalist, she's supposed to ask questions, that's what journalists do)

and as well, judy will be one of the very, very few national journalist to be and speak at this year's NGLJA'S (national gay and lesbian journalist association) national convention in los angeles in september...


she's FAR from the enemy my friend... go fight the real monsters would ya...

You sound like you know her.
I'd quit before I'd READ the stuff she does on the air.
If she HAS to read it, why the "knowing" little smirks and brow raises.
I don't believe you.

and you're making yourself look really dumb

Journalists need to have integrity yes--this one just may have it--but TV journalists need to be made aware of the biases they project.
The question is an asinine one--she should have worked harder on her producers to get it changed.

After all-- Communication is a key factor in journalism--isn't it.

And furthermore-- if she's the professional you profess-- why does she have producers writing her questions? Doesn't that just make her a mouthpiece? Where's the honor in that? (I know it sounds like a dig, but it's an honest question.)

and welcome to DU.
:hi:

(I guess) is in the eye of the beholder.
The fact that you may move in such rarefied circles that you know Woodruff cuts no ice with me.
You are very much entitled to your opinion, just as I am to mine.
That doesn't make you "dumb". It means that you have a different opinion of a person from mine. This happens. I'm not terribly fond of my brother-in-law. My wife adores him. We cope. I don't call her dumb. She calls me "honey".

To infer that I am dumb, or making myself look that way is insulting. Was that your intention? Why? I don't like your tone.

You could have said, "Now trof, she may sound that way but she's just reading what they give her and she's really a sweet person. I know her and there's not a biased bone in her body. I understand that you disagree with what she says, but she's just doing a job." You could have told me about your relationship and experiences with her and how I had maybe misjudged her. There. Isn't that nicer?

When someone calls me "my friend" my hackles go up, because they usually mean just the opposite. Ah, and my "monster" is imaginary. I don't think she's a monster. Just a shill. Or worse.

From your handle I'd guess you're at an Atlanta news station.
CNN?
unh hunh
Note that I resisted the almost overwhelming desire to tell you what you should do and to the steed that brought you in here.
Peace, my friend.

>>>To infer that I am dumb, or making myself look that way is insulting. Was that your intention? Why? I don't like your tone.<<<

nor do i like yours pal...

when YOU said that you don't believe me in my original response to yours, were you inferring i am a liar? was that YOUR intention? why? i don't like that tone.

and as for your snide remark insinuating that i was trying to put on airs that i know her and how i think that makes me somehow "special" demonstrates even more my original instincts about you...

calling judy a "stupid bitch" (among other things you said) is highly inappropriate and speaks volumes to your level of maturity, not to mention class...


...now for that good ole "ignore" option much appreciated here at DU...

Fingers in my ears and NYAH NYAH NYAH I can't hear you.
jeez
I won't ignore you, but I'll keep my distance.
In the year+ that I've been here, this is a first.

I think they're part of her MO, and since she's a CNN anchor, I think it's gotten her far...although I don't know about her nowadays, I don't watch cable news...

Back in the 80s she was the "consumer alert" reporter on a station here in Portland , I forget the channel (KGW maybe?)...

She'd never face the camera full-on, always at a three-quarters angle (her best angle?), to me she was always trying to look as coy and cute as possible...in fact it used to drive me up the wall watching her, it seemed watching her segment was more about "see how cute I am, aren't I a fox?" rather than what she was actually saying.

And then one day she was gone, no explanation given.

In a way, news reporting is like pro wrestling (at least on TV)...one day you have a star, much hyped and ballyhooed...and if something happens and they leave, then that's it...No explanation given. Nada. End of story. It's like they were never there.

of a surgery intended to correct a spina bifida problem who now (in his 20's) is quadriplegic, can't talk and needs 24 hour care. She is very involved in his care and is sincerely focused on his well-being.

I think a mother might dowhat she has to do to keep the insurance coverage and the necessary income to provide for the kind of care he needs. I know that I would.

So, yes, I'd like here to be more of an investigative type of journalist but let's face it, she can't afford to make too many enemies at her job.

On the few occasions I've watched her show, she appeared to be conservatively biased but I can't back that up with quotes. Next time I see her, I'll listen carefully and post what I hear.
That quote about gay marriage does sound biased to me. Not so much against gay marriage as against the Democrats.

I know a "Democrat" who would cause me bodily harm or worse if he figured me out. (for a lawyer, he's not too bright at picking up the obvious, fortunately...) And his hatred is based on a religion, but I won't say which one because that'll open up another can of worms (it's not Christianity though).

I'm prepared to emigrate if needed. More Americans should be so bold.

...implys there is a right and wrong side to the issue.

Alot of other different ways to phrase what she is trying to say.

Will the Democrats stand on gay marriage hurt them?

Will the Democrats stand cost them votes?

...etc.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0731montini31.html

Yes, Phoenix, Arizona, has a liberal columnist. Today's column was, I thought, exceptionally moving.

clober the Dems with his high moral stands on marriage"
Don't forget, when Unca Dick almost bought it in 2001, several reporters (Faux, CNN) crowed: "But I've just had lunch with him" Judy was one of them.

Who cares now about the 28 missing pages, or the 16 words? Let's have a non-issue sex story to rile up the Yahoos.

they know we'll take the bait.

The media loves it and will report ALL over it.

It's an issue for which they can point their fingers at the "liberal left" and say "those liberals .... tut tut tut "

They're throwing out the bait and we're taking it.

We need to keep our eyes on the ball, people.

And that is NOT gay marriage.

Let's save it for later.

Right now we've got a fascist war criming administration taking away our rights and invading countries and murdering people and killing our own soldiers. We've got LIES everywhere that need to be shot down. We've got the cover-up of 9/11 that's almost right in everybody's faces.

The Repubs are scared, so what do they do? CHANGE THE SUBJECT. To GAY MARRIAGE.

DROP IT.

you are right my freind , all day long it was about sadam and his different ways he looks like now and gay marrages , even cros s fire tonite was all about this subject , had to turn this off , it is nothing but a change of topic for jr. and trying to get the sheep to think about something else beside his lie's

Really, aren't they just readers?

I looked at the transcript for the show and I couldn't find that quote anywhere. It would be helpful to reach an opinion if I knew the context of the quote. Also, she is generally known as being a LIBERAL! Maybe that is false but that is what I have heard.

If she did say that, she probably meant politically. It would be dangerous for the democratic party to support gay marriage and it may be the WRONG side of the issue if they want to win elections.

community@cnn.com

Ask what Judy Woodruff to explain herself!

Quote: Have Democrats boxed themselves in on the WRONG side of the gay marriage controversy?