Posted on 09/22/2008 8:09:36 PM PDT by hope
“If you want to do a skit about them making something up, make it something outlandish.”
I don’t know. What they picked is kinda outlandish, isn’t it?
SNL got a deep deep dig in at the NYT, if you watch the whole sketch.
If you only watch the few seconds with the line about incest, and base the whole sketch on that, then no one can help change your mind.
The ‘outrage’ over this innocent skit is absurd unless you are defending the reputation of the MSM—notably the New York Times.
This skit skewers them and their ridiculous bias against Sarah Palin and her family. They’ve orchestrated one of the most reprehensible smear campaigns based on basically nothing—and SNL crucifies them for it and *conservatives* object?!?
The whole point was SNL satirizing the behavior of the ‘elite’ media and their treatment of the Palin family!
Let him defend himself. He should be made to speak up on the question of the whys and hows incest got infiltrated into his skit.
I don't think the man has a hair. You will never see him out there defending himself even though he served as the enabler for a degree of filth only rarely seen on SNL.
Again, you know very well SNL should not have had any reference to incest.
After their non-funny and merciless attack on all Christians as whacked home schoolers with bad hair, big glasses and an anti-scientific bent, I refuse to watch.
I haven’t seen such unfunny bigotry in a long long time.
This skit skewered the press, its elitist inclinations and its anti-Palin bent. We should be applauding SNL for presenting it.
“They would not DARE have the same skit about Obama.”
No, but I bet they were planning something more relevant to Obama’s gaffes.
The kneejerk reaction to those who confine themselves to one line of the whole sketch (and who are acting jut like frenzied democrats) may end up causing some resistance, or censorship, by NBC, up until the election.
They used the NYT as a tool.
A real attack on the NYT would not have included any of the current candidates ~ maybe they could have used Al Franken as their foil.
Occam’s razor. It’s much more likely they were trying to be funny at the NYT’s expense. After all, that’s what it looked like.
What does the newspaper say at the end?
I can read the main fake headline: “In a small Alaska town , Doubts still Linger”. The smaller headlines seems to say something like “While No ? Evidence of Incest i P? F? C? C? Evidence ? ? ?)
That may be true, but they could've chosen another way rather than lending credence to the fantasies of left-wing bloggers.
There were no place for Reagan to go around them.
So he went OVER them.
“Again, you know very well SNL should not have had any reference to incest.”
They wouldn’t have, if it first hadn’t been published in the NYTimes,LATimes,WaPo,DU, and KOS, and was so ludicrous that it made it perfect for Late Night Satire.
Satire? Can’t wait until they satirize Obama...
I saw it as an insult to Alaskans and regular people from a bunch of childish, boorish, leftist dopes who think they are funny.
You think they had a message... good for you... they disgust me.
OK smartasses, NBC doesn’t get them all. Conan/Leno/SNL clips constantly get yanked everywhere on the web. They reappear later and get yanked again. NBC’s priority is stuff they will probably sell someday on DVD. Similar shows by other networks ( ABC ,Fox ) are usually left alone.
It’s a terrific skit, actually, satirizing the insularity of NY Times journalists who have never been off planet Manhattan. I urge everyone to find a pirate copy of it, then spread it far and wide.
I can’t find it. What page?
Thanks. Didn’t watch all of it. Found it BORING.......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.