Oh, I freely admit I’m speculating. At this point we don’t have enough information to make any solid conclusions. Although leander’s comment piques my interest.
It’s called “critical thinking,” and despite the war against it waged by your party, it isn’t actually a malady.
SA: My contention is that the entire episode is indicative of the left-wing bias that is so pervasive throughout jounalism here in America.
And my response is to point out that there’s no evidence that the “episode” even fucking happened. We’re not talking law-court standards of evidence here, we’re talking any evidence at all.
The only statements about this “episode” that seem to be independently supported are:
-
A Playgirl editor wrote an article about voting Republican in 2004.
-
That editor no longer works for Playgirl.
Everything else is just her unsupported allegations. (It may be substantiated that she was in fact fired instead of quitting, but I haven’t seen any confirmation of that.)
SA: Looks like evidence to me.
If we all used your standards of “evidence”, we’d all have to believe everything Michael Moore ever said. By your standards, every time somebody alleges a connection between two events, that constitutes evidence for the connection.
Particularly in the pornography industry! We need more rabidly right-wing porn!
Where’s Nancy Reagan - get her to show some split-bever! Condi Rice - you know, once you got black, you never go back! How 'bout her and Ann Coulter in some hot girl on girl action!
Karl Rover! Rumsfeld! Show us some skin - Americans demand it!
The SA epistemology is to (a) make an assumption, (b) presume it true, © see evidence of complete correlation by one unsubstantiated rumor, and (d) accuse anyone who doesn’t agree with him to be in denial.
And Republicans wonder why we think they’re stupid.
cricetus: And Republicans wonder why we think they’re stupid.
Thank Og, I know enough smart and honest Republicans that I’m not tempted to judge them by the standard of Starving Artist.
Oh, me too. But I would think those conservatives would know WHY we think that, just as I can see why conservatives would find liberals to be shrill or smug.
Bwahahaha! You people kill me! Do you have any idea how often exactly such assertions have been given to me by your side as irrefutable “cites”?
It’s flamingly obvious that your capacity for hair-splitting, deflection and denial is running at full capacity.
Does no one here genuinely see pro-lib/anti-right bias in her experiences? Or am I to infer that you think her entire description of her recent experience there is an outright lie?
And if so, I’d like to see what you base this opinion on besides your unwillingness to acknowledge the bias that everyone but yourselves can so readily see. That very bias is what gives her story credibility in the first place (present company excepted, of course).
If she was fired for being a Republican, she shouldn’t be wasting time writing Drudge, she should be consulting an attorney.
Hmmm. Can’t write for shit vs. Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
Well fuck, I know why my money’s on.
Oh, you’re gonna have to try a lot harder than that, kiddo, if want to try to get my goat.
And what’s with this “Og” crap? Either you believe in God or you don’t. If you don’t, who the hell are you thanking?
(So typical of a lib to try to have their cake and eat it too.) 
Yes, I do think she’s lying. I base my opinion on working in NY magazine publishing for more than 20 years, and I have two friends who’ve worked at Playgirl. The “complaining underlings” would have been disciplined or fired, not her—whether she was “outed” as Republican, Democrat, Christian, gay, atheist.
Unless she was actively and obnoxiously pushing her views on everyone else, in which case she deserved to get fired, no matter what those views may have been.
Okay, I give. Why is your money on?
The Powers That Be recently overhauled Playgirl’s look and content – the magazine sucks now (no more Angry Frank! :mad: ). And the overall editing has long sucked. So I’m not surprised to hear that she got fired; I doubt, however, that the reason has anything to do with her politics.
No, and it’s irrelevent. If there were one billion unsupported assertions from the Left, they don’t create support for your unsupported assertion to the right. Do you understand this?
Accusing us of denial is a poor substitution of evidence for your position that (a) this woman was fired because she was a Republican, or (b) that this is evidence of a widespread conspiracy to disallow Republicans from participation in the media (check your talk radio lineup lately?)
It doesn’t have to be EITHER objective OR an outright lie. Most people’s testimonies about what they experience are inevitably subjective, but honest to the extent that people are stating what they really believe happened. You take them with a grain of salt. I take her at her word that she suspects she was forced into quitting or whatever because people didn’t like her politics. This is not evidence that her suspicions are true, however.
My opinion is to suspend judgment. It’s what any intelligent person does given one highly subjective account.
Well, this may come as a surprise, but I have quite a bit of respect for you, Eve. Therefore, I’m willing to acknowledge that you may well be right. It does seem a little odd to me though that all of this would come to a head after her so-called “outing.” I would think if she was inclined to push right-wing views, she would have done so all along…particularly given the extreme importance of this last election.
But OTOH, perhaps she outed herself so she could be able to speak her mind more openly.
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
Regards,
SA
Ah, so you’re belief in one unsupported accusation is felled by another unsupported accusation. I guess now we know how to talk to you. Instead of using big fancy words like “evidence” and explaining how to come to a considered opinion, we just have to make more accusations.
Someone needs to remind SA that the shiny side of the tin foil must face outward for maximum effectiveness.
See?? You’d fire me too!
I guess I’m gonna have to come up with a macro to say this more easily…I don’t listen to talk radio! And I don’t swallow Bushco shit; he generally says and does what I would be in favor of to begin with. I don’t get my news or viewpoints from Fox; I watch it very little, and to the degree I do it’s because they are in line with my thinking, not the other way around. Capish?
But you’re either missing or evading the salient point. The real issue is the left-wing bias that pervades the media, which this episode appears to illustrate. Let’s assume her account is biased due to her own point of view. I contend that the liberal bias she was surrounded by is what is responsible for her feeling persecuted. Unless her entire account was an outright lie – including liberal and underling backlash which I would think would be pretty obvious if it occured, and the comment of of the executive who told her she never would have been hired if he knew she was a Republican – I have a hard time seeing how this could just be a misinterpretation on her part.