One more reason to use Google: a religious-right activist says the godly should refuse to use it because the company opposes a proposed constitutional amendment in California that would ban same-sex marriage.
Good to see that Google is living up to its informal corporate motto — “Don’t Be Evil.”
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
An Astute Observer
This is what students are getting at journalism school now…http://cserver.rbma.com/content/Mallard_Fillmore?date=20080926
ogre
Headline: Religious fanatic urges faithful to avoid sources of information.
Esther
Great for Google! I’ll have to use it even more than I already do, which is basically all the time. And The New York Times had a great editorial on Sunday urging voters to reject Proposition 8, which it called a “mean-spirited attempt to embed second-class treatment of one group of citizens in the State Constitution.”
Don, American
One last time: Get the government completely out of the religious concept of marriage. My vote on Proposition 8 will be a blank. . . it’s none of mine or California’s business.
Dot Lane
don, american:Who said that government was getting into the religious concept of marriage? Government is finally catching up to its role in creating equality in the civil concept of marriage. Civil society provides innumerable benefits to married couples whether they wed in a church or at City Hall. The proponents of the constitutional amendment in California are actively seeking to deny access to those benefits to a class of citizens. As long as those benefits exist, it is very much the business of the State of California. If churches don’t want to marry same sex couples, they don’t have to, but there are secular marriages as well–marriage was not invented by Christians and Christians don’t get to dictate to the rest of us what marriage is or isn’t. It is as simple as that.
An Astute Observer
Here we go…the correct URL.For Journalism students everywhere:http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20080926&name=Mallard_Fillmore-
An Astute Observer
Let’s try a TinyURL:http://tinyurl.com/3eccxg
Dan Kennedy
Not So Astute: You’ve outdone yourself. The cartoon lampoons the media for holding John Edwards and Sarah Palin to different standards.The problem, of course, is that the media failed to follow up on the National Enquirer’s reporting on Edwards’ extramarital affair … and are now failing to follow up on the Enquirer’s reports that Palin, too, had an extramarital affair. (You should check out the latest: several sources, including one on the record, attesting to her alleged affair with a former business partner of her husband’s.)Perhaps Not So Astute would like to explain how the media’s follow-up to the National Enquirer differed in the cases of Edwards and Palin. That should be damned interesting.On this we can agree: If a mainstream media outlet were to confirm the Enquirer’s stories on Palin before the election, she would have to withdraw from the race. Just as Edwards would have had to withdraw if the Enquirer story about him had been confirmed.
An Astute Observer
Let’s see, some media wonks went ahead with an irresponsible story without checking or knowing the facts about Palin’s baby not being her own. Shameful.And everybody left it to the “National Inquirer” to find out the Truth about Edwards. (The rest of the media sat on it….)Pretty bad when the NI is printing and finding the truth….and the so-called ‘legitimate media” is sitting on their rear-ends.
Dan Kennedy
Let’s see, some media wonks went ahead with an irresponsible story without checking or knowing the facts about Palin’s baby not being her own.Good grief, Not So Astute, do you think you can come in here and say anything? “Some media wonks”? Who? Other than Andrew Sullivan? Name names, damn it.
An Astute Observer
Dan Kennedy
Dan Kennedy
Not So Astute: A vicious and pathetic lie.
Dot Lane
A handy guide to Mallard Fillmore: http://duckcover.blogspot.com/
mike_b1
Not so astute: As an aside, in your ongoing complaint about the lack of fact-checking, you seem to have overlooked that it’s National Enquirer, not National Inquirer.Try not to let the irony hit you where it hurts.
Neil
Not that comments have any need to stay on topic or anything, but on the other hand, it’s lame to post comments unrelated to the topic. What does Mallard Fillmore have to do with the California petition? However, since we’re here, oh that Mallard, such a cut-up! Those darned journalism schools, hotbeds of lefty double standards. Go get em Bruce!A little lesson in making clickable links by the way, so people don’t have to copy and paste (which most won’t bother with). Try it, it’s easy! Use this code:Observe my hero Mallard < a href="" > deftly skew < /a > the liberal elites! Ha ha!Put the URL inside the quotes, and remove the spaces around the angle brackets. Use Preview before posting the comment, to see if the link works.I wonder if the religious-right activist would discourage the godly from using Google to search for where to go to support the CA amendment. Would his head explode? Would he disappear into a metaphysical vortex?
Tunder
Wow, Mallard Fillmore. Absolutely the most embarrassingly unfunny comic ever (every strip should end with a ba-da-bum and a groan). If that’s the Right’s answer to Doonesbury…Dan, I continue to read and enjoy your blog. One thought: letting Astute Observer get under your skin only allows him/her the satisfaction that we all get when anyone gets under Bellow O’Reilly’s skin. Be da man! You’re bigger than that.
io saturnalia!
Well, as bad as Mallard Fillmore is, it’s no “Cathy” when it comes to sheer embarrassing nonfunniness, or “Family Circus” when it comes to corn-pone messaging.Bring back Ziggy! And let the gays marry. Why should McCain voters always have to cruise airport men’s rooms to find love?