On Monday night, Bolling made another acknowledgment—that “editorial note” mentioned at the start of this post—this time about his “Hoods in the House” segment. And, this time he sounded sorrier (in an I’m sorry you felt that way way). Said Bolling:
One editorial note. On Friday we did a story about the president meeting with the president of Gabon and we got a little fast and loose with the language and we know it’s been interpreted as being disrespectful. And for that, I’m sorry. We did go a bit too far.
The New York Daily News on Tuesday quoted Kevin Magee, executive vice president of Fox Business Network, saying: “I spoke with Eric and his producer yesterday and we all agree the line was crossed, thus last night’s apology. We now consider the matter closed.”
Line crossed. “Contrition for poorly chosen words” expressed. Matter closed. Election season launched. (Sorry!)
- 1
- 2
Appalling.
And it wasn't just the obscure Eric Bolling that was riding this theme. CNN's new (evidently bubble-headed) White House correspondent Brianna Keilar was peddling this ugly business in the White House briefing here (starting at 11:55). And CBS's Mark Knoller took up the theme (at 35:25 at that link)
Keilar:
Q Jay, the President’s meeting today with President Bongo, how did he get the meeting? Did he do the asking or was he invited by the White House?
Q And I know you did talk about it yesterday, but just -- I mean, considering the context of this, a very foreign nation, this is a family -- I mean, you’re familiar with their background -- accused of corruption and using oil riches to finance a very lavish lifestyle. Considering that, why is the President comfortable meeting with him?
Q Why the Oval Office? I mean, that’s very much --
Knoller:
Q Jay, if Gabon was not president of the U.N. Security Council, would the President be meeting with President Bongo today?
It was shocking that CNN and CBS would pursue this ugly business at the White House briefing. Mr. Carney deftly and gracefully deflected the underlying implications. At the time, I was shocked and appalled, but now I understand that they were following Mr. Bolling's lead -- I imagine they got the idea on Twitter -- Mr. Knoller has a heavy Twitter addiction, and of course, CNN is always opting for the superficial and explosive over the professional and informative.
When one reflects upon the speedy dispatching into the wilderness of Helen Thomas, Rich Sanchez, and Octavia Nasr over MUCH less offensive sins than this ugly business, with the attendant beltway furor and folderal and shockwaves and fainting couches and pearl clutching, one must wonder.
Why is this kind of constant, offensive race-mongering by Fox more acceptable and more tolerated in the beltway than what Nasr and Thomas did? Serious question, and I'd like an answer.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 16 Jun 2011 at 11:17 AM
Sorry for the formatting error. here are Keilar's questions from the transcript:
Q Jay, the President’s meeting today with President Bongo, how did he get the meeting? Did he do the asking or was he invited by the White House?
Q And I know you did talk about it yesterday, but just -- I mean, considering the context of this, a very foreign nation, this is a family -- I mean, you’re familiar with their background -- accused of corruption and using oil riches to finance a very lavish lifestyle. Considering that, why is the President comfortable meeting with him?
Q Why the Oval Office? I mean, that’s very much --
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 16 Jun 2011 at 11:21 AM
There's valid reason to be concerned about how the meeting was arranged - but probably less now than in the past.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/10/politics/10lobby.html
http://thestoppedclock.blogspot.com/2011/06/racism-i-dont-see-no-stinkin-racism.html
#3 Posted by Aaron, CJR on Thu 16 Jun 2011 at 12:42 PM
No, there is no valid reason whatsoever to be "concerned" about how the meeting was arranged. The entire premise is stupid, and not a little bit tinged with ugly racism.
#4 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 16 Jun 2011 at 01:13 PM
Sounds like Bolling is vying for Beck's job. Someone has to fill that slot. These spots, I'm guessing, are his audition tapes.
#5 Posted by Ramona, CJR on Fri 17 Jun 2011 at 06:57 AM
Sounds like Bolling is vying for Beck's job. Someone has to fill that slot. These spots, I'm guessing, are his audition tapes.
#6 Posted by RamonasVoices, CJR on Fri 17 Jun 2011 at 06:59 AM
James:
Q Jay, if Gabon was not president of the U.N. Security Council, would the President be meeting with President Bongo today?
This is a perfectly legitimate question. What was wrong with Knoller's question? Bongo is one of the most corrupt leaders in the world. His countrymen live in penury. There were three African leaders in Washington that week. Only one got the red carpet treatment, and yes, it's largely because of the UN position, and yes, he is a dicatator.
#7 Posted by Guest, CJR on Fri 17 Jun 2011 at 11:05 AM
@Mr. Guest,
Q: If Tsakhia Elbegdorj were not President of Mongolia, would Obama be meeting with him today?
Q If Jeffery Immelt were not General Electric Co. Chief Executive Officer, would Obama be meeting with him today?
Q If Hu Jintao were not President of China, would Obama be meeting with him today?
Sounds idiotic, right? You know why? Because it is. Quite obviously, the rotating chairmen of the United Nation Security Council has issues to discuss with Obama, whuuut with Libya and Arab Spring and UN Security Council resolution 1973, and stuff.
But no, a question like that from the WHPC, standing alone, might not have attracted notice -- I mean, Ed Henry brought up the birth certificate issue, and then there is Les Kingsolver -- but to follow on Keiler's "How did HE get in" when Fox news has been humping the "fat African n****r's in HIZZOUSE", and after the ugly business with the rapper Common, well, I'm sorry, but the implication could not have been more clear.
You must be one of their own -- completely tone deaf to how this looks to people who are out here watching. It's ugly, ugly business.
Perhaps you should explain a little further why you think it's fine. You just admitted he had legitimate business there.
#8 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 17 Jun 2011 at 01:42 PM