• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN host Rick Sanchez fired after Jon Stewart rant

He said something stupid that some could find racist and he is paying the price for it. I am not gonna cry over his dumb ass being fired.

What he said was not racist or antisemitic or anything else like that. Some might say it was stupid to criticize his bosses like that or say something he knew would offend some of his Jewish bosses, but we are talking about a news organization. A source of information for the masses firing someone for speaking the truth is generally not a good thing.

If someone seriously suggested he should be a reporter "like John Quiñones" instead of an anchor then him saying many of the people there are bigoted is not unreasonable. I mean they have some black people on there as anchors, most of whom have lighter skin than Fareed Zakaria, and they all have the same basic job: sitting in front of the teleprompter and reading it.

Saying Jews are not an oppressed minority is just being honest same for saying the people who run CNN and most of the other major news outlets are Jews. Rick Sanchez wasn't suggesting that meant anything other than what he said. His point was calling Jews oppressed in the United States is kind of ridiculous when you are more likely to have a Jewish boss as opposed to a Jewish co-worker.
 
He was not spewing "anti-Jewish" rhetoric. He made a legitimate point in a lot of ways. Rick Sanchez was the only Hispanic anchor on any of the cable news shows from what I can tell, while on CNN you have many Jewish anchors. It is disproportionate representation no matter how you look at it. Even in the context of New York City it is disproportionate as there are more Hispanics than Jews in every single borough of New York City.

You are probably fine with it but by saying that he made a legitimate point people may feel you are making an anti-semetic statement. Could you imagine someone trying to justify a rant about other groups?

The good news is that with your statements and others who think like you but are in the closet about it are the reason for the need for the state of Israel. I am sure that people in Germany and Poland had similar thoughts about Jews having undue influence. Russia essentially purged their Jewish population, Etheopia the same.

Who knows what will happen in America when it loses it's economic and/or military. Know a group that has been a great scapgoat over the centuries?
 
so DoL, let me ask, does this mean that Mel Gibson is off the hook?


j-mac
 
Demon of Light, The dude pretty much said the Jews control the media. If you cannot agree that is racist can you at least admit it is buying into a stero-type? And we all know that buying into sterotypes leads to racism.
 
Last edited:
No doubt there are a lot of Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, whites, blacks, Hispanics, men, woman, etc working at any news network... why then does he single out Jewish people in his rant?

Well, there is a pretty big gap actually. Larry King was born to a Jewish family, Wolf Blitzer is Jewish, and Jon King converted to Judaism before he married a CNN reporter who is Jewish. Those are three of the biggest personalities on CNN right now and they are all Jewish in one way or another. As far as singling them out, he didn't do any such thing. They were talking about Jon Stewart who is Jewish and Rick Sanchez was talking about minorities that he feels Jon Stewart looks down on and so the host notes that Jon Stewart is Jewish sparking the comment from Sanchez.

Please supply a link for this: "there appear to be many Jews on the board".

Well, the President of CNN who just left was definitely Jewish. I wouldn't know about his replacement. I can't find any clear specifics on the following three: Laurie Goldberg: Executive Profile & Biography - BusinessWeek, Mitch Gelman: Executive Profile & Biography - BusinessWeek, and Chris Cramer: Executive Profile & Biography - BusinessWeek.

However those three seem to have common Jewish surnames. Mind you, Klein, who has been there for some time, was definitely Jewish so if I am right about the three above that means nearly the entire time Sanchez has been working there that several major board positions were held by Jews.

You are probably fine with it but by saying that he made a legitimate point people may feel you are making an anti-semetic statement.

That is because groups like the ADL and other advocates of "tolerance" have tried to get it into people's heads that if something is commonly said by an antisemite than anyone who says it is an antisemite and that if an antisemite says it then it is completely false. Unfortunately, reality does not work that way and if someone just notes the reality they get lambasted in the press as a bigot.

I read an article in which the author, who was Jewish, talked to the head of the ADL about Jews in the media and he fully acknowledged that there is greatly disproportionate representation of Jews in executive positions in the media, but that it was still antisemitic to say Jews run the media. However, it seems the main reason is that ADL head felt the statement suggested a conspiracy, specifically one by all Jews.

Of course, if I said the people who run the Cosa Nostra are Italians no one would assume I was suggesting all Italians are part of the mob or suggesting there is some grand Italian conspiracy against non-Italians.

Could you imagine someone trying to justify a rant about other groups?

The notion that a middle-class Jew from an affluent suburb who has never seen real adversity in his life can relate to him, a Cuban immigrant with a father that worked blue-collar jobs his whole life, might come off as a tad offensive. This is especially the case when one considers what Sanchez described, which if true definitely amounted to discriminatory and demeaning treatment, and the fact the President of CNN at the time was Jewish and likely many of his other bosses. If instead of talking about Jews they were talking about whites we would be having an entirely different discussion.

I am sure that people in Germany and Poland had similar thoughts about Jews having undue influence.

Poland? The Poles were under German occupation and were themselves a target for extermination, though on a longer time frame for practical purposes. I think the fact some 3 million Jews resided in the country before the war speaks volumes about that country's tolerance for its Jewish population.

so DoL, let me ask, does this mean that Mel Gibson is off the hook?

Saying Jews are collectively responsible for all war, a blatantly absurd claim, is far different from saying that the people who run the media are generally Jews. Of course, to put things in perspective this largely applies to the U.S.

Demon of Light, The dude pretty much said the Jews control the media. If you cannot agree that is racist can you at least admit it is buying into a stero-type? And we all know that buying into sterotypes leads to racism.

Stereotypes are not automatically false. In fact, more often than not they are based on some element of truth. Here we are talking about it being almost entirely true. Now, someone observing the simple fact that many of the people in senior positions in the media are Jewish might come to think there is something nefarious about that, but that does not mean denying this will help prevent such a thing from happening. Rather, it is more likely to increase the instances as anyone finding out this fact against all efforts to convince them of the contrary will naturally ask the question, "Well why would they feel like this is something they have to hide?"
 
Last edited:
so DoL, let me ask, does this mean that Mel Gibson is off the hook?


j-mac

I don't recall anyone giving Mel much lattitude. Most of the people I know were disgusted by his rant. However as far as I know Mel isn't an anchor on a leading cable news network.

On ther other hand Beck called our president a "racist" with no repercussions from FOX whatsoever.
 
I don't recall anyone giving Mel much lattitude. Most of the people I know were disgusted by his rant. However as far as I know Mel isn't an anchor on a leading cable news network.

nah, you're right Gibson was just a star, director with more recognition than Sanchez could ever hope to garner.....:mrgreen:


On ther other hand Beck called our president a "racist" with no repercussions from FOX whatsoever.

And later apologized for several times on several different shows. See, that's the problem with you libs, is that when it is one of your own that shows racism well it should only be a blurb in the news and enough of that. But when it is a conservative that you don't like, not even displaying any racism, but merely trying to figure out who the beloved one is, well then, we should imprison him, right?


j-mac
 
Well, there is a pretty big gap actually. Larry King was born to a Jewish family, Wolf Blitzer is Jewish, and Jon King converted to Judaism before he married a CNN reporter who is Jewish. Those are three of the biggest personalities on CNN right now and they are all Jewish in one way or another. As far as singling them out, he didn't do any such thing. They were talking about Jon Stewart who is Jewish and Rick Sanchez was talking about minorities that he feels Jon Stewart looks down on and so the host notes that Jon Stewart is Jewish sparking the comment from Sanchez.



Well, the President of CNN who just left was definitely Jewish. I wouldn't know about his replacement. I can't find any clear specifics on the following three: Laurie Goldberg: Executive Profile & Biography - BusinessWeek, Mitch Gelman: Executive Profile & Biography - BusinessWeek, and Chris Cramer: Executive Profile & Biography - BusinessWeek.

Where I get lost in all this is, why does their religion even matter??
 
Where I get lost in all this is, why does their religion even matter??

Well, when talking about them being able to identify with Hispanics as a mistreated minority it matters a lot. Remember, Sanchez isn't the one who brought it up. The host of the radio show brought up that Stewart was Jewish as a way of saying "well he can understand what you went through Rick" and Rick Sanchez countered by noting that many of his bosses are Jewish and that is the same in much of the news media. Hence, equating the disadvantaged position of Hispanics in society with the position of Jews in society is just ridiculous.
 
Well, when talking about them being able to identify with Hispanics as a mistreated minority it matters a lot. Remember, Sanchez isn't the one who brought it up. The host of the radio show brought up that Stewart was Jewish as a way of saying "well he can understand what you went through Rick" and Rick Sanchez countered by noting that many of his bosses are Jewish and that is the same in much of the news media. Hence, equating the disadvantaged position of Hispanics in society with the position of Jews in society is just ridiculous.

So you are saying is because some Jewish people have been sucessful that they never had to face discrimination. Or that they have not used this as a crutch, just as Asian Americans have not used it as a crutch. Just knew to suceed they had to be better than their competition to overcome that discrimination. Why do many stars change their name, as Stewart did. His original name is very Jewish sounding, if it is such an advantage why change it?
 
Doesn't this boob know that the only place to rant like he does is on MSNBC?

Given that the rant was racist, he'd fit much better over at FauxNews.
 
Yes, I agree. Racism is idiotic, which is why FauxNews specializes in it. It appeals to their core viewers.

Took the liberal bait hook, line, and sinker, I see.
 
Even if one wants to deploy the more charitable interpretation, namely that Mr. Sanchez had an emotional outburst related to his failure to achieve the success he had expected at CNN, several points are instructive:

1. Workplace setbacks can be quite commonplace. Mr. Sanchez's experience is neither unique nor rare.

2. When such setbacks occur, how one handles them can make a big difference in one's ultimate career evolution. One can respond to adversity by improving areas that need improvement, seeking challenges to demonstrate through one's performance that one can handle the responsibilities associated with the position to which one aspires, etc. On the other hand, one can take what is a self-destructive course of lashing out at others following one's temporary setback.

3. One should be careful to avoid turning on one's superiors and colleagues, even if it requires some self-restraint. Otherwise, one destroys one's own standing in the workplace. Unless one is a sole proprietor, teamwork is essential to organizational success. Therefore, once one's relationships with one's bosses and peers are shattered, one usually can no longer make a productive contribution in the workplace.

4. If one feels that a decision is unjust, one should focus completely on the merits of where one believes the decision was unjust. One should address those issues in private so as to avoid putting one's bosses or peers in a position in which they could risk being viewed as weak.

5. If one feels that one will not gain an opportunity to make a difference in one's firm in the wake of a setback, one should pursue employment with another firm.

Mr. Sanchez handled his situation very poorly. Moreover, by doing so in a public forum, he created the perception of his being a "problem employee" for would-be employers. Hence, not only did he destroy his tenure at CNN, he undermined prospects for his moving to another major media organization. His reaction signaled a lack of emotional maturity, even as he aspired to an anchor position that demands enormous emotional maturity.
 
So you are saying is because some Jewish people have been sucessful that they never had to face discrimination.

Not at all, however they have unquestionably not faced it to the extent other minorities have in the U.S.

Why do many stars change their name, as Stewart did. His original name is very Jewish sounding, if it is such an advantage why change it?

There are a lot of reasons for people to change their names, especially entertainers. People from Russia often change their names a bit because most people who speak English would have a difficult time pronouncing the person's formal name. Stewart has apparently implied it was because he and his father had been estranged since his father and mother divorced when he was 11. In other words, it had nothing to do with his last name sounding Jewish.

2. When such setbacks occur, how one handles them can make a big difference in one's ultimate career evolution. One can respond to adversity by improving areas that need improvement, seeking challenges to demonstrate through one's performance that one can handle the responsibilities associated with the position to which one aspires, etc. On the other hand, one can take what is a self-destructive course of lashing out at others following one's temporary setback.

It was not really a matter of improvement. I mean, his ratings weren't as good as the shows on Fox and MSNBC at that point in primetime, but he was against O'Reilly and Olbermann and CNN's ratings in general are not that good. Jon King's show actually got lower ratings than the show Rick Sanchez had. If this Parker-Spitzer thing gets better ratings than Rick's show it would seem a fair change, but if the ratings quickly fall behind what Rick's show had then clearly it was a bad play by CNN.

At any rate, this cannot be accounted for by claiming his performance was bad. Rather, he was always just a placeholder for the Parker-Spitzer show that seeks to build on the fact everyone knows Spitzer due to his extra-marital affairs with an escort. On a little side-note Spitzer happens to be Jewish.

3. One should be careful to avoid turning on one's superiors and colleagues, even if it requires some self-restraint. Otherwise, one destroys one's own standing in the workplace. Unless one is a sole proprietor, teamwork is essential to organizational success. Therefore, once one's relationships with one's bosses and peers are shattered, one usually can no longer make a productive contribution in the workplace.

4. If one feels that a decision is unjust, one should focus completely on the merits of where one believes the decision was unjust. One should address those issues in private so as to avoid putting one's bosses or peers in a position in which they could risk being viewed as weak.

5. If one feels that one will not gain an opportunity to make a difference in one's firm in the wake of a setback, one should pursue employment with another firm.

How do you feel about the ethical consequences of this being a business that is supposed to provide people with all the information so that the people can make a reasonable decision? The masses rely on these organizations for the whole story without bias and manipulation. How can anyone trust the media if the people tasked with reporting the news are prohibited or otherwise discouraged from discussing certain subjects fully and honestly?
 
It was not really a matter of improvement. I mean, his ratings weren't as good as the shows on Fox and MSNBC at that point in primetime, but he was against O'Reilly and Olbermann and CNN's ratings in general are not that good.

When I speak of improvement, in this context, I'm asking whether there were things that Mr. Sanchez could have done to perform better. Was he completely a prisoner of CNN's decisions or did he have some capability to influence factors that could, in turn, impact ratings? My guess is that there was a combination of factors at play. Some dealt with CNN's overall programming. Others that dealt with Mr. Sanchez's on-air performance/presence.

If this Parker-Spitzer thing gets better ratings than Rick's show it would seem a fair change, but if the ratings quickly fall behind what Rick's show had then clearly it was a bad play by CNN.

When a station is weak or in decline, it often tries different things to shake up the ratings. Unfortunately, in the case of CNN, I suspect that that poor ratings are a function of a combination of the station's programming and its on-air personalities. IMO, as it increasingly reduced its international on-air content, it eroded what had been an important asset that few broadcasters could match. Its ability to try to mimic the "infotainment" fare of its rivals has not been impressive, information was sacrificed and the entertainment value isn't great. Mr. Spitzer might attract initial interest on account of his notoriety. Whether he will be able to sustain that interest remains to be seen.

How do you feel about the ethical consequences of this being a business that is supposed to provide people with all the information so that the people can make a reasonable decision? The masses rely on these organizations for the whole story without bias and manipulation. How can anyone trust the media if the people tasked with reporting the news are prohibited or otherwise discouraged from discussing certain subjects fully and honestly?

I believe journalists should do their best to provide objective, timely, and reliable information that is of value to the audience. When sensitive topics are discussed, reporters should be careful to focus only on the facts and they should provide such context as is necessary to promote understanding. Overgeneralization can create serious problems, especially if it drives away viewers. Reporting on controversial topics needs to be backed by concrete facts that are beyond reasonable dispute.
 
Yes, I agree. Racism is idiotic, which is why FauxNews specializes in it. It appeals to their core viewers.

Again, a station accused by those on the left of being too pro-Israel, too sensitive to Jewish sentimentality is going to move in Sanchez's direction?

Apparently whatever you read appeals to your disdain of common sense.
 
Last edited:
nah, you're right Gibson was just a star, director with more recognition than Sanchez could ever hope to garner.....:mrgreen:

And later apologized for several times on several different shows. See, that's the problem with you libs, is that when it is one of your own that shows racism well it should only be a blurb in the news and enough of that. But when it is a conservative that you don't like, not even displaying any racism, but merely trying to figure out who the beloved one is, well then, we should imprison him, right?

J-Mac your unbiased perspective is a sight to behold. Sarcasm button off.

BTW I'm not a liberal. Independent actually, but at least I know bull**** when I see it.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Spitzer might attract initial interest on account of his notoriety. Whether he will be able to sustain that interest remains to be seen.

I won't be watching him even though I am a regular CNN viewer. There are enough sleaseball commentators and pundits out there. We don't need another one. My prediction is he will flop.
 
CNN (and the whole 24/7 cable-news industry for that matter) hasnt had a good anchor since Bernard Shaw. Perhaps that white haired dude will be able to fill Bernie's shoes eventually.

As for Rick Sanchez; he was our local newsguy down here in south florida, and surprised the heck out of me that CNN thought he was anchor material. Down here, we never forgot what he was all about...



On December 10, 1990, Sanchez was in a neighborhood in the vicinity of Joe Robbie Stadium, driving home with his father from football game when he struck Jeffrey Smuzinick, a pedestrian who was inebriated. Sanchez attempted to flee from the location at which the accident occurred after parking. Contrary to statements by witnesses that Sanchez protested in a shrill tone against the evaluation of his blood alcohol content because he believed that his reputation would thereby be damaged, while paying no attention to Smuzinick, Sanchez asserted that he attempted to attract the notice of passing drivers and to render medical assistance.
Smuzinick was paralyzed and, on November 2, 1995, died in an assisted living facility.


The Forgotten Man - Page 1 - News - Miami - Miami New Times
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we...ield_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(Smuzinick)
 
Last edited:
J-Mac your unbiased perspective is a sight to behold. Sarcasm button off.

I never claimed to be unbiased. Everything from my posting to my affiliation under my name is honest. Don't you wish you could say the same? :2wave:


BTW I'm not a liberal. Independent actually


:lamo Oh that's a good one. :lamo I can't remember the last time you sided against this current administration in anything in here, but you sure are an independent...:roll:


but at least I know bull**** when I see it.

Obviously not, you voted for the "hopey/changey" Obama did you not? Yeah, how's that workin' out? :lamo


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom