Posted on 09/22/2008 9:56:46 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
'SNL' Palin 'Incest' Skit Angers Viewers Viewers, Bloggers Think Skit Went Over Line
POSTED: 11:30 am EDT September 22, 2008 UPDATED: 12:14 pm EDT September 22, 2008 For the second week in a row, NBC's "Saturday Night Live" has taken to lampooning Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin -- but this time, it has angered conservative viewers over a skit that suggests that the Alaska governor's husband, Todd Palin, was having sex with the couple's daughters.
In the skit, show guest host James Franco plays an assignment editor at the New York Times at the head of an editorial meeting. During a mock assignment meeting where the paper announced that 50 reporters were being sent to look for dirt on Sarah Palin, a Times "reporter" asks, "What about the husband? You know he's doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It's Alaska."
In response, Franco's character said, "He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Gov. Palin."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnbc.com ...
1. What would be Todd Palin’s case?
2. Did you see the skit?
But it isn't. It is one thing to make fun of a man's patriotism. It is quite another to make fun of the NYT while at the same time suggesting that a man has committed incest with his daughters.
SNL should do a skit regarding 0bama’s Kenyan birth and the fabrication of the bogus Hawaiian birth certificate. They can throw in his picturesque Kenyan relatives for good measure.
No such suggestion was made.
You just made the claim that you are a thinking person, and any body that doesn't agree with you does not think. Your argument is based on snob appeal. You can't base an argument on a fallacy.
By the way, what would you say if a reporter in a newspaper wrote that he didn't believe any of those rumors that you had sex with a dog?
Then what did the reporter say?
“The only purpose was to slam the Palins”
Hey there!
When I watched it, I got the opposite impression.
And I think many people aren’t aware that this talk about incest has been going on for awhile now thanks to the Dailykos and DU websites.
Ever since Palin was announced, there has been a daily barrage of whacko unsubstantiated rumours coming from these garbage sites. littlegreenfootballs sometimes chronicles the worse of the worst.
Then “serious” reporters like Olbermann and the NY Times gang pretends these rumours are “news”.
It got so ridiculous that Steve Schmidt reported the McCain team was getting demands from reporters for a dna test.
We had a fellow freeper who has his own humor blog run a similar type of satire on these whackos. It was posted here and no one was outraged.
The SNL skit made the same point - and now there’s outrage.
Guess we will have to disagree.
Pat Robertson’s communication — what he says and how he says it — is so unlike SNL’s vitriol. Let’s not fall for the media lie that high-profile Christians are “mean old queens.”
“Then what did the reporter say?”
The reporter asked about incest. The reporter was portrayed as a fool.
See post #7
I just happened to watch that skit with the missus.
The skit was a BIG slam on the media’s provincial elitism.
I was shocked & pleased.
Yeah he got a sex change when you wasn’t looking. Try looking next time.
The NYTimes ‘investigative’ reporter (in the skit) was transgendered; dependent upon multiple therapists; didn’t have a driver’s license; had never been off Manhattan Island; and could not survive w/o take out Thai food...and he is the one who came up with the suggestion of the investigation topic...out of thin air. With no substantiation. And he wins a Pulitzer.
The skit smacked the Times, the MSM, and the Pulitzer Committee pretty good. There is alot to complain about the re the treatment of Gov. Palin and her family...this one isn’t the one though.
I don’t think anyone is claiming Down’s or incest is funny.
It wasn’t funny when dailykos viciously attacked the innocent Palins and invented these wild rumours.
And when NY times reporters pick up this garbage from those sites and present it as “news” - they reveal themselves to be lefty loons.
So - that is why when I saw the skit, and that reporter asked that question, my reaction was “ok! they just nailed these people for being dailykos kooks!”
It wasn’t an attack on the Palins - it was an attack on the reporters.
The reporter went on to say something like “c’mon! It’s Alaska!”
Now - I don’t think SNL was really trying to say ALL Alaskans commit incest.
They were exposing the elitist snobbery among those jerks.
Anyways...it’s just another way of looking at it.
I’m not sure how a true victim would view it, because it was attacking rumormongering more than anything.
My thoughts exactly! The whole point of the satire was that with everything going on, the NYTimes had sent all reporters to alaska to find some none existent story...and finally, no one wanted to go because they didn’t have a Starbucks, etc.
It was making fun of the NY Times
Geeze
You can't take down a private citizen in this way. He isn't elected to any office or seeking an elected office. His wife is. His skills are very different. He is a private citizen right now. That's where he can make $2B right now. Defamation of character of a private citizen.
He has no political authority.
I agree.
This is a gross over-reaction by that tiny segment which thinks that merely acknowledging that certain impolite subjects are bandied about by the irresponsible, automatically places us among their number.
Horsepuckey!
"...but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary."
Here is the money quote, admitting that proving a negative is a major weapon in the arsenal of the propagandists. Of course, the DU types are oblivious to the implications, but most normal adults have a firm grasp of the technique.
A tempest in a teapot.
Thanks for posting that.
When people see it they get it (that the Times was the target). When you only read about it on WorldNutDaily you get the reaction they want you to have (frothing and offended). Conservatives are better than that...but you wouldn’t know it by the ‘’victimhood’’ card played here...the egregious, made up attacks were the parody...and they fraility of those making the attacks. Not the Palins!!!
“You can’t take down a private citizen in this way. He isn’t elected to any office or seeking an elected office. His wife is. His skills are very different. He is a private citizen right now. That’s where he can make $2B right now. Defamation of character of a private citizen.
He has no political authority.”
1. How was Todd Palin “take(n) down”?
2. Can the reporters and editors “make $2B right now” by suing NBC? If not, why not?
Exactly. The reporter suggested that Todd Palin committed incest with his daughters. But first you deny that this was suggested, and now you admit that it was suggested. Well, which it it?
It doesn't matter that the reporter was playing the part of the fool. The fool was overly exaggerated. What better way to get every one to let this go by without a challenge? Well, it was the cheapest of a cheap shots, and I am not going to let this go by without a challenge.
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.