Transcript:Still and forever my favorite video on the entire internetz.
Voice Off-Camera: Hey, Kiefer. You're a pirate, man.
Kiefer: That would explain everything. [jumps into Christmas tree]
Showing posts with label That Would Explain Everything. Show all posts
Showing posts with label That Would Explain Everything. Show all posts
Random Kiefer
True Fact: The New York Times Does Not Know What Journalism Is Or What a Journalists' Job Is
That can be the only explanation for this column by the Times' public editor, Arthur S. Brisbane: "Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?"
I'm looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge "facts" that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.OMFG. If I had asked these questions of my high school newspaper faculty adviser, she would have sent me back to retake Journalism 101. This is deeply embarrassing stuff. Or should be.
...If so, then perhaps the next time Mr. Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for his country, the reporter should insert a paragraph saying, more or less:
"The president has never used the word 'apologize' in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president's words."
That approach is what one reader was getting at in a recent message to the public editor. He wrote:
My question is what role the paper's hard-news coverage should play with regard to false statements – by candidates or by others. In general, the Times sets its documentation of falsehoods in articles apart from its primary coverage. If the newspaper's overarching goal is truth, oughtn't the truth be embedded in its principal stories? In other words, if a candidate repeatedly utters an outright falsehood (I leave aside ambiguous implications), shouldn't the Times's coverage nail it right at the point where the article quotes it?This message was typical of mail from some readers who, fed up with the distortions and evasions that are common in public life, look to The Times to set the record straight. ... Is that the prevailing view? And if so, how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another?
I don't even know how Brisbane can frame this scenario as a "reporter choosing to correct one fact over another." Does he know what the meaning of the word fact actually is? If it needs correction, it ain't a fact.
And howsabout the radical idea of not picking and choosing which not-facts to identify and/or correct, but identifying and/or correcting them all.
Meanwhile, Brisbane wants to know if a "separate fact-check sidebar" is insufficient. YES IT IS! "Do you like this feature, or would you rather it be incorporated into regular reporting?" Literally, the public editor of the "paper of record" just asked the paper's readership if they want accuracy inserted into their reporting.
That explains everything. *jumps into Christmas tree*
Photo of the Day
Kiefer Sutherland tweeted this picture the other day, which is basically the greatest thing I've ever seen. It is, of course, a reference to my favorite YouTube video of all time:
Transcript:Thanks very much to Shaker Tobes, who saw it on E!.
Voice Off-Camera: Hey, Kiefer. You're a pirate, man.
Kiefer: That would explain everything. [jumps into Christmas tree]
It's Been Way Too Long
Transcript:
Voice Off-Camera: Hey, Kiefer. You're a pirate, man.
Kiefer: That would explain everything. [jumps into Christmas tree]
Monthly Kiefer
My favorite video on all of YouTube, once again, just because.
Transcript:
Voice Off-Camera: Hey, Kiefer. You're a pirate, man.
Kiefer: That would explain everything. [jumps into Christmas tree]
Classic
Last night, after getting totally shit-faced on two glasses of wine while over at my parents' for dinner (I have no tolerance at. fucking. all. lol), I tried to explain this video, a perennial Shakesville favorite, to my dad:
Transcript:"It's Kiefer Sutherland and it's—did I mention it was Christmas? Yeah, it's Christmastime, and there's this tree. Wait. Okay, so Kiefer Sutherland is there, and he's like maybe as drunk as I am right now, and some dude says—oh, and there's music playing. But yeah, the dude says, 'You're a pirate, man,' to Kiefer, and he's all: 'That would explain everything.' And then he fucking JUMPS into the Christmas tree. It's awesome. It's my favorite video on the entirety of YouTube. You know what YouTube is, right? Yeah? Kinda? Okay, well, whatever, it's the best video pretty much anywhere ever. Like, seriously, he JUMPS into the Christmas tree. For realz."
Voice Off-Camera: Hey, Kiefer. You're a pirate, man.
Kiefer: That would explain everything. [jumps into Christmas tree]
By the time my head lolled back around to look at my dad, I noticed he wasn't even paying attention and was staring at the football game.
Which he does when I'm sober and saying something important, too, but this time I couldn't blame him.
Clickety-Clack
I'm currently in the middle of a big Feminism 101 piece that I hope to publish tomorrow morning, but, while I'm working on it, I feel guilty for not posting more content right now (this is why PortlyDyke tells me I have the meanest boss in the world, lol), so please enjoy, once again, Kiefer Sutherland Jumps Into a Christmas Tree.
Transcript:Brilliant.
Voice Off-Camera: Hey, Kiefer. You're a pirate, man.
Kiefer: That would explain everything. [jumps into Christmas tree]
Best YouTube ever. Best transcript in the history of transcripts.
Two-Minute Ten-Second Nostalgia Sublime
Arkades' post put me in mind of one of my favorite clips of Kiefer Sutherland of all time, which I've posted before but am pleased to have an excuse to post again:
Transcript:Brilliant.
Voice Off-Camera: Hey, Kiefer. You're a pirate, man.
Kiefer: That would explain everything. [jumps into Christmas tree]
