Quote :

"I want all Arabs to be stripped naked and cavity-searched if they get within 100 yards of an airport. I don’t care if they’re being inconvenienced. I don’t care if it seems as though their rights are being violated. I care about my life. I care about the lives of my family and friends. "

http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/09/13/4326450119685?in_archive=1

9/13/2005 8:18:27 PM

i bet someone, somewhere will have a protest

9/13/2005 8:20:58 PM

stupid hippies

9/13/2005 8:24:10 PM

Quote :

"You can debate a lot of things about post-9/11 foreign policy, but one thing you can’t debate is that taking out terrorists — or blatant human-rights violators — is a good thing."

Quote :

"I want all Arabs to be stripped naked and cavity-searched if they get within 100 yards of an airport. I don’t care if they’re being inconvenienced. I don’t care if it seems as though their rights are being violated. I care about my life. I care about the lives of my family and friends. "

ummm...?


[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 8:27 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2005 8:27:08 PM

eh, its relevant, in a random irrelevent kind of way

9/13/2005 8:30:27 PM

i'll racial her profile

BADA BING

9/14/2005 7:07:18 AM

lol

A blonde wrote all that

Money shot time.

9/14/2005 7:20:31 AM

what an idiot

“Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin wasn't an idiot

9/14/2005 1:55:11 PM

"Give me liberty or give me airport security"

9/14/2005 1:56:35 PM

"These are the times that try men's holes."

Thomas Paine, The Crisis

9/14/2005 3:48:02 PM

Quote :

"If 19 blond-haired, blue-eyed, Caucasian Jews had plowed into the World Trade Center with two jumbo jets, I would demand to be interrogated every time I browsed Cheapflights.com."

No, she fucking wouldn't.

Quote :

"Nearly every Arab American I’ve spoken with has done nothing but condemn the evil that was done just four years ago, and at least tacitly recognize that some profiling is necessary."

I'm absolutely fucking positive she didn't tell them her real opinion: "I want all Arabs to be stripped naked and cavity-searched if they get within 100 yards of an airport."

If she really was concerned about safety and would be willing to be subjected to profiling, then why not have everyone fucking searched? She honestly acts like Arabs are the only fucking people that commit crimes.

9/14/2005 3:49:53 PM

whens the last time a non-Arab hijacked an airplane

9/14/2005 5:26:16 PM

FOLKS
SHES JUST LOOKING FOR ATTENTION
SHE'S CLEARLY A CONSERVATIVE AT CHAPEL HILL

SHE'S A COLLEGIATE ANN COULTER
JUST LET IT PASS

SHE'LL BE WORKING AS A STRINGER FOR SOME SHITTY PAPER SOON ENOUGH AND WILL REMEMBER FONDLY ALL THE DAYS OF GLORY SHE HAD AS A HELLRAISER DOWN AT OL CHAPEL HILL

9/14/2005 5:28:51 PM

^^doesn't matter

because when's the last time an Arab was a perfectly acceptable member of society? the answer is right now, and you can't treat 99% of them like shit because of the 1% who should be skinned alive and drowned in urine.

9/14/2005 5:31:50 PM

I don't think they treat us too well in their countries

9/14/2005 5:36:20 PM

i'm pretty sure we're better than their countries

9/14/2005 5:39:04 PM

yeah...i mean i dont agree with strip searching all of them or going to that extent...but you cant be too blinded by political correctness to not realize that an Arab is more likely to try and blow up an airplane than some other people

and if we had total freedom in this country, ie lax or no security anywhere, we would be worse off

9/14/2005 5:41:31 PM

Wasn't one of the London Bombers Jamaican?

I'm sure Al Qaeda some a bunch of John Walkers lined up once this profiling happens.

9/14/2005 7:30:11 PM

adam gadahn

9/14/2005 7:52:28 PM

They fired her.

Quote :

"Might as well get to the point: I fired Jillian Bandes yesterday. And not because I thought she was a racist or an idiot. She is, in fact, neither — and even if she were, I wouldn’t have fired her for those reasons. I fired her because she strung together quotes out of context. She took sources’ words out of context. She misled those sources when she conducted interviews. In other words, she conducted journalistic malpractice, and that’s simply not something I, or The Daily Tar Heel, will tolerate."

http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/09/15/4328fee8b53ed

9/15/2005 5:19:35 PM

^ good 4 them.

9/15/2005 5:28:46 PM

in other words, they didn't like what she wrote, so they fired her. Journalism today is ALL ABOUT misleading people in order to make your "story." Witness FoxNews and CNN, etc. If you are writing a god-damned editorial, it goes moreso. Besides, you aren't usually gathering quotes for "sources" for an editorial, so I'm fairly certain that the editor should have seen that a mile away. No, in an editorial half the fun is fucking w/ people's words.

in an academic paper? HELL NO! thats not acceptable. In a paper where your primary concern is to sell papers and ads? HELL YES! You do what it takes to get readers, as long as you are not lying. This bitch is just hiding behind "journalism" to justify firing someone whose political views she disagrees with.

no liberal bias in media my ass...

9/15/2005 5:31:01 PM

^

you're fucking retarded.

9/15/2005 5:36:09 PM

Quote :

"^ you're fucking retarded"

9/15/2005 5:39:21 PM

why didn't the vet this piece before it ran. only after this dumb bitch got her attention do they actually do something. it speaks largely to the organization that this even got into the paper. I don't care if she's racist or stupid, she has that right. but when the paper will fire her for improper journalistic practices in an incredibly inflamitory piece the paper needs to bear some of the blame.

9/15/2005 5:42:31 PM

^^^^ You are basically saying it's okay to spin other people's words to further your own cause. Do you realize what you're saying?

[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 5:43 PM. Reason : ]

9/15/2005 5:43:22 PM

Quote :

"Today’s paper is a start: We’ve removed the board editorials to run your letters on Bandes’ work. Hopefully, that will get some of your juices flowing — without any of your bile."

aha

9/15/2005 5:44:08 PM

^^^^^^

you're fucking retarded

9/15/2005 6:55:11 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

you're fucking retarded

9/15/2005 7:32:49 PM

the only people fucking retarded are those who think that fuckwad fired her for the reason he said.

youre naive and a fucking choad if you believe that.

9/15/2005 7:39:32 PM

Quote :

"You are basically saying it's okay to spin other people's words to further your own cause."

i'm not saying that I would do that personally, but I'm saying that that is how the journalistic world works

Quote :

"Either Chris or I should have seen the obvious red flags from the way the column was worded."

Translation: We should have known it would offend so many people, so we shouldn't have printed it...

9/15/2005 7:39:44 PM

Quote :

"In other words, she conducted journalistic malpractice"

If only that got you fired from the Technician.

9/15/2005 7:42:31 PM

Quote :

"Translation: We should have known it would offend so many people, so we shouldn't have printed it..."

i dont think thats what that means at all

9/15/2005 7:50:37 PM

seriously, go back and reread the column. While its shitty writing, indeed, she doesn't take those quotes out of context. The people she quoted were mad at her not because she took their quotes out of context, but rather because they didn't agree with how extreme her article was. And while it makes sense that they wouldn't want someone to quote them in an article in which the author suggested strip searching all Arabs, maybe they should have asked her exactly what stance she was going to take, you know? And how hard line on that stance she would be.

When you are interviewed for a paper, you don't have the right after its written to come back and say "hey, I disagree with your column, I'm offended." You should be clear of the author's intentions and what they will write about. "Arab - American relations post 9/11" is pretty fucking broad, so you better find out what she's gonna write about before you say "sure, I'll answer a few questions." Note that in the editor's response, he only says that the quotes were taken out of context. He doesn't actually give the context. Thats a clear fucking sign that the quotes weren't out of context. I'm willing to bet that she asked "what do you think about racial profiling airline passengers of Arab descent?" and that the quote in the paper was the exact next thing that the interviewee said. And, if they didn't think the article was about racial profiling, or were assured it wasn't, then why the fuck would they not ask her right then and there why she was asking about racial profiling? or, if she didn't ask it herself, why would they mention it?

9/15/2005 7:53:42 PM

ha ha, read the replies

Quote :

"Hmm....It seems as though everyone is mad at you for this so I'ma go on head say, forget the politics. I'm trying to get your number so I can sex you up at the airport. I got a membership at from the MILE HIGH CLUB!"

9/15/2005 8:23:15 PM

grammar much? I thought tarholes were supposed to be such better speakers and all, given that they don't have the influx of stupid rednecks and farm kids like they claim we are...

9/15/2005 8:29:22 PM

yeah, I tend to agree that she was fired for political reasons

personally, I like stuff such as this

at least it's mildly amusing

offensive is better than boring

9/15/2005 8:32:27 PM

MORE LIKE LICENSED TO GET FIRED

LOL

9/15/2005 8:34:13 PM

Her firing made the news:
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=3446940

9/15/2005 8:40:30 PM

Quote :

"You should be clear of the author's intentions and what they will write about "

right, they were mislead
thats go against journalism ethics

Quote :

" Note that in the editor's response, he only says that the quotes were taken out of context. He doesn't actually give the context. Thats a clear fucking sign that the quotes weren't out of context."

the way they were quoted made it look like they were ok with it
they were actually not in favor of racial profiling

Quote :

"I'm willing to bet that she asked "what do you think about racial profiling airline passengers of Arab descent?" and that the quote in the paper was the exact next thing that the interviewee said."

yeah
in magic fairy tale land that might be the case

Quote :

"And, if they didn't think the article was about racial profiling, or were assured it wasn't, then why the fuck would they not ask her right then and there why she was asking about racial profiling? or, if she didn't ask it herself, why would they mention it?"

because they were out of context

i really think that anyone at the dth knows more about journalism ethics than you do aaronburro

9/15/2005 9:09:53 PM

All this racism against arabs serves only to distract us from the real troubles in society.


Like niggers.

9/15/2005 9:53:16 PM

and mexicans

9/15/2005 9:55:33 PM

Quote :

"right, they were mislead thats go against journalism ethics"

well, if there was really some context that was missing, why not provide it, oh great and wise editor? oh right, cause there wasn't any missing context. and again, journalism has no ethics, just like politics. Journalism in the US has one main purpose: sell ads.

the only way these people were mislead is if they themselves didn't ask the questions they should have asked. If I come up to you and say "hey, can I have 5 bux?" and you don't ask me what its for, then when I go buy crack, I haven't misled you.

9/15/2005 10:31:46 PM

I have major problems with this guy discussing a personnel decision in a column. From an ethical standpoint, it's a terrible, terrible idea to write a column talking about her dismissal.

9/15/2005 10:37:11 PM

you dont see the problem with twisting a quote to make it say something opposite?

9/15/2005 10:38:34 PM

Absolutely. She should've been fired for all the reasons the editor listed. But I don't think he should've written a column essentially saying "Yeah, I fired the bitch." I just don't think it's the appropriate forum for that discussion.

9/15/2005 10:41:19 PM

Quote :

"you dont see the problem with twisting a quote to make it say something opposite?"

considering that he hasn't proven that, then I'd say you are assuming guilt until proof of innocence...

9/15/2005 10:42:51 PM

well there were probably a lot of people that wanted her fired and he needed to make it clear he was not firing her because of the article but because of her breach of ethics

i think he kinda had to talk about firing her

^christ did you read the 2 links posted? write him an email and ask to see her notes if you want

[Edited on September 15, 2005 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2005 10:43:30 PM

Quote :

"i think he kinda had to talk about firing her"

in all seriousness, I agree. he really had no choice.

too bad he's lying through his teeth. The people that parchased ads in DTH prolly raised hell.

^ actually, I DID read those links. And in neither one did he say how they were taken out of context. Like I said, seems pretty fuckin easy to show how they were taken out of context and take heat off of yourself by just showing the damned things in context.

Of course, by doing that, he would also have to admit that he did a shitty job of being an editor as well, especially if "they should have seen the clear red flags" or whatnot.

9/15/2005 10:44:39 PM

I've been sitting here thinking about that, to be honest. I read through the thread, and it was a knee-jerk reaction out of me. Maybe he should've; maybe not. I'm leaning more toward the fact that he should've said something at this point, given the circumstances. Maybe I have a problem with the way it's written; a sort of covering his own ass thing seems to be going on there. Or maybe not. I'd struggle with the decision to write it if I were in his shoes.

And aaron is being a douche, as usual. The guy isn't fucking obligated to give a dissertation in the column as to the exact way in which each quote was taken out of context. That's beyond the scope of a single column. There'll be time for that if it doesn't blow over, but this should be old news by the end of the week.

9/15/2005 10:47:17 PM