Re: Katie Halper didn't last long at The Hill
Posted by Ian M on October 1, 2022, 12:28 pm, in reply to "Katie Halper didn't last long at The Hill"
Apparently she had been contributing for three years. Discussion on Breaking Points: |
Ironic that the interviewers Ryan-"He's done it again!"-Grim & Emily Jashinsky both jumped ship from The Hill to join former Rising colleagues on their new independent channel. Maybe we can expect to see Halper on that show herself?
Rising seem to be chewing through their lefty/dissident presenters, Krystal Ball, Kim Iversen and now Halper. I wonder how Briahna Joy Gray is going to react. She has RTed a bunch of links about the Halper firing, though not made a statement herself as of yet: https://twitter.com/briebriejoy (maybe it has been discussed on her podcast or something). Seems like the sort of thing you should resign in protest over...
In the vid Halper makes the same point I've seen Krystal Ball make about the power of presenting yourself in a 'professional' manner that channels like The Hill allow:
(11.30) 'That was so refreshing, I really appreciate that I could sit there wearing corporate media makeup and corporate media outfits and have all the high production value that goes into corporate media, and I think it's really powerful to hear someone say Israel lied, they killed Shireen Abu Akleh. It's very powerful to hear that and see that in that context as opposed to just, you know, me from my own home saying it. And I really do think that there was a value in reaching people in that way, and I think that that's what The Hill provides, is a kind of aura of professionalism that often, because the left doesn't have huge funders the way the right does, I mean it we don't see this as much on the left.'
I don't buy it - doesn't that just endorse the notion that you should give undue weight to what someone is saying based on the way they dress? Wearing a suit is one of the most conformist things you can do, even if you tell yourself you're managing to smuggle non-conformist views in by adopting that presentation. I think in the end it's counter-productive and undermines radical messaging - which is why they insist on it along with all the other insidious forms of 'professionalism'. Not that you should do everything in jeans and a t-shirt necessarily, but if you're setting it up that only people of a certain class and status should be listened to and allowed to speak, then that's regressive from the outset.
IMHO of course...
More BS censorship from the corporate media and the US political elite. How much longer are they going to be able to keep getting away with this? Indefinitely and much worse no doubt if nobody fights back...
Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously