There’s little that annoys me more than women (loosely used term here) who follow female celebrities and talk about them as if they knew them personally.  The one thing I have noticed over the years about women who follow celebrities is that they often choose targets of their gossip, much better looking and just much more feminine than themselves.  They won’t usually have a problem with a Joy Behar type,  mannish, fat, ugly, somebody whose mouth you just want to tape up until it’s time for her next feeding.  And that type of celebrity can say anything they want to say with no remark from them because they have no problem accepting what a woman with whom they can identify says or does.
The last time I knew what Kathie Lee Gifford was doing, she was a co-host with Regis Philbin, and I vaguely remember some scandal involving her husband, Frank Gifford and some bimbo, but it’s come to my attention that she is currently co-hosting The Today Show.  Certainly, this must be much different from the Katie Couric Today Show that I once knew. Kathie Lee is not a journalist so I can’t imagine what the show is like now. Â
Anyway, it’s all over the blasted Internet that she made some gaffe with her guest, Martin Short, complimenting him on his long marriage and asking the secret to the longevity, etc., all the time not realizing that his wife had passed on in 2010. He politely went along with her questions on the show. So they made a huge deal of this honest mistake, all the time talking about how unprofessional it was, blah, blah, blah, and I’ve even seen insensitive used to describe the mistake. It’s either a mistake or it’s a deliberate insensitivity with knowledge that the woman is dead, yet still asking questions about her not caring how it affects the widower, but it’s not both.  In this case it was a mistake.  Then they made the issue that she apologized to the wrong Martin Short on Twitter.  And you can look throughout the blogs on the Internet, Facebook as well as personal blogs, where mannish, dumpy types of broads that can’t stand Kathie Lee are all over her case like vultures for this.
Of course, what they don’t tell you (and maybe they don’t know either. Just because someone is extremely unattractive, it doesn’t mean that they must have made up that deficit with endowment of a brain.) is that the Twitter apology is just the publicity apology for the public to be sure to know that she apologized. Here’s what Martin Short had to say and the rest of the story.  Martin Short told her right after the show that she had made a mistake and her apologies were expressed to him on the spot and in person. He didn’t seem to be at all offended, but realized it was an honest oversight. But this other nonsense that only relays the partial story is the typical inaccuracy you get when you listen to jealous, jerky broads, the closest to any celebrity they’ll ever get to knowing is by clicking their mouse to a gossip page. Â
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 40
The thing that is also kind of interesting is that when I think of the Today Show I think of it in the context of GMA and maybe one other morning entertainment/news show that years ago when I was still in the rat-race, I might flip back and forth to while gulping an extra cup of coffee before leaving for work. It was never anything that I took too seriously even then. But to think that you're going to get flawless accuracy on these shows displays the mindset of the public and how even though they say they don't put any stock in mainstream news, their expectations belie their words.
Very well done.
I must say, seeing the video in the link of "after the break" certainly sheds a new light on this story.
I agree it was a mistake, and probably even an honest one.
I do think it was a stupid one as well, but certainly not with any malicious intent.
I really cannot understand how she was not ‘prepped’ with information about her guests, on a nationally televised show.
Yes, Jesse, I don't think she's a deliberately nasty person in any way. She's a little scatterbrained maybe, but I've never found her to be vindictive or evil in any way. Of course, I don't know her at all, but this is just from what I've discerned from the few times I've seen her on TV, including, I'm pretty sure, as a co-host with Dick Clark on New Year's Eve.
It does seem odd that she wasn't prepped, as you say. I've never seen this new Today Show, though and, before this, didn't even know it existed, so I can't offer any ideas about how this might have happened or how it might be like other things she's said that may not have been completely so, yet not so obvious that they'd have gone over the heads of most watching to make any fair speculations even.
Ys, there is no reason to be so nasty.
She did do many things, that can be found questionable, or even porographic by some, none of it was illegal.
Being Playmate of the Year,and hosting a xxx rated music video show is not something I would want my daughters to do - it is a legal choice.
She also has worked very hard for a very worthy cause!
I have an email saved from someone telling me they'd be watching me. That's much more serious than calling me a moron or an idiot, or anything like that in a public forum. I'd expect that if you are a moron or an idiot, that's what you'd think about me anyway, so it doesn't bother me if you say it. But telling me you're going to watch me, that's just frightening, considering it's an admittance of an obsession to attempt to control what I say or do, and I have no idea how far someone who would spend such time, making it a project, would go to shut me up. That it was also sent to me privately as a warning or threat, it's more frightening than something declared in public too.
And I wouldn't mind, but they don't take IP addresses into consideration here at all. There are some people that have been thrown off this site more than once, but they come back under different names time and time again. What's the point? Do the icon and screen name make the person? Apparently, they do here. It's just ridiculous.
You are online at Greenteeth and highlighted in The Daily Stirrer
Medical Authorities Admit Vaccine Harm
This is about swine flu vaccince though. So if you can put a fresh spin on your old posts to make them less specific but address the wider doubts about vaccines they'll do well. In my linked post look at the word "squalene" and do additional research if you have time. It's scary.
Then think about the explosion in incidences of the autoimmune system in the past few decades. Hmmmmm.
BTW I can be fearlessges on my own pa because my site is hosted in Andorra, an anarchistic microstate between Spain and France that has few copyright and no libel laws.
When you just post these studies randomly, they don't click with people. They don't see the connection, either timewise or otherwise that, for instance, a study they did in Brazil proved a link to MMR and meningitis before the Andrew Wakefield scandal.
They don't understand that Andrew Wakefield was the one who actually recommended the MMR vaccine to be administered and not at all did he tell people not to vaccinate their children. He told them to get the vaccines in a series of single doses because the peer reviewed Lancet study that remained published in the world's most renowned medical journal showed there was reason to administer the single doses until further investigation. They turned it around to saying he was against the vaccine because they took the single doses off the market. If vaccine rates plummeted, that was not his fault, but theirs. When people post these various studies alone, they may be interesting, but they don't tell the story. I can understand that people have been fed a story in slanted and slanderous headline news articles, and the presentations of the same lies have been internalized to be the truth. I'm trying to help dispel those myths and I can't do that with any kind of spin because the truth doesn't need a spin.
The truth does not need spin but getting people to read and understand the truth does. I've been a much bigger part of demolishing the case against CO2 driven AGW here in the UK than anybody at Gather realises. The scienceheads can publish their equations and statistics but anyone an understand that when the wind does not blow there is no power being generated.
The spin is because the truth alone is not enough, there has to be a narrative that people relate to.
In Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels a witch named Granny Weatherwax features in many stories. In one she explains for a younger, more secular witch how she cured a farmer's family of persistent stomach upsets.
"You told him the privvy was too near the well and he should dig a new well," Granny explained, "But he replied, you stick to magic and potions. What does a witch know about digging wells. I told him there was an evil spirit in the well and he would have to have a new one." He knows witches are experts on evil spirits even if we know nothing about digging wells so he believed me. And that's how witchcraft works."
It is not the truth that counts but what people are willing to believe. That's Druid wisdom. :-)
Seriously, this isn't about vaccines. This is the story of how they switched the villains. And maybe it's a case of semantics because I wouldn't call it a spin, but it is a slant. There's information about the vaccines because the scandal the media portrays centers around them, but it's no more a story of the MMR and trivalent vs. single dose administration, compulsory or not, than it is about vaccine skepticism in general.
This is the story of a man who was framed and how they duped the public into thinking he is the monster here. Brian Deer, the inveterate liar that he blatantly and unmistakably shows himself to be without compunction is depicted as some kind of hero to the gullible dolts who believe what they read and hear in the news without an ounce of thought.
He was a nobody, an abosolute nobody who had done some investigative reporting on the other side, one case involving Parexel and his help to expose the inadequate testing by TeGenero. Because he had written some stories in the past, (not to any avail) but exposing fault with pharma, he was the perfect stooge to appear to be credible when the BMJ and the pharmaceutical industry with help to spread the lies through Rupert Murdoch's son who sat on the board of Directors of Glaxo-Smith-Kline, set out to defame and destroy Andrew Wakefield to save pharma and the BMJ.
Deer won his first journalism award in 1999 very soon after the press conference where Andrew Wakefield announced the possibility of a mitochondrial connection. This was what gave Deer the further credibility he needed, and then he won the 2nd British Press award because of this autism/MMR/Wakefield story.
These same flippin' morons who will be the first to tell you that Rupert Murdoch and his flunkies are the responsible parties for people believing Saddam Hussein had WMDs because they used forged documentation to make that claim are the same who are the first to implicate Andrew Wakefield when that newspaper group, including the Sunday Times where Deer made his claims, fabricate stories about a man with an impeccable history as a world renonwed gastroenterologist. So that's the slant.
I think that says it all. I haven't watched any of the entertainment shows for years. I prefer watching the local Fox station because they actually have news, weather, and traffic reports for 3 hours instead of the doo-doo found on GMA or the Today Show,