Now that the President-elect elected to select the unelectable Rick Perry to direct the Department of Energy — the very agency he infamously tried, and failed, to inform voters he would shut down if they made him President of these United States — I thought now might be a good opportunity to instruct the media on word choice.
Just days before his just-post-election monologue on SNL, Dave Chapelle made a few small headlines when he downplayed the seriousness of both sexism and homophobia. And when it came time for him to actually deliver that big monologue, Chapelle put his money where his mouth was, making jokes that could be construed as mild examples of both. The astounding part: It only took him three words, one of which was “a”, and you probably missed it.
The sentence clause in question came during Chapelle’s discussion of whether the Pulse shooter could rightly be considered a soldier of ISIS. See if you can spot the three-word sequence in this excerpt taken from the Washington Post’s transcript of his routine:
… but if you’ve been charged by the SEC with playing “a key role in an alleged scheme that allowed a ring of brokers, investment advisers and their clients to profit from the deaths of terminally ill patients“, then you may not want to think twice before you select one that both touts the position that enabled you to play this exact role, and effectively summarizes the nature of said scheme:
One month before the election, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart holdover correspondent Lewis Black turned up on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah to record a fresh segment of Back in Black. He highlighted how few Americans choose to vote and urged eligible voters to overcome personal distaste for both candidates:
During the election, media organizations were forced to create new and inventive ways to communicate Donald Trump’s new and inventive relationship with the truth. Here’s one famous example:
Such efforts went over so well that some people have clamored for the networks to deploy such correctives on a more regular basis:
Now that erstwhile campaign manager Steve Bannon helped make the White House white (nationalist) again, President-Elect Donald Trump graciously decided to let him stick around. Unsurprisingly, the announcement that Bannon would fill the role of chief strategist in the Trump administration caused consternation in the Jewish community due to his ex-wife’s allegation that he is an anti-Semite.
Although said ex proffered several bits of evidence to support her claim, only one has been corroborated by independent sources: that Bannon wanted to know why the Westland School’s library stocked so many books about Chanuka. In context, the fact that Bannon singled out Chanuka suggests an unseemly level of concern over Jewish representation at the school.*
On Tuesday night, Stephen Colbert hit Mel Gibson hard: “Hey, Mel-Mels? When you look back on your life, do you think you’ll have any regrets?” (Mel-Mels’ reply: “No. Not one.”) And had Gibson asked Colbert the same question in return, I’m sure Stephen could have come up with at least one regret of his own: going soft on erstwhile interviewee Donald Trump.
Back on August 10, just after Donald Trump suggested that perhaps “the Second Amendment people” could do “something” about Hillary Clinton, and his supporters explained he meant they could put on an unprecedented display of unity, Trevor Noah had a very reasonable-sounding complaint about a potential Trump Presidency:
On August 1, just after Donald Trump spent his post-DNC weekend waging an unusually-misguided jihad against Khizr and Ghazala Khan, Stephen Colbert opened his Late Show by exploring one simple question: “Is there anyone Donald Trump won’t attack if they say something bad about him?” A series of brief experiments revealed that Trump would not attack “a kindly old lady” or “a kindergartner with an adorable speech impediment”, but was more than happy to take on a kitten who equated him with Hitler:
I like Tim Egan a lot. So much so that when I had to write an essay about my favorite journalist (in order to enroll in a law school writing class), I chose him like some kind of pikachu. But something in his latest column for the New York Times left me scratching my head.
The central conceit of his column — titled “We’re winning!” — is that, well, we’re winning. “We”, in this instance, being America. “Winning,” in this instance . . . well, that’s what I wanted to talk about.