Perfect Example Of An Insincere Apology: Featuring Eric Bolling Of Fox News

I chose this photo of Eric Bolling because of the caption that attacks MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz. When Schultz made offensive comments about right-wing radio talk personality Laura Ingraham, he offered a sincere apology. He was truly sorry. Eric Bolling is sorry as a human being, but he is not sorry for the racially offensive comments he made in reference to President Barack Obama.

Fox News has a long and well-documented history of hosts and guests making hostile and offensive comments about people of color.

So, when the Eric Bolling (who seems to be auditioning to replace Glenn Beck) started making racially offensive comments about black people it was hardly a big surprise. If he is indeed sort of auditioning for the Glenn Beck role then this kind of racially offensive mentality would be totally expected, if not encouraged.

I am going to start with his apology expressed by this guy Bolling, first:

One editorial note. On Friday, we did a story about the president meeting with the president of Gabon. We got a little fast and loose with the language, and we know it's been interpreted as being disrespectful, and for that, I'm sorry. We did go a bit too far.

"Interpreted as disrespectful" sounds a lot more benign than calling it what it was, in my opinion: "racist." That alone should be indicative of a lack of sincerity.

It almost sounds like he is sorry it is being (not been) interpreted as disrespectful. Does this guy have a heart or a conscience in his body? This man seems as an arctic icecap.

First off, why is this man discussing this topic and using such offensive language on the so-called Fox Business channel?

Now the comments expressed by Bolling. This is an excerpt from News Hounds:

In other words, Bolling is not apologizing for using such offensive language as "It's not the first time (Obama has) had a hoodlum in the hizzouse" or posting a photo of Gabon’s leader with a shining tooth or the repeated use of a banner saying, "Hoods in the House." No, he's apologizing for how that language has been interpreted.

You think he would have said this about George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush or even Bill Clinton? There is no way he would have said this about a white president.

He is flat out not sorry for what he said. It was not his first time making offensive comments and it will not be his last time. He is almost certainly making his case to replace Beck as the host of one of the Fox News hours of hate.

Look, this is a weak, WEAK "apology" from Bolling. It is completely insincere and sounds every bit the part of a man forced to apologize for something he is not the least bit sorry about.

Long Island, N.Y. Newspaper Compares Obamas To Fred Sanford and Aunt Esther

A Long Island, N.Y. newspaper, the Smithtown Messenger, took a racially-tinged shot at President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama.

In an apparent attempt at satire, the weekly newspaper portrayed recent former presidents and their spouses in before-and-after photo contrasts. In fact, the header on the page was titled "Before and After." Portrayed are President Jimmy Carter and first lady Rosalyn Carter, President Ronald Reagan and first lady Nancy Reagan, President George H. W. Bush and first lady Barbara Bush, President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton and President George W. Bush and first lady Laura Bush. In these photos, there are nice and flattering photos of the couples.

Then, the final photo shows President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama next to a photo of Fred Sanford with sister-in-law Aunt Esther, who are black, fighting in the old 1970s sitcom Sanford and Son.

Was this an intentional and racially-tinged shot at the Obamas using negative stereotypes of black people as a weapon.

Here is a statement released by the newspaper's publisher as the controversy blew up:

The publisher of the Smithtown Messenger regret[s] any offense taken by our readers at the photographic political satire depicting the current and past presidents on the editorial page in the April 29th, 2010 issue. While we have grave disagreement with the policies of the current Administration, we hold the office of President of the United States in great respect.'

We also hold dear the principles of freedom and tolerance upon which our great Nation was founded. We are mindful that the satire seemed to some in poor taste. At the same time, we reject the notions that elected officials, at any level of government, or any race, creed, or color, can hold themselves above the law… or immune from satire. This week the President himself caused some controversy by joking about sending deadly 'predator drones' against the Jonas Brothers. We are confident he was not serious, as we are that our satiric content meant no disrespect. We Thank you for your continued readership, and as always, invite your comment or constructive criticism. Our apologies to all concerned.

The beginning of the statement confirms the political bias that might have been somewhat obvious.

This, however, is more than political bias.

What is interesting is that there were two white Democrat presidents (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) who were not attacked with disparaging "after" photos. There were also white Republicans (Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush who were not portrayed negatively in photos). Had the newspaper attacked all of the Democrats then they might be able to skate by on a charge of political bias. This, however, seems to move behind mere political bias.

The paper's statement offered little in the form of an apology, and was more so defiant.

The outrageous comparison to President Obama's jokes at the White House Correspondents Dinner would seem to indicate a true lack of remorse, and that includes the hollow apology at the end. (As a side note: I deem it outrageous because the president joked about people from both sides of the political middle.) On the one hand, it appears that the newspaper is apologizing, but then defends itself by attacking the victim as if to say, "see, they did something very similar so what we did is not so bad."

Is satire, in this case, a shield to attack President Obama in a racial way?

It's quite likely the editor(s) and publisher of this paper new exactly what they were doing.

Considering the other president's were not attacked it would seem to indicate one of two things: 1., there was a racial motive or 2., the paper had no "grave disagreements" with the policies of presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George. H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

That is a wide range of political agendas swinging from left to right.

As for this paper, I saw little regret in that statement.

Rush Limbaugh Takes Sexist Swipe At Hillary Clinton

This is the headline of a Media Matters for America story.

Limbaugh on Bill Clinton’s trip to North Korea: “[W]here is Hillary? … Is North Korea too important to send the girl?”

Nothing like a sexist statement from Rush Limbaugh degrading Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It’s interesting to see how little respect Limbaugh has for women.