Jessica McBride, who informs us she runs a "widely read blog," is hacked off at something Journal Sentinel radio/TV writer Tim Cuprisin had to say.
From her widely read blog:
Trust me: I want all of this to just go back to normal. But I will simply not stand for being fraudulently compared to Michael McGee Sr. and Don Imus (if you don't think that comparison was drawn, go read the last paragraph of Tim Cuprisin's "fair-and-balanced" column from Saturday. He wrote: The move came after a series of similar gaffes. Last month, Don Imus was fired by CBS Radio and MSNBC for offensive comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. Earlier this month, Michael McGee was suspended from his WNOV-AM (860) show after offensive comments about the death of WTMJ talker Charlie Sykes' mother.).
Jessica is slandered! Using the death of a four-year-old girl as part of a comedy bit is nothing like what McGee or Imus had to say! So she's HACKED OFF! How HACKED OFF? So HACKED OFF she's going to sue ... or at least think real hard about it.
Frankly, it's so outrageous as to raise defamation (I am a public figure, which makes it a high hurdle legally but don't think I'm not at least considering legal action against the MJS for that comparison).
Not sure what "raise defamation" means -- given Jessica posted this after 3 a.m. it's possible she didn't either. The Brawler assumes she means what Cuprisin said is so deplorable it rises to the level of defamation.
Which of course is absurd. Take a look at the graf in Cuprisin's story that preceded the one she quoted.
McBride posted the audio as a podcast at WTMJ's Web site. After Inside TV & Radio called Schweitzer on Thursday to ask about the podcast, Schweitzer termed it "inappropriate" (Brawler's bold) and pulled it.
The podcast was considered by Jessica's boss to be "inappropriate." Most people would call McGee and Imus' comments "inappropriate." Thus, if Jessica really brought this to trial, they could just say, "Your honor, these instances were similar in that they were inappropriate even if they were of different magnitudes of inappropriateness."
OK, maybe they wouldn't say that exactly. But if McBride thinks any judge would do a close reading of those two paragraphs and say they represented slander -- as opposed to at worst inexact writing -- she's kidding herself.
The defense also might point to reams of Jessica's writings in which she accuses journalists of helping al Qaeda, of Democrats helping al Qaeda, of anyone she disagrees with helping al Qaeda. Some might construe that insinuation as being more defamatory than being compared to Imus or even McGee. Should the Democrats then sue her for defamation?
The conclusion to this long rambling post ends in a truly pathetic manner:
Tim Cuprisin, I dare you to link to THIS post.
Yikes! The Brawler doesn't know from running a "widely read blog." But he suspects the sort of person who runs a "widely read blog" wouldn't beg for links.
Jessica: I know we've had our differences. But the Brawler is sincere when he says: Take some time off. You're really not doing yourself any favors and you're not proving anything by rambling at 3 in the morning. Take some time off, get some perspective and if you still feel the need to come back, do so. Seriously.