i so admire and am instructed by your ability to think out loud, and to demonstrate the vital importance of allowing new perspectives to shift our thinking. the doctor is IN👩🏽🎓
I wrote on your previous article about missing the mark because the broader point was about taking away his voice, which offers and silences a different perspective from any other mainstream hosts by virtue of his background and upbringing. I am happy to see this piece and wish the original gave him a little grace than what was offered to him. It would have been nice if the "community" had his back when the original article came out instead of now when the intended damage is already done.
1. It's not the first time The New Yorker had embellished something, or the broader media in general. There is a reason trust in media is at an all time low.
2. It's curious that such a critical 'investigative' piece on Hasan who was a front runner to host The Daily Show, a culturally relevant program that can sway public opinion, especially among the youth, would be written at this time, in this manner, in such bad faith and without any grace. It then begs the question - who wouldn't want him, a lefty-minded brown muslim man, to wield such power over the viewers? Internal comedy central executives? Those who think it's a woman's turn to hold this position? Saudis or rightwing Indians, both of which Hasan has been critical of? Those who don't want his views to hit the mainstream? Guess is as good as mine, but it's obvious the intent of this hit piece was to sink his chances of being the voice of the Daily Show and it succeeded. And you asked a good question - in this post Gaza war environment, what perspective would he be bringing to this if he was hosting or even guest hosting TDS, instead of...Sarah Silverman.
i so admire and am instructed by your ability to think out loud, and to demonstrate the vital importance of allowing new perspectives to shift our thinking. the doctor is IN👩🏽🎓
I wrote on your previous article about missing the mark because the broader point was about taking away his voice, which offers and silences a different perspective from any other mainstream hosts by virtue of his background and upbringing. I am happy to see this piece and wish the original gave him a little grace than what was offered to him. It would have been nice if the "community" had his back when the original article came out instead of now when the intended damage is already done.
1. It's not the first time The New Yorker had embellished something, or the broader media in general. There is a reason trust in media is at an all time low.
2. It's curious that such a critical 'investigative' piece on Hasan who was a front runner to host The Daily Show, a culturally relevant program that can sway public opinion, especially among the youth, would be written at this time, in this manner, in such bad faith and without any grace. It then begs the question - who wouldn't want him, a lefty-minded brown muslim man, to wield such power over the viewers? Internal comedy central executives? Those who think it's a woman's turn to hold this position? Saudis or rightwing Indians, both of which Hasan has been critical of? Those who don't want his views to hit the mainstream? Guess is as good as mine, but it's obvious the intent of this hit piece was to sink his chances of being the voice of the Daily Show and it succeeded. And you asked a good question - in this post Gaza war environment, what perspective would he be bringing to this if he was hosting or even guest hosting TDS, instead of...Sarah Silverman.